Jump to content


Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About SoRoUsH

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,278 profile views
  1. Nawroz  

    Ok. And? I couldn't care less about what Wahhabis (or even general Sunnis) think, when it comes to the ahadith of Ahlul Bayt (as). Just because they may disagree with some or many ahadith, it doesn't mean that we need to do the opposite and carelessly accept unacceptable ahadith. In this case, as far as I know, there are zero authentic or acceptable ahadith regarding Nowruz.
  2. Nawroz  

    Salam, None of the ahadith on Nowruz are authentic or acceptable.
  3. what do you think?

    Salam, I've read, in authentic hadiths, anyone who predicts a time for the arrival of Imam Mahdi (as) is a liar.
  4. Allah is what you think of Him

    Thank you! To be honest, and I've said this before, I am not interested in the opinions of scholars or thinkers, if they're not based on traditions of Ahlul Bayt (as). And if they are, then I am more interested to see those employed traditions than whatever has been inferred from them.
  5. Allah is what you think of Him

    Salam, God informs us that He is what we think of Him. If our opinion of Him is good, then He's good. If our opinion of Him is bad, then He's bad. In other words, whether He's good or bad depends on our opinion of Him. Is God objectively good or bad?
  6. Allah is what you think of Him

    Salam, I appreciate your post. However, I'm not certain how much of it is acceptable and Islamic. You speak of Islamic cosmology. Where did you learn about it? Through the statements of Ahlulbayt (as)? Because that's all I care about. So, I'd appreciate it, if you could justify and support your statements by presenting authentic or acceptable traditions from Ahlul Bayt (as). If you don't, then, I can't take them as Islamic, since I can't be certain of their origins.
  7. Allah is what you think of Him

    Salam, I am not denying the significance or usefulness of metaphors in language. I am pointing to the fact that there are times when it's not clear whether something should be interpreted metaphorically or literally. If one chooses the former, simply because it's easier and encounters fewer hurdles, then that's intellectual laziness. In my opinion, when it comes to religious texts, we do need a firm guideline other than our own limited reasoning ability. Our reasoning is limited to our current state of knowledge and this knowledge is always limited, especially once we get into the realm of the unseen. We use metaphors to understand what seems incomprehensible if taken literally. However, by doing so, we slice up or box reality into small segments, which can fit in our minds. Understanding these self-made concepts and ideas doesn't entail understanding reality as it really is. In other words, when we use metaphors we construct a story that we can understand, not reality as it really is. So, we should be cautious with using metaphors, because we could misgiude ourselves by following our own subjective models of reality. And the stakes are much higher in religious cases.
  8. Allah is what you think of Him

    Salam, Cherry-picking is when we don't know whether something ought to be interpreted literally or metaphorically, but choose to interpret it metaphorically because it's easier that way. There are numerous cases in which we know the given text cannot be taken literally because we have solid indubitable textual evidence against it. For example, God doesn't have physical hands. We know this, because elsewhere it's been made clear to us. It's also been made clear to us that God's hands imply His power. We have sufficient reason to know that "God's hands" must always be interpreted metaphorically. Do intellectuals know in this case the details of events in the hereafter? Or how God will behave or make decisions during the Judgment Day? This is a good example. Marriage may, indeed, be literally half the religion, because it involves numerous rites and responsibilities. Is there were 100 religious deeds, may be 50 of them involves rights and responsibilities within marriage?! Has anyone done this calculation? I highly doubt it, because we're intellectually lazy and this would be gigantic task, with little foreseeable useful outcome. And whatever other "halves" are, they don't need to be mutually exclusive of each other. Rights and responsibilities of each "half" can overlap. Why?! This is a pure conjecture! Do you have any solid textual from the Ahlul bayt (as) that would support this proposition?
  9. Allah is what you think of Him

    I'm not a fan of cherry-picking when to interpret a hadith or verse as metaphorical and when to do it as literal. This hadith may have very well been meant to be interpreted literally, and the parts that we don't understand, we should work and try harder to understand. Claiming something that is diffficult to understand literally to bemetaphorical is intellectual laziness.
  10. Allah is what you think of Him

    The following authentic hadith is on the same topic, however, its content raise a few important questions: َ فِي ثَوَابِ الْأَعْمَالِ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ سَعْدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ يَعْقُوبَ يَزِيدَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْحَجَّاجِ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ إِنَّ آخِرَ عَبْدٍ يُؤْمَرُ بِهِ إِلَى النَّارِ فَيَلْتَفِتُ فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ أَعْجِلُوهُ فَإِذَا أُتِيَ بِهِ قَالَ لَهُ عَبْدِي لِمَ الْتَفَتَّ فَيَقُولُ يَا رَبِّ مَا كَانَ ظَنِّي بِكَ هَذَا فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ عَبْدِي مَا كَانَ ظَنُّكَ بِي فَيَقُولُ يَا رَبِّ كَانَ ظَنِّي بِكَ أَنْ تَغْفِرَ لِي خَطِيئَتِي وَ تُدْخِلَنِي جَنَّتَكَ قَالَ فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ مَلَائِكَتِي وَ عِزَّتِي وَ جَلَالِي وَ آلَائِي وَ ارْتِفَاعِ مَكَانِي مَا ظَنَّ بِي هَذَا سَاعَةً مِنْ حَيَاتِهِ خَيْراً قَطُّ وَ لَوْ ظَنَّ بِي سَاعَةً مِنْ حَيَاتِهِ خَيْراً مَا رَوَّعْتُهُ بِالنَّارِ أَجِيزُوا لَهُ كَذِبَهُ وَ أَدْخِلُوهُ الْجَنَّةَ ثُمَّ قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع مَا ظَنَّ عَبْدٌ بِاللَّهِ خَيْراً إِلَّا كَانَ لَهُ عِنْدَ ظَنِّهِ وَ مَا ظَنَّ بِهِ سُوءاً إِلَّا كَانَ اللَّهُ عِنْدَ ظَنِّهِ بِهِ وَ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ وَ ذلِكُمْ ظَنُّكُمُ الَّذِي ظَنَنْتُمْ بِرَبِّكُمْ أَرْداكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُمْ مِنَ الْخاسِرِينَ It seems that Allah was, firstly, throwing a servant in fire/hell. Allah would only do so, if the servant's deeds justifies his place in hell. However, the servant claims that he had a good opinion of Allah. Allah refutes that statement as a lie. So, this servant did not have a good opinion of Allah. Yet, and this is strange, because he uettered that he had a good opinion of Allah, at that moment, Allah chose to allow him in paradise. Questions: Where's the justice of Allah in this case? (Yes. I do know that His mercy precedes His justice.) Can our deeds/utterances in the hereafter change determine our abode, in hell or paradise? (In this world, the aforementioned servant, didn't have a good opinion of Allah, even for an hour.)
  11. Salam, Here's an authentic hadith: مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ بَزِيعٍ عَنْ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ الرِّضَا ع قَالَ أَحْسِنِ الظَّنَّ بِاللَّهِ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ يَقُولُ أَنَا عِنْدَ ظَنِّ عَبْدِي بِي إِنْ خَيْراً فَخَيْراً وَ إِنْ شَرّاً فَشَرّاً Imam Ridha (as) said: "Have a good opinion of Allah, for Allah, Mighty and Exalted, has said, "I am according to my servant's opinion of Me - if good, then good, and if bad, then bad." Source: Al-kafi, V. 2, P. 58, No. 3 Question: Is there no objective reality to Allah? Here's another authentic hadith that complements the aforementioned one. وَ عَنْهُمْ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ جَمِيلِ بْنِ صَالِحٍ عَنْ بُرَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع قَالَ وَجَدْنَا فِي كِتَابِ عَلِيٍّ ع أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ص قَالَ عَلَى مِنْبَرِهِ وَ الَّذِي لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ مَا أُعْطِيَ مُؤْمِنٌ قَطُّ خَيْرَ الدُّنْيَا وَ الْآخِرَةِ إِلَّا بِحُسْنِ ظَنِّهِ بِاللَّهِ وَ رَجَائِهِ لَهُ وَ حُسْنِ خُلُقِهِ وَ الْكَفِّ عَنِ اغْتِيَابِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَ الَّذِي لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ لَا يُعَذِّبُ اللَّهُ مُؤْمِناً بَعْدَ التَّوْبَةِ وَ الِاسْتِغْفَارِ إِلَّا بِسُوءٍ ظَنِّهِ بِاللَّهِ وَ تَقْصِيرٍ مِنْ رَجَائِهِ لَهُ وَ سُوءِ خُلُقِهِ وَ اغْتِيَابِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَ الَّذِي لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ لَا يَحْسُنُ ظَنُّ عَبْدٍ مُؤْمِنٍ بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا كَانَ اللَّهُ عِنْدَ ظَنِّ عَبْدِهِ الْمُؤْمِنِ لِأَنَّ اللَّهَ كَرِيمٌ بِيَدِهِ الْخَيْرُ يَسْتَحْيِي أَنْ يَكُونَ عَبْدُهُ الْمُؤْمِنُ قَدْ أَحْسَنَ بِهِ الظَّنَّ ثُمَّ يُخْلِفَ ظَنَّهُ وَ رَجَاءَهُ فَأَحْسِنُوا بِاللَّهِ الظَّنَّ وَ ارْغَبُوا إِلَيْهِ ... Part of a sermon by the Prophet (pbuh) .... "... And by the one god than whom there is no other, Allah is according to the good opinion of a believer, for Allah, Who is so kind and in Whose Hand is only good, cannot bring Himself to disprove the good opinion and high hopes that the believer has in Him. So have good opinion of Allah and place your desires in Him."
  12. Aql and Qiyas

    Salam, A couple of points: 1) It's not clear what "Aql" really is. It's not a simple thinking or reasoning. 2) Analogical arguments are like the following: i) A is like B ii) B does/has X ----------------------- Therefore, A has X. Both premises in this argument can be questioned. For example, are we certain that A is like B? How closely are they related? Are they similar or identical? Based on our eternally limited knowledge (relative to God's knowledge or reality as it really is), we can never be certain whether A is truly like B. The second premise is questionable, too. For example, are we certain that B does/has X? Do we all we need to know about B and X, and A for that matter? What if we only think B does/has X due to our limited knowledge? Due the presence of strong conjectures in analogical arguments, when it comes to religious matter, it is crucial not to employ them, since we may be very wrong, regardless of how certain we may feel at any given time. 3) Even with regards to alcohol and its effects, we do not use analogy. The reason that people forbid all intoxicants is because there's an acceptable hadith that links the prohibition of alcohol to its effect, and direcly states anything with similar effects if forbidden. However, one, rarely discussed, issue is that not all intoxicants produce similar effects as alcohol produces. For example, psychdelic drugs, such as DMT, or other drugs such as MDMA, do not in any way produce an effect near that of alcohol.
  13. al-Hamd. (First Surah) There's an authentic hadith that states, we shouldn't be surprised if reciting al-Hamd 70 times brings a dead person back to lfe.
  14. سلام brother, Thank you for finding and posting this hadith. It seems to me that the sanad isn't acceptable. So, we don't need to believe that it is indeed something that our Imam (as) has said. However, we can still discuss its content. 1) With regard to the translation, it's my opinion, that the word روح should not be translated as "Soul." Multiple translators have done so, and I believe it's a significant mistake, which amplifies the confusion regarding the topics of souls, nafs, and spirits. "Souls" and "spirits/روح" are definitely two different things. 2) A very serious issue that we need to investigate is, why is it that the story of Isa (as), in Islam, is labeled as the only obscured story? It's worrisome when this story is surrounded by conjectures and obscurity in the Bible, too. A Christian or a non-muslim may understand this as a result of a human copying a story from available books/texts of his time. The story in the original source was obscured and confusing, and consequently, the copy version is also confusing and obscued. 3) Where is the sky/السماء? The content implies that being raised from earth doesn't automatically entail that one is now in the sky/السماء. 4) Jesus's spirit/روح was separated in this intermediary space (between the earth and the sky), then Jesus was raised to the sky, without his spirit. Is this when/where Jesus "dies?" Was his spiritless physical body raised or his soul/nafs? (Whatever soul/nafs may imply here.) 5) After he was raised, spiritless, to the sky/السماء, his spirit was returned to him, either to his physical body or soul/nafs. It is important to note that السماء is a spatial location. We should not think of it as paradise or the place in the hereafter. So, all of these aforementioned events have happened in our current world. 6) To state that God raised Isa (as) to السماء, a physical location, to Himself/God (as 3:55 states), is problematic. God is not located in السماء. So, how must we understand this? 7) Isa (as), body and spirit, may be currently residing in السماء. According to an acceptable hadith he's in the fourth sky/heaven. So, in the fourth sky, whatever this may mean, there's a location, where humans can survive as they can survive here. Is this a place that in theory we can reach using our future advanced sciences? 8) Coincidentally, I've also read that it's in the fourth sky that some angels constantly circle Al-bayt ul-ma'mur. Do angelic bodies resemble human bodies in some ways? Or has Isa's body transformed into an angelic form? Or as on earth, angelic forms and physical forms can function side by side each other? Some of the aforementioned points may persuade us to dismiss this hadith as fabricated. However, if one insists that it's authentic, then these questions must be answered.