Jump to content

Ibn al-Hussain

Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ibn al-Hussain last won the day on October 7

Ibn al-Hussain had the most liked content!

About Ibn al-Hussain

  • Rank
    [-Talib e Ilm-]
  • Birthday 12/24/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

35,649 profile views
  1. #14 Computer Poll

    Haven't owned and used a personal desktop since approximately 2005. Have always been using a laptop since then. Wasalam
  2. The New Debate Forum is Open!

    ^That is how it was done before when we used to have a debate forum (it didn't last too long back then though). For example, discussion took place in this thread and the actual debate took place in this thread: Don't judge me though - I was only 17 , Wasalam
  3. Women are superior to men- Sayyed Kamal AlHaidery

    The issue here is that he isn't discussing the specifics of this superiority. Superiority in what, from what perspective? He does mention an alibi from narrations that say a daughter brings more blessings when she is born - and perhaps from that perspective she is superior to a male - but in his talk he also throws in the phrase ولكن بشرطها وشروطها (with its appropriate conditions), which essentially keeps him free from the attribution of having claimed absolute superiority of women over men (in all and every aspect). So even if he were to qualify this same position with conditions, he can justify himself by saying this was clear and obvious or that I hadn't claimed absolute superiority to begin with. If you look at the first two or so lectures you will see how he actually begins his talk building an argument for men being superior to women through the Qur'an, but he leaves it at that. This is because he is in a stage of his discussion where he is throwing out a lot of different plausible interpretations, but he himself has said he will dwell into them in more depth over the course of these lessons. Wasalam
  4. Women are superior to men- Sayyed Kamal AlHaidery

    One thing to note about any Bahth Kharij is that you cannot come to a conclusions regarding a scholar's opinions until a certain topic is actually complete (and definitely not by looking or reading any one lesson from a middle of a series). The natural course of a Bahth Kharij is to open all plausible interpretations, present those arguments, and critique them where possible. I've encountered this way too many times during my readings of transcriptions of Bahth Kharij, where it appears that a scholar is arguing for a certain opinion, and even makes strong arguments for it, but 20-odd lessons later arrives at a conclusion which is the complete opposite. This is not to say that Sayyid Haydari isn't challenging the mainstream notion (about men being superior), but I don't think it is fair to say that his final conclusion is that women are superior to men. He has to clarify a lot of things which he hasn't - how he explains the verse which says men are a degree higher, how he addresses the issue of superiority vis-a-vis taqwa (which he begins discussing in lesson 13), if he does believe women are superior is this ontological or something else, etc.? What he claims to be "his understanding" is the grammatical point where he takes both of the last 2 statements in the verse as a parenthetical statement, rather than the words of Maryam's (s) mother. You can read the Arabic transcription of the lesson here: http://alhaydari.com/ar/2017/10/61362/ Given that this series is going to be happening for a long time (as he alludes to in the first few lessons), it is way too early to see what Sayyid al-Haydari's final opinions are on the subject. Another thing to keep in mind is that his lessons are very different because of the foundations he builds his arguments on - these are foundations which are not mainstream to begin with, such as his views on the whole Qur'an vs. Hadith discussion, and most importantly views he has in epistemology (a lot of views he has on the latter topic are views I agree with). Wasalam
  5. Women are superior to men- Sayyed Kamal AlHaidery

    Brother have you watched all of the videos of the series? I have all of them transcribed into English (except lecture 11 - which wasn't that great and parts of lecture 10 since it was a lot of repetition) and of course these are being conducted daily in Qom, and he has barely gotten into the meat of his discussion. Although I haven't published the transcriptions on my blog yet due to certain reasons. In any case, Sayyid Kamal hasn't made any real arguments for women being superior or inferior to men, rather so far he is only trying to present an alternative interpretation where he says the complete opposite of men being superior to women can also be argued if need be. One thing that should be understood regarding Sayyid Kamal in order to give a lot of his talks some context, is that he is someone who thinks out loud a lot. These are discussions that pretty much do not happen in the seminaries, and he is right to being these conversations and throw these ideas out (whether they are his own original ideas or not) so at the very least they can be studied and/or critiqued. During my time here, it has become clear to me that much of the seminary - students and scholars - is clueless about the modern world and is heedless in a bubble of its own, so it does make me respect Sayyid Kamal a bit more than others - although it is obvious he does not have complete information (for example in one of the videos he praised women studies programs in the West). There is one Western Shaykh who is a student of his (don't want to mention his name) and a few other Western students who also know him much better than I do, and I have spoken to the latter to at least get this information across to the Sayyid (that for example, there is a lot of dirty feminist politics behind women studies programs etc). I am also trying to set up a meeting with him through his office to discuss some of these things with him. Unfortunately he also gets a lot of heat and censorship for it (his talks were shut down for a decent amount of time, and just restarted again in his office). Nevertheless, I believe he has made some very interesting points worth contemplating over even in this series alone. Wasalam
  6. Qisas and external proof

    See question 60 and 61: http://www.sistani.com/english/book/45/1963/ You will only find these issues in Questions and Answers done by a marja' (if even there), because an average follower won't be asking such a question unless they are a judge in a court or a lawyer defending someone - where the question would become redundant under an Islamic government since rules regarding what can or cannot be used as evidence would already have beenn ironed out. The best way to figure these things out is if you ask a question yourself, or by looking at research papers written within Iran by institutes that conduct such studies, or papers written by lawyers and medical experts who also do work in Islamic Fiqh. There are numerous papers published on this subject. For example, this paper http://jfil.srbiau.ac.ir/article_9263_7cba860dde0b696f05b66c0c429a7e59.pdf discusses how and why DNA testing should be considered legally permissible in order to prove the parentage of someone. These papers are of course, typically technical (with both medical and Islamic legal jargon). As a personal anecdote I can tell you that 2 years ago while I was sitting in a gathering with Ayatullah Sayyid Shubeyri Zanjani, a group of scholars from Isfahan had come to visit him. They were presenting him a paper where they had done some research work on DNA and genetic testing by which they could determine if a person is a Sayyid or not. They asked if this procedure is allowed to be used to claim someone is a Sayayid or not (which would subsequently have legal consequences such as Khumus or Fitrah etc.). The Sayyid said he is obviously unaware of the details of such a procedure (as he has nothing to do with the medical aspect of it), but that if it follows generally accepted scientific procedures and methodologies, and results in - what people would consider - knowledge, rather than speculation, it is fine. Wasalam
  7. Qisas and external proof

    Yes it is allowed as long as it goes through procedures that are considered reliable according to the experts and results in reliable knowledge for the judge, rather than speculation. Wasalam
  8. Post- Hawzah ilmiyyah

    I am in my last term at the Amir al-Mu'minin Seminary in Qom. It is difficult to address all your questions over an online forum, maybe you can contact me directly through PM or I can put you in touch with some brothers who are from London studying in Qom (there are many). There are a lot of factors that play a role in deciding to come to Hawzah - my greatest advice would be to first figure out why you want to come in the first place and try to understand all the pros and cons of the current seminary system (particularly the cons, because there are a lot of them and they are something that people aren't told before they make the decision to come, and many end up regretting it and few years down the line realize how their life was wasted). The greatest disappointment majority of the people encounter when they come to Qom is the lack of conformity between what they thought Hawzah and life in Qom would be like, and what they actually end up experiencing. Plus you are from London - we have a joke amongst the Western non-Londoner Hawzah students to "not even touch that place with a 10-foot pole". So you really need to figure out what exactly will you be able to do with your seminary education in a place that has so much politics, challenges, a city that has a scholar on every street with their own store open etc.
  9. Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

    Bro, you give me jokes lol... Anyways, it seems like another SC thread - that had the potential to turn into a good quality discussion - has been laid to rest . Wasalam
  10. Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

    I never said the notion of consent is a 21st century construct. I was saying, our understanding of where and how consent is applicable has been tainted by a 21st century world, where the same expectations of consent we have today may not have been relevant in the past. I gave examples such as "with her consent" (in a slave-master relationship), "marital rape" (in a husband-wife relationship).There are many cases where consent plays an important role, but we'd be lying to ourselves if we told ourselves there was something known as a master taking consent of a slave (you do find the opposite, a slave requiring consent of the master). You don't need to read too far into Fiqh to realize that such a notion didn't exist in the context we are discussing. I have already mentioned before, slaves were discussed in the section of animals (because they were treated as your property) in Kitab al Bay' - consent has no meaning there. Tell me if 13-14 centuries of traditional Fiqh recognized something known as "marital rape" with your spouse, and if such a thing would have been punishable? No where in any Fiqhi discussion will you come across a term known as "marital rape", or the notion of taking "consent" of the wife before you decide to have sexual relationships with her. The given here was that she was to submit no matter what (except in a very few limited cases), because that is what the marriage contract entailed (at its raw core, the marriage contract is the concept of providing sexual submissiveness in return of the Mahr & Nafaqah). This is a scenario where a slave man forces another slave girl to have sex with her (under the context he was not married to her). In the narration above, if it was consensual, then they both would have been flogged. Thus, this is a completely different scenario and has nothing to do with our discussion, which is that of a master and slave. Wasalam
  11. Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

    I was typing up this response below, but my jet-lag kicked in so hard that I fell asleep (at 8:47 PM ) and woke up to see that there are 2 more pages added to the thread . I think quite the opposite actually. I believe the academic solution to the "problem of slavery" (and many other similar concepts that are "hard to digest" in the modern world) is fundamentally rooted in philosophy of ethics. I have a lot to say on this, but my classes have begun and I am running out of time now to participate on this thread unfortunately. I'll just leave with a few questions/comments/food for thought (mostly me thinking out loud to be honest) - but I may not be able to respond, so apologies for that in advance. These are the elements in your definition of slavery: - removes the ability to think: I disagree with this element - unless you can clarify what you meant? I don't see how becoming a slave removes one's ability to think - removes the ability to make willful and conscious decisions: I disagree with this as well. They were very much allowed to make willful conscious decisions, within the limitations that were upon them (all humans live in a similar scenario, just the type of limitations differ) - it clouds human intellect: Need more clarification on what you mean by this As for: forcefully takes away one's freedom and basic human rights, which are probably your two main elements, then these are extremely vague terms with a lot of presumptions you are making (consciously or subconsciously), that others don't have to agree with and are open to debate. Slavery was not found in one form all over the world. In some parts of the world (like in some parts and periods of Egyptian history) many people would sell themselves as slaves (i.e. they would use their freedom, to sell their freedom and become slaves) since the life of a slave was much better than the life of an average free-man. Would you still consider this morally wrong?In any case, terms like freedom, justice, peace, etc. are very vague words with different understandings and definitions, and unfortunately in the present day, Muslims love to use these vague terms to talk about Islam - without really realizing the full implications of what they are speaking about. Some of my biggest pet peeves are statements like "Imam Husayn (s) stood for justice", "The Prophet was a champion of social justice", "The Prophet was a feminist", "Islam means peace", "Islam is all about freedom" - these are very shallow, apologetic and polemical statements (in the current world that we live in) and due to the appropriation that these words have gotten, they have implications that are often times completely contradictory to the teachings of Islam. As Chittick puts it, they are plastic words, and as Geunon calls it, a disease of verbalism. What is inherently wrong about "forcefully taking away one's freedom"? Before you can answer that question, you need to ask yourself if you even believe in inherent morality or not? If you do, what is your evidence for it, and if you don't and believe morality is not inherent to actions (i.e. it is relative/subjective), then that resolves the issue because previous societies could have decided to see slavery as morally okay and we cannot therefore call them immoral or evil (otherwise we would be judging them with our collective, yet arbitrary decision today, which is not necessarily better or worse). If it is objective and inherent, then how did you determine it to be so? If your intellect tells you this, then perhaps the root premise for this claim is that forcefully taking away one's freedom is a form of oppression, and oppression is evil and immoral. If that is the case, then even with the belief in objective immorality of oppression, can you not argue that instances of what is immoral or not can change over time and from culture to culture? Meaning something that was considered oppression in the past is considered perfectly okay today, or what is considered oppression today was not considered oppression in the past. Even though in both time periods, humans still believed in the objective premise: oppression is immoral. God has forcefully taken away man's freedom, existentially and legally. In fact we refer to ourselves as - literally - slaves ('abd) of God and our theology suggests we are completely at His disposal - He is our Owner and Master. We clearly do not find this slave-master relationship as morally abhorrent (although of course, an atheist will and does for this very reason). If we say that this is fine because at the end of the day God is superior to us, then we can move the discussion to the definition of superiority, and what makes us think that God cannot legislate one human to be superior to another? Humans are always in some sort of relationship which are predicated on hierarchy and superiority (one person is higher, and another is lower and subordinate - the latter giving away some sort of "freedom" for the higher), this element on its own surely cannot be considered immoral? When it comes to human rights - what is a right and who gives it? In a monotheistic worldview, God would be the one who dictates what our rights are and we would need to abide by them. What right do we have to make up our own rights? Freedom is one of those rights God has bestowed upon humans, but has He given humans - all humans - absolute freedom or the same degree of freedom? We know man has existential limitations placed upon him by God and we are not absolutely free, because in some cases we do not have the ability or power to do certain things (even if we wish to). Legally speaking, God has placed numerous limitations on our freedom. That being said, absolute legal freedom cannot be something desired if there is a purpose involved, because that would enable one to defeat the purpose. In other words, absolute freedom is absurd and literally impractical. So if there is no such thing as absolute freedom, and all freedom is restricted, then who defines these restrictions? When do these restrictions become "immoral" and how - since clearly, just mere restriction of freedom cannot be inherently immoral, rather one can even argue that it is moral (particularly when it aligns with one's purpose). PS - I am not addressing the issue of slavery in the post above. I am only throwing out questions regarding the terms being used in your definition to illustrate my point that the discussion is not a simple one. Centuries of scholarship - both Muslim and non-Muslim - has gone into these discussions trying to iron out the details and foundations of morality, because of how challenging it is (and I don't claim to have understood it, rather have a lot of questions myself). No one can deny that the Prophets of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and the Imams participated in slavery, they owned slaves, purchased slaves, and some had even become slaves (like Prophet Yusuf). So we would really need to question our understanding of what it means to be a "beacon of hope and light" here. But on a side note, do you believe child-marriages are an ill today? If yes, then how do you judge the vast majority of human history when this was considered a norm? Wassalam
  12. Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

    So you have to now factor into the fact that most people did not just have one wife, and in fact polygamy was normal. So the husband always had access to multiple wives and slaves. This would hardly have been an issue, and if it were the case that the husband only has access to this one wife, then he would simply have to wait for intercourse, but still be able to derive other forms of pleasure. As for why the 'Iddah is shorter, I don't know - other than the fact that we have narrations saying this is how it is supposed to be. The presumption here is if an infallible has said such a thing, then we simply follow it whether we know the wisdom and reason behind it or not. This is how all Islamic law works. When a slave is "married" off, she is never shared with another man in a sexual relationship. No. It was only between the male master and female slaves. As far as I understand (from my reading of history), most male slaves that belonged to female owners were generally castrated. You are right that consent is an important concept in Islam, but there are certain individuals, or certain scenarios where people do not have the right to consent. For example, a child has no right to consent to something his or her parents may wish for them. Slaves in this scenario also do not have the right to consent. Oppression (Dhulm) is considered wrong and evil by all sane humans - that isn't what the dispute is over. The more complicated issues in discussions of morality is who determines what instances are that of oppression and what aren't and in fact, how do we determine in the first place that something is oppression and another act isn't. Two related examples I can think of are child marriages and cousin marriages. Child marriages were a global phenomena and part of every civilization. It was a part and parcel of life, and Islam also had laws permitting it. Today we may consider it immoral, wrong, oppression (due to all the factors and variables that have changed and how at least certain elements of maturity are attained at a later age), and many jurists today have even come out and given rulings that have raised the minimum age of marriage, but would we really say all of humanity was wrong and immoral to conduct child-marriages for the vast majority of human history? Of course not - that would be extremely egoistic and dogmatic (especially since it is likely that future generations will judge us as harshly as we decide to judge those before us). The world was different, and that is how humans lived and it was a part and parcel of life. These things didn't cross people's minds, because they were not an issue to begin with. Another example (perhaps not so shocking as child marriages - but still gives a good indication of how our conceptions can alter) is that of cousin marriages. Cousin marriages were a norm for all of human history, but today in some societies it is pretty much considered incest and immoral. This has even influenced many Muslims who consider it wrong, or they feel detested when it is mentioned - even though Islamic law perfectly allows it and does not consider it incest in any sense. Wasalam
  13. Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

    If a slave is married, then yes there is an 'iddah (although it is half of a free-woman's). In other cases (like in Tahleel) the term used in Fiqh is not 'Iddah. It is called Istibra' and it is much shorter (only one menstrual cycle). One thing you have to realize is that, terms such as "with her consent", "against her will", "marital rape", "slave's choice" are 19th/20th/21st century language and way of thinking. These terms and concepts did not exist for the vast majority of human history where slavery existed, and people simply considered these things as part and parcel of life. People had a different attitude to these events occurring around them. It is us who grew up in an era where these things do not exist anymore (at least not in the form we are discussing) and therefore we have a hard time understanding it. Are we really going to call thousands of years of humans as "immoral" and "wrong", especially when you see the greatest religious figures, ethicists, scholars all participating in such phenomena? I agree with @King - this is a topic most Muslims today will not be able to fathom and digest. All I can say is, this was not a "Muslim" phenomenon, rather it was a global world-wide phenomenon. It was something that was considered part of life under pretty much every civilization. As I previously mentioned, you are better off trying to understand the place of slavery in the world historically speaking, then trying to come up with weak apologetic reasons of how Islam was always trying to abolish slavery and what Islam has to say about it today (when it doesn't exist and is something out-lawed). Wasalam
  14. Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

    ^ Maaf kar do bhai, damagh kharab na karo mera .
  15. Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

    They should have read the rest of the statement of Shaykh al-Tusi: و لا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة، و حكي عن مالك جواز ذلك، و عندنا يجوز ذلك بلفظ الإباحة، و لا يجوز بلفظ العارية The ruling is just pointing out a technicality, saying you can't make her halal for sexual relations with a third-party by using the Arabic term for 'loaning'. However, you can make her halal for sexual relations by using the verb that relays Ibaha (similar to Tahleel as I mentioned earlier) - because you can't loan out sexual intercourse, but you can still make it permissible for a third-party through other means. It is like saying, you cannot get married permanently to a man by using the term Mat'atoka (though there is a difference of opinion on this), but you can if you use the word Zawwajtoka (because the first formula implies temporary marriage, while the second implies permanent). Wasalam