Isn't the number of adherents the main distinction between religion and cult?

yeah i know

i was reffering to that only,its justy that when they lose hope but still crub about it and think the person ruling them is evil which i think is foolish as somebody has to rule or this world will be in chaos

stop acting like you know everything when u are foolish enough to even not understand what the other person is saying and still being ignorant

i never said they happily become poor or slaves,i was just alking about when they lose hope and accept defeat,they still crib and badmouth the other person as he is the evil satan.

those slaves that were shipped to america keep on blaming americans only,why don't they blame their own forefathers who submitted and accepted defeat,why not their own people in africa who helped ship them?

fools,don't understand the problem just live in an ignorant way.

ruling has always happened,worl is still being ruled in the economic sense and will always be ruled

you have to find your way out,nobody will do it for you

Wasnt your point that women were mistread and that Christianity says they should be treated as lower human beings than man, just like they are in some Islamic countries? You obviously said you respected modern Islam than Christianity on the issue.If it wasn't, than ignore my posts, if it was, that link I posted disproves that claim.Did you actually even read it? It clearly shows the womans  position in the bible and Christianity.And its not just being a minister. And the main soruce of writings in that link comes from Paul, is he credible enough for your when it comes to the Bible writings?

Also, Bible condamns lustful sex as shamful in general. Not just between the persons of same gender. And while homosexual acts are seen as sinful (primary because its un nautral and cant continiue the growth of human nature) homosexual persons are not. No one is above sin. Homosexuals are no different ''hate the sin, not the sinner'' the Bible says. And the thing Christianity teaches us is that no one is good enough for heaven if she/he obey all the laws and rules in the Bible.

And you still missed my point. Christianity as whole puts a lot more epmhasis on correct faith and orthodox morals, rather than obbeying the laws, because, as we know, christianity teaches us no one is good enough for heaven. So these laws, either for a man or woman are actually of little to no importantce to a christian and christian God. Judism and old testament however, put a lot more emphasis on correct behavior and following the book of laws.Christianity isnt about the laws you have to follow (except for the major 2) its about correct faith and beleif in God and his morals. And God's prinicples are, like I said in my other post, very simple

'' Dont do anything to others that you dont wish to be done to yourself and love and respect your God'' 

Other laws were mostly added by other cultures in which the religion emerged and were copied by other pagan religions.Not to mention there are tons of other un published and destoryed versions and texts of the Bible that got banned and/or destroyed by Romans in Council of Nicea. Thats what bugs me the most about Christianity, its not a complete religon. Its growth, popularity and power came with a big price. And thats why I am something between a Christian-deist of sort

A question about Hadith: How can you be sure that all of it is true? including "saheeh al-bokhari" books.

I just don't get why Muslims (Sunnis) put it right next to Quran. For believers, Allah promised that the Quran is immune to any "tahreef" but there is no similar immunity to any other book.

One of the rules that bokhari followed in writing his book:

اختارها الإمام البخاري من بين ستمائة ألف حديث كانت تحت يديه؛ لأنه كان مدقِّقًا في قبول الرواية، واشترط شروطًا خاصة في رواية راوي الحديث، وهي أن يكون معاصرًا لمن يروي عنه، وأن يسمع الحديث منه، أي أنه اشترط الرؤية والسماع معًا، هذا إلى جانب الثقة والعدالة والضبط والإتقان والعلم والورع.

The book sounds like a retrospective study with unavoidable bisas. He just included people who he thought they were very good Muslims and excluded the ones who weren't, according to him and to the people he asked ofcourse.

I have lived enough to know that judging people by how long and how many times they pray can never be a valid measure of character. You can be with someone for years and never really know who he/she is. I am sure you understand what I mean.

I am not suggesting the whole book is invalid but being 100% certain that everything is written in it is true just doesn't make sense to me. Muslims these days are taking it further and following "current" Ulama words as if they were the new words of god.

"Now as far as religions/cults that I don't understand: I can't say I understand the non-Sunni sects of Islam."

The problem is that in general people don't read or even try to think for themselves. Most of the Muslims these days wouldn't be Muslims if they were born in a different part of the world and Sunnis would be shi'a if they were born in Iran and vice versa. The amount of hate that's spread by the leaders of these sects make communitcation and discussions between their people impossible.

OT: I don't think anyone really "gets" anything completely. Religious people answer lots of questions with "becuz god sayz zo!" and it doesn't matter if god is being unfair or completely irrational. Athiests are eager to what science may reveal in the future and I am tired of typing so whatever.

Not at all sapphi. Atheists I was talking about behave absolutely no different than, lets say Westbro Baptist Church members, its just that instead of hating on gays, they hate on Christians and only on Christians. The only difference is that WBC memebrs arent as lazy and conter productive as their atheist counter parts, and as such tend to be a bit more active and vocal. They bear the same hatred for Christians as WBC members do for gays. They are also incredibly quick to judge others who dont share their beleifs (just like you don on everyone and everything), same thing WBC membrs do, and they are also extremly self-righteous such as you (and yet dont beleive in any moral or unviersal laws at the same time) however since WBC membrs actually believe in some universal morals and and laws, I cant blame them as much as I do people like you, altho they are no better at all

Crusaders were about regaining holy land from Muslims. You know, Muslims participated in them too, you know.

On a global level, we just have to keep relations with all countries based on mutual respect. I would support missionary activity as long as its goal is teaching about the peaceful nature of the religion, and keeping all radical elements (i.e. Political influence) OUT. While it's nice to have more people join the religion, they also must be real citizens of their country.

Only time will reveal the true enemy of humanity.

Of course, this is all my opinion. I personally don't try to convert people as I'm still educating myself more on Islamic texts.

You raise some good questions: First off, scholars have been working hard to document the Hadiths. Of course there were lies thrown out here and there, but they're routed out. It's really a study more than anything else, and there are continuous debates on some parts to this day.

As for my comment, it's as I told Sabby. That is one of the BIGGEST problems with Muslims today. They don't read...they don't educate themselves, or understand how to adopt their religion into society. And there's other things, but I'd be going off topic. However, my criticism of other sects comes from personal studying of my own and from interaction with them.

And again, like I said before, I have no issues with people who follow different sects, as long as they don't have a beef with me. I just am critical of their sect's teachings is all. Personally, I would be a Sunni today even if I was born into a family of anything, even if it meant death threats.

To address many with one reply rather then quote. Atheism is actually a double negative. We have no other term for not believing in something we do not believe to exist. It is quite extraordinary that we have a contrived term for the default position of thought. Atheism in its pure form is exactly the same as Realism. In that nothing unreal exists. A true Atheist will give the concept no actual thought, and thus is indifferent to the subject. The term is neither really negative or positive. It just means no thoughts or feelings about a subject. Sure they might think there are a massive number of absurd people in the world, but that isn't really contemplating the subject, or forming opinions about the subject itself.

Agnosticism is not however indifferent. Quite the opposite it is very engaged. It is both a quasi state of belief, and a open dialogue upon the subject. Fundamentally the Agnostic concedes to the possibility even if it cannot in any way be verified. You could say it is a form of rational belief. There are a number of positions within Agnosticism it is truly a catch all for those who haven't settled upon a faith, or have decided that the subject is without merit. It can be short lived or last a life time. Since someone broached the subject in this thread. Gandhi was probably in fact a Agnostic. They typically see the merit in multiple faiths.

Speaking to Anti-Theism, and the position that religion is bad. Like any extreme view I take issue with that, but not by much. Faith in general can be very good, but faith in specific can be very bad indeed. Since organized religion errs on the specific. It tends towards causing more harm then good. Despite common misconceptions the holy texts at the heart of most modern religions are not wholesome. They might have a lot of good messages, but it is also true that they have a lot of bad messages, and it isn't always a question of interpretation.

The argument that other nonreligious institutions or philosophies have been equally bad does not excuse the very horrible things that organized religion has wrought. It is not a question of either this or that. The fact of the matter is that people do not need religion to be good to one another. Just as religion doesn't prevent some people from doing horrific acts. Sadly the difference is the religion can be a blanket justification.

The problem is strictly one of organization. Every organization suffers from corruption. It is just the nature of the beast. The problem is when a organization is the ultimate authority, and dissent is actively discouraged. You will create a mindset where obedience trumps self contemplation. When it is easier to go along with the pack. People start to lose their own moral compass, and look towards positions of authority to make decisions for them. That is where a little bad thinking can go a long way. Without a army Hitler is just a disgruntled painter. Without a huge faith a Pope cannot carve up the Americas, and give a nod to genocide, theft, slavery, and torture.

Human beings are prone to organize into groups, but when it comes to religion it is obviously something best left to the individual to do on their own. Organized religion courts absolute power, and in doing so it is absolutely the case that it will be corrupted. A spiritual journey should be about exploring oneself, and their place in the world. Not a guided tour with some guy telling you how you should think. Be your own leader, and not let someone be your leader, and you will do fine. Sure it might be harder, but the rewards are much greater.