Reply to the QF’ist, Mr Jinn – Part 4
July 27, 2011 Leave a comment
Jinn: As to the reference to Christians and the papacy, I was clearly alluding to the definition of “orthodox” presented in the article I addressed, my main point being that if the author wishes to define “Sunni” Islam as orthodox, then I will then attribute Catholicism as the “orthodox” version of Christianity by drawing parallels between the popular crowds, thus creating a rather appropriate comparison. I will go out on a limb and assume you did not grow up as a Christian like I did. I apologize if this is not the case. Nobody ever describes themselves as a Protestant. They either tell you they’re Christian, or they’ll denote which sect they belong to (e.g. Methodist). In a normal query on faith, the blanket term of Christian precedes the sect classification. but I digress, I would rather see my central point refuted with appropriate supporting ayats rather than an offhand example as to why hadith should not be a central topic among new Muslims. When I embraced Islam, I was only given hadith AFTER my shahadah, not before. If we truly doubt the hadith, it should be a minimal issue at most, and a non-issue at the very least. I see no reason to discuss hadith unless somebody asks about it.
My comment: The word ‘orthodox’ means ‘right dogma/belief’. To the Catholics, they are orthodox. However, because Christianity has historically progressed beyond Islam (as religio-civilisations), for the Catholic to say ‘I am Christian’ with no qualification, he runs a good chance of being identified as a non-Catholic. That’s not the case in Islam. In Islam, if you say ‘I am Muslim’ with no qualification to that term, there is an overwhelmnig percentage people will think you’re a Sunni. Even to think you Shia is very unlikely.
If you feel you have no need to discuss hadith unless someone asks, then I think you are communicating with bad faith knowing full well what the perception of your conversation partner is most likely to be.