Khadim uz Zahra

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Khadim uz Zahra last won the day on April 4 2014

Khadim uz Zahra had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,264 Excellent

About Khadim uz Zahra

  • Rank
    The Dark One
  • Birthday

Previous Fields

  • Religion
    Shi'a Islam
  • Gender

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

6,640 profile views
  1. Uh, that's their homepage. There's no recording on that link.
  2. So, you mention me last, give no good qualities about me (except I'm nice to talk to? ) and then tell me you only added me because you saw me browsing the thread. Man, if anyone has ever deserved a ban, it's you.
  3. I am truly disappointed in the people who, instead of bringing proof for their preferred position, are criticising UTS or asking him what the point of this thread is. Is pointing out what he believes to be a lie and fabrication not enough? Does it somehow take away from the tragedy of the Imam if he did have water the night before Ashura? No, it doesn't so even if you accept UTS's position, there is no antagonism intended toward the Imam or the tragedy of Karbala so exactly why is it that you people are attacking a fellow Muslim and a fellow Shi'a? When you ask, "What is the point of this thread", what you're indirectly implying is that the point is it's anti-Shi'a and that his intentions are sinister, which I can't see any proof for. If the point is, as you I'm sure some will argue in response to my post, that he still died thirsty regardless so why is UTS bringing this up, does the same not apply to you? He died thirsty regardless of the duration so why on earth is it that you people are making such a fuss about his thread when all you had to do was read it and say, "Hmm?" then move on? Moreover, I'm surprised at the level of indifference and nonchalance being exhibited toward the authenticity of what is one of the cornerstones of the Shi'i faith. If the 3 day duration is, indeed, a fabrication then is that not enough of a reason to bring it up and educate the masses about the truth so that if non-Shi'as attack our belief, we can be sure that we do not have any unsubstantiated beliefs? If a Sunni comes in and reads this thread, you know what he's going to get out of this? "Shi'as are so blinded by their mourning and lamenting of Karbala that they're not only willing to accept lies but will also attack one of their own if anyone raises questions about it." Before you ask ATS what the point of his thread is, have you asked yourself what the point of your posts is?
  4. Sister I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience on the forum. As for the first issue, while the moderators do try and read most threads, we are only volunteers and normal members. We can't keep up with each and every post made on the forum and so we rely on members like yourself to report those being rude to others or breaking forum rules. As long as a post is reported, I can assure that every single report is seen and dealt with by the moderators. As for the individual who contacted you, moderators cannot view members' private messages and while admins can, they make a habit of not viewing anyone's PMs unless it has been reported. This is to ensure that the privacy that members expect from a private message is maintained. If someone misbehaves or otherwise breaks any rules in a PM, we can only rely on the other party to report such a member, in which case we will deal with the issue. If you'd like, you can report this PM in question (you should see a report button in your PM service) or you can contact one of us directly and we'll try and help you out.
  5. Yes, I understand what you said quite clearly but a postmodernist is not actually going to debate you on that. He'll probably be proud of it as you may have said it in a negative tone but that is exactly what he is arguing for. A critique must necessarily be more then the statement of a position and must somehow challenge the other person's adherence to that position. Otherwise, what's the point? As for the gravity of such an assumption, sure, that could be a good criticism but in the modern academic discourse, challenging the bases of what are considered fundamental truths is not only not discouraged but at times even considered necessary. Sure, the same can lead to ridiculous propositions and a complete dissociation from reality but given that the nature of belief necessitates that individuals once considered things like the superiority of one race over another or the earth being flat as fundamental truths, to argue that one should not argue is not much of an argument at all.
  6. This isn't much of a critique of the philosophy so much as it is simply restating the given definition of the philosophy and the possible implications of it being true in a negative manner. You don't really bring any argument against it except to say it must be wrong or saying "Oh, look, it must be untrue because there are so and so negative consequences if it were true" without even giving a reason as to why the existence of negative consequences makes it a false idea somehow. Drugs have negative consequences but they do exist, do they not?
  7. Good for me, then, that he's nowhere close to getting there.
  8. While I'm not a big proponent of either side on the issue that statement just seems...out of order. I mean, have you ever read a book of Shia-Sunni polemics by any of our major scholars? That is literally the format they use. Moreover, how is he supposed to make his counterargument when many, including myself, have never heard the argument made by those who ban tatbir because of this (indeed, I had never come across the issue of a Hussainia even having insurance before)? As such, was he not just more fair than he would have been if he just presented his own view, that he even included the opposing view? Plus, he never told anyone to accept his verdict as the absolute truth never to be challenged...
  9. God is not an experimenter or a scientist. He does not change variable in order to see what will happen if He does so but, instead, He already knows what will be. But, again, you seem to be going off on a tangent from the purpose of this discussion, which is whether somehow changed due to the act of creation.
  10. Not necessarily. Indeed, from what I've heard of scholars' opinions on the verse, they often simply interpret it to mean that the angels understood the people were capable of being terribly evil. I'm sure that there may also be those who espouse the opinion you share but, regardless, I don't see how this has any bearing on the discussion we're actually having, which is not what happened before the creation of humans but, rather, before creation itself - so, if there were some proto-humans who spread corruption, before them, and before the creation of the universe.
  11. Vikings is definitely one of the more interesting shows. While it has what you'd expect from a story about Vikings (the fighting and whatnot), it actually also devotes a significant amount of time to the concept of God, and how the Vikings and the Christians come to understand they believe in different deities and so on. In that respect, the conversations between Athelstan, Ragnar and Ecbert are very interesting and, indeed, is what their friendship revolves around. Well, only slightly. What we actually know historically is that Ragnar was killed by King Aelle who threw him into a pit of snakes and then his sons invade England to take revenge. But not a lot is actually known about Ragnar (I think his sons are actually more famous than him historically) and so they just took and crafted a whole story around it, most of which is fictitious.
  12. I would also like to point to a thought experiment I just did. Let us assume, for the sake of simplicity, of the existence of a universe comprising of only two moments. In the first moment, John has no ball and in the second John has a ball. These are states 1 and 2. Now, imagine we give John a time machine and let the John from the second moment, travel back to Moment 1, where he gives the time machine to John 1, who travels to Moment 2. Now, in this scenario, does change exist? In both Moments 1 and 2, John exists in both States 1 and 2. (This is basically a complicated way of expressing a common trope in science fiction where a time traveller encounters their own self from a different time and, in doing so, exists in both states simultaneously.) As you can probably guess, in my analogy, the 'ball' is time. So, perhaps there is no 'and then' as God's existence may not be removed from time but, rather, piercing time, that of simultaneity. As such, there is no state in which He existed without time and then created time but, rather, He exists simultaneously in both states. But, again, this is where we must remember the limitation of the human mind in comprehending He who is incomprehensible. The Imams warned their followers to acknowledge God through His Signs but not to delve too deeply on the manner of His Existence as that is not possible for a human to do.
  13. Again, you're looking at time as some sort of philosophical or metaphysical construct when, in fact, it is a physical entity. This may have been how time was perceived over the millennia but with advances in physics, that is no longer the case. As such, the statement "it is logically impossible for anything to cause time to exist" is fallacious as it subjects the laws of nature to logic - it's as absurd as saying it's illogical for gravity to exist. Whether your sense of logic agrees or not has no bearing on the physical reality. Once again, as I've said, we are intrinsically bound by time and therefore, you and I cannot understand the relation between time and change and what happens to one when the other is lacking but since it is physically possible, then we must leave ourselves open to correction and, thus, your absolute statements are incorrect.
  14. Well, we can argue all this but let's refer to a more pertinent matter: according to some physicists (and, this is a much debated topic so I'm not going to say this is the absolute truth but it is definitely a popular opinion), time did not exist before the Big Bang. Physically speaking, time is simply a dimension of the physical world and, as such, when the universe itself did not exist, neither did time. Now, if we do agree that God existed before the creation of the Universe and time literally did not exist, how on earth could He be constrained within time (even some sort of God-Time). And, if time does not exist, then can we truly use terms such as before and after? Of course, as humans, time is a concept that is just intrinsic to our perception of the world and, so, we cannot imagine what an existence without time actually means but just because we cannot name it does not mean it is impossible. Indeed, I find it interesting that people find the assertion that God transcends time to be problematic but will often not argue over how He can exist without being physical. If it is not hard to believe He does not exist in the three dimensions we can see, why should He exist in the fourth dimension we can't (literally) see? So, if you want me to explain exactly what form of existence God has in His transcendence of time, I cannot say but, as I've said, as a human, I really cannot imagine an existence without time and thus cannot describe it and, yet, according to actual scientists it is a possibility.
  15. Your problem concerns the apparent change in His State between when He created and before. The solution is rather simple: there was no before and no after. God is not constrained by the physical world and time is simply another dimension of this universe. He is not constrained by this world and, so, He is not constrained by time. While time may seem the most natural of concepts to us, He exists outside of it. So, there can be no change when there is no gradation (i.e. time).