Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About SoRoUsH

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,845 profile views
  1. @Qa'im These are intriguing ahadeeth. I had seen a few of them before, one or two are new to me. القلب may not be limited to the physical body, but the physical heart is the source and origin of whatever emerges from it. For example, our mind may not be limited to our physical brain, but it is very intimately linked to it. The mind may emerge from the brain and any changes in the brain correlates with the changes in the mind. May be the same is true for the physical heart. Any changes in the physical heart may be directly correlated to changes in our faith and cognition. I find this a fascinating topic, and I've been hoping and trying to be able to academically study it.
  2. No, I don't. Aql doesn't seem to be a body part. It is influenced by the body. For example, consuming red wine vinegar strengthens it. When the physical body interacts with something, I cannot say that that other thing is non-physical.
  3. But won't we have our physical bodies during the Day of Judgement and in the afterlife? The hereafter may be unimaginable, but can't we imagine our physical bodies? Afterall, to be able to understand what it means for eyes to weep in the hereafter, we need to be able to imagine eyes and weeping. We do so by assuming that our physical eyes will look the same and have similar functions and capabilities. If we couldn't imagine our bodies, we wouldn't be able to understand the references to our bodies in the afterlife.
  4. I know it sounds like a stretch now, but I've been interested in this very topic for more than a decade, and I think there's a way to understand these ahadeeth to be about the literal heart. We just need to realize two things: 1) The lack of our current scientific knowledge among people during the eras of our infallibles. 2} (Related to #1) The lack of proper terminology to better describe the physiology and the anatomy of the heart.
  5. Isn't God directly pinpointing the location of the heart in this verse, "In the chests"? I know that in Sunni hadiths, there's a hadith that refers to the physical heart by specifying it as a flesh that must be taken care of. Even in our own books, I am inclined to believe that the Imams (as) do mean our physical heart. Why is it that we think it's not? Mostly, because for the past few centuries, we've limited our understanding of the heart and view it as a mere mechanical pump. I don't believe this view is acceptable in Islam. I know it wasn't until the 15th century in Europe. Increasing number of scientific studies have begun to see an important cognitive role for the heart, and how it influences the brain. I'd recommend an old book on this by Paul Pearsall. By the way, thank you for the long hadeeth. It's fantastic. Do you know its grading?
  6. Salam, Take of your heart through compassionate deeds and exercise. The rest will follow.
  7. Salam, [4/31] العيون: القطان والنقاش والطالقاني جميعا عن أحمد الهمداني، عن على بن الحسن بن على بن فضال، عن أبيه قال: قال الرضا عليه السلام: من تذكر مصابنا فبكى وابكى لم تبك عينه يوم تبكى العيون ومن جلس مجلسا يحيى فيه امرنا لم يمت قلبه يوم تموت القلب [4/31] al-Uyun: al-Qattan and al-Naqqash and al-Taliqani all together from Ahmad al-Hamdani from Ali b. al-Hasan b. Ali b. Fadhal from his father who said: al-Ridha عليه السلام said: whoever recalls our trials and weeps and makes others weep his eye will not weep on the day when the eyes will weep, and whoever organizes a gathering enlivening in it our affair his heart will not die on the day when the hearts will die. Questions: I can understand the eyes weeping, however, I cannot understand the hearts dying. Do we have dead hearts on the Day of Judgement? Is this hadeeth referring to the Day of Judgment? Will we be in our physical form but with dead hearts? Dead hearts but alive? If we assume that the main function of the heart is to pump blood, then a dead heart would be a heart that doesn't do so. One possibility is that the main function of our hearts is not to pump blood, but to do something else. So, a dead heart could still be pumping to sustain our existence, but it's not performing its main function, whatever it may be. Any ideas or suggestions, based on the sayings of our infallibles (as), what this main function may be? (If it's not pumping blood.)
  8. Question: Since marriage with nine year old girls is permitted, so must Mutah be, as long as the father/guardian permits it. However, once the nine year old girl is not a virgin anymore, does she still require her father's permission to engage in Mutah? And technically, a nine year old girl may have many temporary marriages while she's nine, with different men decades older than her. Right? So far everything fits within the boundary of permitted deeds. Right? And since it's legally permitted, then no one should be appalled by it, or see anything wrong with it. Correct?
  9. Brother Qa'im, This is what brother Nader Zaveri says about that narrator: Sa`eed b. al-Mussayib is not thiqah (trustworthy), rather he is majhool (unknown). al-Khoei has a very lengthy discussion about him in his Mu`jam Rijaal al-Hadeeth, here is the summary: 1. All hadeeth in praise of him are Da`eef 2. The saying of al-Fadl b. Shaadhaan does not imply tawtheeq, also the authentic hadeeth in Qurb al-Isnaad does not imply tawtheeq, just that he was a Shee`ah. 3. All hadeeth in condemnation of him are Da`eef 4. al-Mufeed says he was a naasibi, but the book he mentions it in (Kitaab al-Arkaan), we do not have a connected chain of how we have received this book (via al-Majlisi, Hurr al-`Aamili and Muhaddith al-Nooree) 5. Malik says he was a khaariji, al-Khoei says this is not hujjah, plus that statement is mursal After this lengthy discussion he says that it is correct to do tawaqquf (desist) on Sa`eed b. al-Mussayib, thus making his condition indiscernible, meaning majhool (unknown). فتلخص مما ذكرناه أن الصحيح هو التوقف في أمر الرجل لعدم تمامية سند المدح و القدح. So in conclusion, from what we have mention, it is correct to do tawaqquf about the man's (Sa`eed b. al-Mussayib) affairs, due to the incompleteness of sanad of the praise and the wounded (weakening). Source: al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijaal al-Hadeeth, vol. 8, pg. 139 Muhib al-Deen al-Musawi al-Hilli weakens this hadeeth because of Sa`eed b. al-Musayyib in his al-Mu`tabar min Ahaadeeth al-Kaafi, final chapter "the non mu`tabar hadeeth" So, should we accept al-Khoei's take?
  10. 100 years ago, if you'd told someone about these cases, they'd consider them miracles.
  11. Miracles?
  12. I'll look into it; however, don't hold your breath while I do so, since it may take a while. I do know that in Vol. 8 of Al-Kafi there's a weak hadith that states she was married to Imam Ali (as) when she was nine.
  13. May be tomorrow, science would tell us that if you do X, Y, and Z, then get shot in the head, you won't die. Can you predict with certainty that science won't reveal such information in the future?
  14. As it has already been established, there are zero acceptable ahadeeth from our infallibles on this issue. I'd reject any tradition that is neither saheeh nor hassan nor mawthaq, and when it comes to issues of theology and fiqh, I only care for what the prophet and the Imams have said and done.
  15. Legal permissibly doesn't make an action, good. The prophet or Imams doing an action, makes it good, because they only do what is best."Beating" your wife may be legally permissible, but it is not good. Do we have any example of our infallibles, in our books, beating their wives? I can spend $1000 to buy large bags of seeds to feed birds, or I could donate that money to feed starving people. The former is permissible. But most people I assume would agree that it is not a good deed, when there are better ways to spend that money. In simple words, one action can be legally permissible. However, the status of that same action can change between makrooh and mustahab, depending on the sayings and actions of our infallibles. It may be legally permitted to marry nine-year old children, but if none of our infallibles did so, when it was apparently normal and totally fine to do so, then through their actions, they're teaching us something. They could, but they chose not to. Assuming? Any solid supporting evidence either way?