Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Religion
    Islam (Shi'ah)

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

315 profile views
  1. Honey only comes from one stomach

    Salaam, I sincerely apologize for the lateness of my reply! I was overcome with obligations at home, and i haven't been able to reply as much as i would like. I will probably review this reply later, and havent re-read what i wrote, but so that you have something to work with with regards to Arabic grammer, in order to understand the way plural and singular forms work you have to read up on arabic 'sarf', rather than 'nahw'. - For more about plural forms in Arabic, look for: اقسام الجمع There are many different plural forms, for beings with intellect, those without, male and female etc. - I will update this post as needed inshAllah, though i just noticed your edit and it seems you have solved things for yourself lol, alhamdulilah. And All praise belongs to God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing, Lord of the heavens and the earth.
  2. Electric razors

    Salaam Sister, This is a wet/dry trimmer, with 19 different settings from1mm to 10mm, and its in your price range and has relatively great reviews. https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-ER-GB40-S-Mustache-Adjustable-Settings/dp/B008KEJ1LM/ref=sr_1_2_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1520497830&sr=8-2&keywords=Panasonic+beard+trimmer
  3. Predestination

    Salaam, I apologize for the lateness of my reply, I haven't been able to sit down and write for the past week due to obligations at home. As for your first and second questions, I can show you where you are wrong and I believe the excerpts i posted, show the Shia view of predestination and free will in Islamic Metaphysics in accordance to the narration that was mentioned by the brother, and secondly I already said to you " that you superimposed your own understanding on a single sentence". With regards to your second question, if you are genuinely interested you will find this topic being discussed by Rene Descartes, It is known among students of philosophy that the separation was not the common held view irregardless of its validity or invalidity (I have notes on it, when i get a hold of them I will update this post God willing), as for a link, I leave it to you and whatever effort you can put in pursuit of this subject, there are many Professors of Philosophy that one could email, who reply relatively quickly and could possibly provide you with books to read. As for your third statement, if I refer you to a wall of words, it is not to hide behind them, but rather I am simply referring you to articles by authorities in the fields of Philosophy and Metaphysics, in order for you to see what has been written on the topic of hand, and for the sake of expediency. I am not here to argue or have a war of words with you, you are free to believe that which you have attained certainty in, all I was saying was that do not rush to impose your understanding of a hadith, and say "the Imam [a.s] is wrong", or to quote Sufi poetry on a subject that divided theologians in the Islamic world, it is not as simple as was put and any argument put forth has to be put forth correctly. A Sufi poem is not a 'hujjah' is not evidence, not to mention that there is controversy surrounding Omar al-Khayyam and also tha there are some who say that those poems do not belong to him, and for those that say they do, you have to take into account which school of theology he ascribed to and what they/he believed, and lastly that his views are irrelevant when it comes to the Shia since we differ with our Sunni brothers on the subject of predestination & free will. I wish you the best of luck with your pursuit of truth.
  4. Predestination

    In the name of God, Have you not read anything I have posted or written from the start? This is a genuine question, because it seems you are adamant on repeating the same question over and over again. What is not logical is rather that you are arguing with yourself at the moment, because you asked a question based on a verse of your choosing, then claimed that verse is a myth and now after claiming it is a myth, you are arguing against the very myth you used to ask your question, once again answering yourself to justify a belief that is based on disproving a verse, which you yourself consider to be mythical. And All praise belongs to God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing, Lord of the heavens and the earth.
  5. Predestination

    In the name of God, Thats true. Lets look at the verse before it to add some context without referring to history at the present time: His authority is only over those who take him as an ally and those who through him associate others with Allah. And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know. The books being referred to here as being replaced, are the Holy Scriptures, the Bible etc. As Muslim we must accept that there were different Holy Books sent down, different Prophets and Religions. And All praise belongs to God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing, Lord of the heavens and the earth.
  6. Predestination

    In the name of God, According then to your own understanding and explanation, you quoted a verse that you consider to be a borrowed myth, since what you call a 'mythical story to warn Jews' is the same one from which the verse of the bible that you used to ask whether God repents is in, and in that case the answer remains unchanged, that God repenting is a myth and you have answered your question yourself. And All praise belongs to God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing, Lord of the heavens and the earth.
  7. Honey only comes from one stomach

    Salaam, Your welcome, I am familiar with classical Arabic, and after contemplating your question and consultation, the answer to your question is in the phrase min butuniha , the min here is a harf jar, and it is a sign of tab'eeth حرف تبعيض: (نح) حرف يُقصد به الدَّلالة على جزء مِنْ كُلّ وهو حرف (مِنْ)، كما تُستعمل بعضُ معاني الحروف للدّلالة على التبعيض The min, in min butuniha, is a harf tab'eeth which as defined above is a letter that proves that a part instead of the whole, which would mean the ayah is saying indeed that only one of the stomachs is used as the min is pointing to one of the bees stomachs.\ As for the butuniha, it can hold both meanings that i mentioned but in Arabic, the plural of words is different for animals than for those that possess intellect (humans), and thats where the difference in wording comes in and some letters are added and retracted accordingly, so we cant make a comparison between ayahs reffering to the bellies of the humans and those of the animals. I admire your persistence and steadfastness, in finding the truth and sticking to your initial thoughts. And All praise belongs to God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing, Lord of the heavens and the earth.
  8. Predestination

    In the name of God, Salaam, As for how you're wrong, it is to me self evident, and if it is not to you, then i would suggest you contemplate it, it is not time worthy or relevant to discuss it any further as it will move us away from the main subject at hand. As for how I am wrong, it is correct, you seem to have quoted the 100th quatrain, and there is no shame in admitting fault. Nonetheless, it again fails to prove any point, to quote Omar al-Khayyam, as a proof, is a mistake in and of itself. You rush to correct me for assuming you meant the 110th quatrain, and rightfully so, yet you neglect and fail to address the rest of the points I made with regards to the use of a translation of a Persian Sufi Poem, and a Sufi poem to begin with. As for the confusion of free will with freedom of movement, as you should already be aware, there is a divide between philosophers, some took free will and freedom of movement to be one, and others viewed them as two separate freedoms. Which again, is not very relevant, to the subject at hand, the Imam [a.s] in his reply to the man, was based on that mans (or that times) understanding of free will to be both and in accordance to his understanding of free will he would reply, and this does not take much effort to prove either. With regards to the subjects of predestination, the article goes on to expand far more than what the initial Hadith was speaking of, and if you read on till the end it you should be able to see where this subject is addressed, concise as it may be. All in all, the rest of the article and the 3 pages posted, should do well in explaining the concept from the view of Islamic Metaphysics. As for the poem that is directed to me, your effort is much appreciated, it holds within it certain presuppositions about myself, and we will leave it at that. And All praise belongs to God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing, Lord of the heavens and the earth.
  9. Predestination

    In the name of God, I am a bit confused by your statement, you quote Genesis in your original post, and then call it a myth 5 pages later ? Maybe you mean by myth, something other than what comes to mind, can you please explain or expand on what you consider Genisis to be? Since you quoted it then called it a myth, and the 'Lord' speaks in myths, then the answer to your point about Gods repentance, is that which the Muslims hold as well, it is a myth. We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent? The word ayah here means law, and not verse of the Quran, this is a what happens when you discuss a translation, the meaning becomes lost, in order to make this clearer since i don't want you to take my word for it, these are some other verses in which the word ayah is used to have several meanings: And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know. The word ayah here means book, and not a verse of the Quran, as is made clear by the verses before and after it i.e the context (not to mention the Arabic once again). In Islam, rather in religion as a whole, each Revelation comes with different laws that are subject to change in accordance with each Prophet, and that is the answer that God gives in the Quran.
  10. Predestination

    And All praise belongs to God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing, Lord of the heavens and the earth.
  11. Predestination

    In the name of God, These few pages are from 'Knowledge and the Sacred' by S.H Nasr, they should properly address your questions with regards to 'predestination' and 'the problem of evil', 'If everything is predestined, what is the point in testing us?', God willing.
  12. Predestination

    In the name of God This is the dear brothers own wording, but such information is available to us through Commentary of the Holy Quran, and if my memory doesn't fail me, this was mentioned in Tafsir al-Safi for Mulla Muhsin al-Faydh al-Kashani, which is not available in English or Swedish. Though I might disagree, with some of the wording of his answer, it is nonetheless a great effort and the points are ones to be reflected on and taken into consideration, you must understand (and it seems that you do on one plane) that in the Islamic Tradition, the Quran is the word of God, so it is infallible, unlike the Christian tradition, where Jesus is the word of God and so his actions take precedence, his actions are the 'Word'. It is late into the night here, so forgive me for any mistakes I make, and if anything is obscure I will correct or expand upon it as necessary. I am trying to be as little philosophical as possible in order to make the points clear. And All praise belongs to God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing, Lord of the heavens and the earth.
  13. Predestination

    Salaam, No my friend, you are wrong, for even though the brother did not accurately write the Hadith, he also did not say that free will 'partial', which means you have fallen into error twice (to begin with) in saying that what the Imam said is wrong, and secondly that you superimposed your own understanding on a single sentence. Pity you jump to conclusions, and make generalizations, although it seems the brother in all due respect was slightly harsh in his responses, although, it seems you are no better. You fall into error again, twice, by firstly misquoting Omar Khayyam, and secondly super imposing your own understanding on/of a esoteric Sufi poem: The poem goes: I came not Hither of my own free will, And go against my wish, a puppet still; Cupbearer! gird thy loins, and fetch some wine; To purge the world's despite, my goblet fill. How long must I make bricks upon the sea? Beshrew this vain task of idolatry; Call not Khayyam a denizen of hell; One while in heaven, and one in hell is he. Rubáyát by Omar Khayyam - translated by E. H. Whinfield For someone who is seemingly well versed in Logic, it astounds me that you would rely on a translation of a Persian Sufi poem to make a point, by misquoting a translation. I hope you are as familiar with the saying, lost in translation. There is no need at this point to explain what Omar al-Khayyam was saying/referring to, but have certainty that he is innocent of that which you attributed to him! And All praise belongs to God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing, Lord of the heavens and the earth.
  14. Predestination

    In the Name of God, It is a long read, but you must be patient for your questions, are very profound and cannot be answered so simply, nor can they be explained even through one article. They require much time and study, God willing this will be of use. On Freedom and Neccesity by M. Ali Lakhani: It is said that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law of the Holy Prophet of Islam, was once asked whether human beings possessed freedom or whether they were bound by the laws of necessity. According to the story, he responded by asking the questioner to raise one foot off the ground. When he had done so, Imam ‘Ali responded, “So it seems you have free will.” Then he continued, “Now, while you remain standing on one foot, also raise your other foot off the ground.” “But this is impossible,” responded the questioner. The Imam explained, “So it appears there are also limits to your freedom.” The Imam’s illustration is at one level a reflection of a basic truth about the human condition—that we are finite beings possessing a limited freedom—but at another it invites the questioner to probe for a deeper solution to the dilemma of human limitations. The solution is addressed by the Sufi, Bayazid al-Bistami, who, also using the analogy of the human foot, states, “All that exists is gained in two steps: by lifting up the foot from self-interest and setting it down on the commandments of God.” Bayazid’s prescription hints at an intrinsic metaphysical unity in which the outwardly opposing elements of freedom and necessity are inwardly reconciled by locating the source of freedom on a different plane—an inward plane that is not subject to the outward limitations of existence. Whosoever has accepted his limitations is free. As the Talmud states, the one who is rich is “he who rejoices in his portion.” This is a truth that finds expression within all faith traditions: it is central to the concepts of dharma in Hinduism, karma in Buddhism, tao in Taoism, and submission to the Divine Will in the three major monotheistic faith traditions (in fact, it is one of the meanings signified by the very word islam).In the Supreme Reality that we term ‘God’, there is no distinction between necessity and freedom, for both these principles converge in the Divine Nature. Freedom in God is spiritual determination. “God has inscribed upon Himself (as a law) intensive Goodness (rahmah) ” (Qur’an, 6:12), yet “The grace of the Holy Ghost is not bound by any law” (St. Gregory). These statements are not inherently contradictory but express the principial truth of the spiritual determination of the Divine Nature, reflected in the Heart of ‘Man’. From the human perspective, the Good is existentially ‘necessary’. At the same time, Goodness constitutes our intrinsic ‘freedom’. In God, these principles converge as one. It is in the light of the Divine Nature that creation and existence can be understood, not as aspects of divine indigence or privation— which would falsely equate divine necessity with contingency—but as expressions of divine effulgence or Goodness—in which divine necessity is an aspect of freedom. Nothing exists outside God. From the merely human perspective, Man and the world are separate from God (an idea reflected in the etymology of the term, ‘existence’—‘to stand apart from’). But in reality, existence is embraced by the Absolute: “All is one”. Within this matrix, creation is the Divine Self-Disclosure of God to God. It is the great ‘play’ of life in which the infinite possibilities of existence are given finite and transient expression, like bubbles of foam upon a great Ocean. The bubbles die, the Ocean remains. “Only God is.” From the purely human perspective, one could say that necessity recognizes the truth that “Only God is”, while freedom recognizes the truth that “All is God.” Such-and-such a man is finite, has a temporal existence, and is subject to the laws of necessity, but Man-as-such, in his spiritual core, is infinite, eternal, and free. Individual reality is contingent but the Spirit is absolute. Man lives within the confines of the finite and the temporal, which define the dimensions of ‘necessity’ within existence, and it is in this sense that God is transcendent. But the divine Spirit, in-dwelling within the Heart of Man, opens the soul to the possibility of its ‘freedom’, and it is in this sense that God is also immanent. Thus the spiritual core—or Heart—of Man, in its oneness, is both transcendent and immanent, and reflects the spiritual determination of the Divine Nature that is the intrinsic Goodness or substance of its being. Necessity and freedom are reconciled inwardly in the Heart of Man, and it is by spiritual self-knowledge of the Heart that true freedom is attained (“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” – John, 8:32). Freedom is not absolute independence, for one is free only to the extent that one’s freedom accords with one’s responsibility. True freedom subsists only within the confines of the Law—that is, of our primordial nature. One is free to the extent that one is liberated from the limitations of the egoic self and its worldly attachments (from, as Shelley puts it, “that unrest which men miscall delight” and “the contagion of the world’s slow stain”); and one is captive to the extent that one is subject to the fears, compulsions, carnal desires, and passions of the ego, and the allurements, illusions, and limitations of the outer world. Freedom in this sense is a form of death—of “dying to the self” and “dying to the world.” Death, thus understood, is necessity. Each of us understands that there is no escaping death. The death to come, which will snatch us away from this physical world and by which we will one day shake off this mortal coil, is a shadow that looms over our lives as the ultimate necessity of existence, but its prospect also functions in the here-and-now as a mercy, as a symbol of self-transcendence, and of the power of liberation from contingency. Living is, in essence, the art of dying—of dying to the darkness so that one may be born to the light. This is the true goal of existence and of the quest for meaning. It is in this sense that Plato refers to philosophy as the study of death (Phaedo, 81A). To accomplish the egoic death, requires the embracing of “God’s way”—of fulfilling our destiny according to the Goodness that is warranted of us, according to the acceptance of our dharma, as the Hindus would say (see, for example, Lord Krishna’s counsel to Arjuna to embrace his dharma on the field of Kurukshetra, in the Bhagavad Gita—dharma being an aspect of his innate spiritual nature). One of the most compelling illustrations of the anguish of such acceptance is found in the Biblical episode of Jesus’ agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, where he seeks the perfection of God’s will in this repeated prayer: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matthew, 26:39; also Luke , 22:42). While recognizing the human agony of self-sacrifice, the prayer functions as a prayer of submission through love, not of defeat. It is a prayer that acknowledges one’s destiny by embracing it through Goodness, in the faith that the egoic death serves as a release from bondage. For, as St. Francis states, “It is in dying to self that we are born to eternal life.” Modernism is noted for its two tendencies: relativism (the tendency to overly emphasize the subjective, contributing to the loss of objectivity) and reductionism (the tendency to absolutize reality on a contingent plane, contributing to the “closing off” of reality). In the former instance, we place a veil between the ego and the Self; in the latter, between the world and the Self. In each case, the veil is a limitation that we must overcome through transcendence. The process for this liberation is Truth and Virtue. Truth: “right thinking” based on “orthodoxy”, which provides us with the doctrinal understanding of what is Real. Virtue: “right being” and “right doing”, based on “orthopraxy”, which provides us with methods of Self-realization. Through Truth, we see the Goodness of the Real; through Virtue, we embody it by our own Goodness. Truth and Virtue are therefore aspects of our spiritual reality (the Heart or the Self) and the limits of its self-determination (the Law). In the Modernist outlook, the pursuit of freedom is not placed within the confines of the Law. This encroachment is noticeable in connection with the corruption of forms, which can be remarked even within the practice of religion. One finds it in other areas too, for example, in art (where the formal component is either reduced to the slavish mimicry of “realism” or to diluted abstraction and chaotic surrealism) or in social relationships (which alternate between the demands of “political correctness” and individualism). In the case of religion, the corruption of forms expresses itself through either the excessive formalism one associates with “fundamentalism” or the syncretic eclecticism one associates with the New Age movement. In each instance, orthodoxy is subjected to infernal impulses, which either fossilize the religious forms by sacrificing the spirit to the letter of the Law, or dilute them by abstracting or virtualizing the content of the forms instead of sacralizing it as the embodiment of the Law. The point is that Tradition requires forms. The Modernist errors are to either focus on the forms to the detriment of their content or to ignore the importance of the forms entirely. Man is neither at liberty to deny his formal limitations (for he cannot stand and lift both feet off the ground at the same time), nor to confine himself to those limitations (for he can indeed lift his feet, one at a time, and make the pilgrimage to the Heart’s shrine). Instead, it is incumbent on Man to transcend his formal limitations. The purpose of forms in Tradition is to serve as vehicles for Man’s trans-formation—each form serving as a potential opening to transcendence, to that Presence of Goodness or Beauty which is in all forms and is a mirror of the intrinsic Virtue that lies in our innermost Heart. I will address your points, as I've taken down two full pages now of points that have been made, some true and some false, which will be addressed in separate posts. And All praise belongs to God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing, Lord of the heavens and the earth.