Log in
HomeStudy Guides420,000CA160,000

RLG204H5 : Difference between Mutazalite and Asharite

98 views3 pages
plumeagle942
16 Apr 2011
School
UTM
Department
Religion
Course
RLG204H5
Professor
Alireza Haghighi

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Prophet said: whoever has tawhid must not be molested, a person who committed a sin must not be labelled as kafir and a commission of some act, one cannot be excommunicated from islam. The kharajites answer to the question shocked the community and they were thinking about okay well what is the real definition of who is a believer. this created debates and writings on this theology. Amal: acts of obedience or good works they also accepted sinners as members of the community . importance of works is after the assent by the heart and verbal confession. Who is a muslim? has it in the heart about the knowledge of allah and his messengers love for allah and submission to allah. These two schools had two positions on two completely different levels of extreme but they were existing throughout the 3rd and 9th century. Murijites were discredited and later labeled as heresy by the sunni majority.

Get access

Grade+
$40 USD/m
Billed monthly
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
10 Verified Answers

Related Documents

RLG204H5 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Khawarij, Kafir, Kalam
viridianalligator432
RLG204H5
Final Exam
Study Guide
RLG204H5 Study Guide - Final Guide: Tariqa, Islamic Feminism, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
sapphireraccoon724
RLG204H5 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Kalam, Fatema Mernissi, Anthropomorphism
brownllama517

Related Questions

please read the below and write down your own thoughts and ideas.

Communication skill is the vital for all aspects of our lives; from personal to professional, our lives function because of it. The way someone communicates could entirely differ from the other. But communication is really just a way of establishing relationships. Communication is not only an exchange of words. But at the same time the body is also saying a lot more than the words. Our gestures, hand movements do a lot of the talking for ourselves. This gets a whole lot complex when the interaction is among a diverse community. With different cultural backgrounds, different beliefs and perspectives, the message can be hard to interpret and/or examined. In order to have a positive impact of all the communications and interactions we might have with an individual possessing a different mind-set and culture. We must champion progressive thinking; to listen thoughtfully, debate tolerantly, to freely voice their ideas, and to let others voice theirs and avoid any seeming judgement. John Dewey a pragmatic philosopher and professor at University of Chicago was also a firm believer in progressive thinking mainly influenced by the political times he was living in(WWII). As a communication professional he realized the importance of understanding the reasons behind growing prejudice and hate among certain social groups, and the changes in attitudes and beliefs. (Julia T. Wood; Communication Mosaics; Text. Chapter 2; pg 27)In today’s diverse world; progression is up another level; awareness of individual differences is extremely important to have an effective communication. This will enable people to have a deeper connection with people who differ from them in some way or the other. Not only will this help in creating relations but also bridging gaps and solving problems that might occur along the way in our lives.

read it and write down your ideas

Even though they have been doing it all their lives, people need to study communication simply because it is so complex. As stated in chapter 3 of the book, we all perceive things differently and "perception and communication influence each other, perception shapes our understanding of others' communication and the choices we make in our own communication" (pg. 41). For the reason that the choices we make and the ways that we view things/situations are changing everyday, communication between two individuals also changes and becomes more complex. Though we can communicate in general, how we communicate and what we communicate depends on how we perceive the world around us, making communication not as simple as it seems. As humans, we create broad categories of things (prototypes) and place people into them (Wood pg. 43). We then go on to create a more detailed assessment (a personal construct) where we measure a person or situation with a certain dimension of judgment (Wood pg. 43). We also place people and situations into stereotypes by making predictive generalizations or simply predicting what the personal/situation will be like or what will happen (Wood pg. 43). With all of these components to a basic path of communicating with others, it's hard to not see why we would study our complex underlying system of human communication. Not only do we make assumptions, but we base our thoughts/actions off of those assumptions which can then all be interpreted differently among various individuals. We study communication to try and dissect all of these interpretations and perceptions of others "to make sense of experience and to predict how we and others will act" (Wood pg. 45). Sometimes we follow a script or just simply act a specific way in a specific situation (like greeting someone and telling them your name) (Wood pg. 45). However, not everyone follows these scripts which just adds to the complexity of communication between us all.

As noted in Chapter 14 of Exchange & Production: Competition, Coordination, & Control, 3rd Edition, Armen Alchian & William R. Allen, distribution of income among various population groups followed roughly the same patterns in the USA, Sweden, and the former Soviet Union, despite the very different forms of economic organization in each of those countries. Social Justice Warriors today claim that if we had a planned economy in which government directed the direction of resources and confiscated money from wealthy people via high taxes, and then re-distributed those monies, that income inequality would be eliminated. Yet, that clearly was not the case in high-tax Sweden and the communist USSR. (In the USSR, the high-income groups tended to be those with membership in the Communist Party, about six percent of the population. Party membership was not easily obtained back then.) Economically speaking, why would this situation be the case, despite what modern academics, politicians, journalists, and activists are saying today? Please be specific in your answer.