How do you view other faiths

[Marcion]

From that perspective, I believe all faiths have something to offer us.

So many religions, so little time!

Religions have their stronger points and their weaker points.
The best paths combine the stronger points rather than the weaker ones.
In a good path the spiritual practices should be strong and at the centre.
If this is not the case, the religion is more susceptible to abuse, sectarian tendencies and corruption.

 

[JustWondering]

I think that informing Muslims about the hadiths that you mentioned about friendships, for example, is the most important part -- then Muslims should get the chance to make their own decisions after being informed about those hadiths without anyone forcing them to be friends with 'X' or cut ties with 'Y'; that now becomes their decision, and a personal one at that.

I'm not muslim but why would anyone give the hadiths any credibility? If I understand correctly the Qur'an is the direct word of god handed down through an angel, but the hadiths are things people claim they heard the prophet say after he passed away and could not contradict them. The hadiths to me seem like shameless attempts to manipulate people and grab power by others after the prophet was gone. Besides that, if something were really important, wouldn't it be in the Qur'an?

 

[Twig pentagram]

As long as they're not harmful to society, it's cool with me.

 

[Cassiopia]

How do I view other faiths?
I don't regard them all the same way. Obviously I know more about some than others. Some I couldn't comment on at all because I don't know enough.
I have difficulties with the Abrahamic faiths because I don't believe any of the things they are based on, and overall I feel that all of them have done a little more harm than good. Even so, there is wisdom to be found within them and a lot of good, honest and intelligent people within their ranks.
I feel more akin to Eastern traditions (especially Taoism) and Western Paganism, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they believe, do or say. (That's despite the fact that I consider myself a very Pagan Satanist; but then I don't agree with some aspects of Satanism either).
I think it is possible to learn things from most religions and to find things to respect in them.
However I don't think anything (including my own beliefs) should go unchallenged just because they come under a religious or spiritual label. If I think something is wrong or potentially harmful I will criticize and argue against it no matter what religion it stems from.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not muslim but why would anyone give the hadiths any credibility? If I understand correctly the Qur'an is the direct word of god handed down through an angel, but the hadiths are things people claim they heard the prophet say after he passed away and could not contradict them. The hadiths to me seem like shameless attempts to manipulate people and grab power by others after the prophet was gone. Besides that, if something were really important, wouldn't it be in the Qur'an?

Hadiths are classified according to their degree of "authenticity" by Hadith scholars. A lot of them are claimed to be authentic, which means that they are indeed things that the Prophet said, according to Hadith scholars.

I think that Hadiths are supposed to expound some issues that are not entirely clear in the Qur'an, but some of them are classified as "weak" and hence not taken into consideration when issuing fatwas and/or explaining any given issue.

As I'm not a scholar by any means, though, I can't speak to the authenticity of any given Hadith outside of what Hadith scholars have to say about it.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

All of the religions that I am aware of are pleasant enough in their own. Each one provides teachings that could make the world a better place for all humanity and all other life. All religions provide comfort for the believers.
However, all of these religions come with an associated church/synagogue/mosque/body, etc....within which are individuals who, for whatever reason (good or evil), feel that they have more wisdom and more authority than the rest of the 'flock'. While the various religious philosophies and their teachings are useful and good; this human and institutional element is almost invariably corrupt.

Therefore, on the level of institutional religions, I look at them with contempt, sadness, and rage at their purposeful corruptin of good ideas and formerly good people.
On a person to person level, most theists are amiable enough, in my opinion, although I consider their beliefs to be somewhat naive and not well thought through.

 

[Astravalon]

It's hard for me to believe in any faith or religion just because there're too many of them, and they blame each other for being wrong.

That's the thing I have come to realize about religions as well -- many are convinced they are the One True Religion, worshiping the One True God.

Rather than be at rest with the idea that they may only have a piece of the overall puzzle, each claims to have the whole puzzle.

I like the diversity of belief systems, but I resent what I call a "religious spirit" that tries to persuade people that theirs is the only true religion, and then burdens them with dogma, doctrine, and legalistic ritualism, topping it all off with the general message that if one doesn't jump through all the prescribed hoops, their deity will not be pleased and may even hold his grudge against them for eternity in some cases.

I look back on my own experiences with that and wonder how I got through it.

-

 

[uu_sage]

I believe that while Christianity is my path to God, I honor other religions as a path to God. Within each religion there are similarities and differences and each tradition can teach us something about the human condition, life and the mystery of God.

 

[JustWondering]

Hadiths are classified according to their degree of "authenticity" by Hadith scholars. A lot of them are claimed to be authentic, which means that they are indeed things that the Prophet said, according to Hadith scholars.

I think that Hadiths are supposed to expound some issues that are not entirely clear in the Qur'an, but some of them are classified as "weak" and hence not taken into consideration when issuing fatwas and/or explaining any given issue.

As I'm not a scholar by any means, though, I can't speak to the authenticity of any given Hadith outside of what Hadith scholars have to say about it.

What authority do these scholars have in your religion? How can they actually know if the Prophet said these things or not? In the end, whatever decision they make, is an educated guess at best right?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I'll just say that I'm not a universalist Christian as I don't view it as biblical Christianity even if it's politically correct Christianity. This statement implies what my position is on other faiths

 

[Debater Slayer]

What authority do these scholars have in your religion? How can they actually know if the Prophet said these things or not? In the end, whatever decision they make, is an educated guess at best right?

I'm not sure exactly how much authority they have; it probably varies depending on who you ask. I do think that some people definitely give some scholars more authority than they should.

I'm not really familiar with how Hadith scholars go about discerning which Hadiths are authentic and which aren't, but one thing I know is that the credibility of the narrator(s) of a Hadith is an important factor in determining whether or not it is authentic.

 

[Sir Doom]

What authority do these scholars have in your religion? How can they actually know if the Prophet said these things or not? In the end, whatever decision they make, is an educated guess at best right?

If I remember correctly, the different sects of Islam (Shia and Sunni for example) consider different Hadiths to be supplemental to the Quran. The real schism between these two major factions came about shortly after the death of Muhammad, when it was not clear who would inherit leadership of the religion. All of the Hadiths can be considered 'authentic' in a purely historical sense as they are essentially the words of real people from history. The only thing these sects disagree on is whether the words should be considered an extension of the Quran or not. Each sect originally backed a different person for succession, and so naturally they give credence to the Hadiths authored by those people. Since that time many other sects of Islam have emerged, and they too revere a separate list of Hadiths as canonical accounts of the life of Muhammad by people who knew him in life.

So really, they are probably all fairly true in certain respects, and fairly biased in others. There is of course the fact that it was more than 100 years after Muhammad's death that any of this became written tradition as opposed to oral tradition. Then again, there isn't much of history that isn't plagued by this sort of thing, anyway. In reality, there isn't much else to go on for the life of Muhammad. But, unlike some other ancient church figures, Muhammad is generally thought of as a historical figure (regardless of his contact with Allah) and so too are the authors of the Hadiths considered historical figures as well.

So, the question of authenticity is not really, "Did so and so really write this?" but rather, "Is so and so worth listening to?" Each sect of Islam has a different set of answers for the Hadiths which is essentially the only thing that sets them apart as sects.

Then again, I'm no Islamic scholar so I'm on the outside looking in. But this is essentially how I've understood it. I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes with all of that.

 

[Holycrow]

Hindu is the right answere. We are all Hindu on this website. We practice freedom of religion, and we are all creating digital deities. A user name and Avatar represents the spiritual phenomenon we are, or wish to be. We are all Hindu, and there is no escaping it.