Jump to content

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!

About Khadim uz Zahra

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shi'a Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

11,112 profile views
  1. Brown name

    I'm Pakistani myself. It's a joke, juxtaposing the brown tag for veterans with common stereotypes about Indians/Pakistanis.
  2. British Shi'ism Exposed | The Shirazis, "Imam" Taw

    Argh, my bad. I confused the two. Sorry.
  3. British Shi'ism Exposed | The Shirazis, "Imam" Taw

    Not taking sides, your argument is rather terrible. Sadiq Shirazi lives in London; even if the Iranian government wanted to arrest him, they wouldn't be able to. So...their lack of action in that regard proves neither this nor that.
  4. Brown name

    Not yet. He hasn't completed the ultimate brown test yet: driving a taxi in New York.
  5. [MATURE] Husband Issues

    Because there's no proof that he didn't have these supposed relations - if he had any - via marriage. Secondly, even if he may marry a second time without his wife's permission, that doesn't absolve him from lying. If your wife asks you whether you have a second wife, you're supposed to tell her the truth; otherwise, it's lying, which is also a sin. Unfortunately, this isn't really the kind of thing total strangers on the internet can effectively help you with. This is best discussed with your husband and close family friends, who have a better grasp of the situation than we might have.
  6. #30 Knowledge or Money?

    Actually, that's not entirely true. While, yes, the basic logic of your arguments are sound, $20 million is not actually a very large sum. In the above example, you'd be out of money after maybe just a few schools. Moreover, a marja' like Ayatollah Khoei would receive billions of dollars in Khums on a yearly basis. Yet, when you look at all the need there is for money to distribute to the poor, to spread Islam, to print books, to support students in the Hawza, to protect and renovate the shrines, and all the other things that fall under the responsibilities of the maraje and which they use the Khums money for, it's still not enough. As such, arguing that the $20 million would allow you to somehow make a big impact on the world by promoting others' welfare and knowledge is simply not a factual statement given there already exist people who donate millions and maraje who receive billions in khums but the money is still not enough. As such, $20 million is just far too small a sum for that argument to hold. Unless the sum was increased rather significantly, the benefit coming from a marja's knowledge is not nearly the same as the potential benefit from $20 million. Secondly, even with the fact that money can help entire communities in mind, as I've said before, someone with the knowledge of al-Khoei can receive billions in Khums, which they can use to benefit Islam. If it's a direct comparison of spending potential, you'd still have more money to spend on welfare as a marja' than if you just took $20 million as a lump sum.
  7. #30 Knowledge or Money?

    That is, of course, an arbitrary distinction. Knowledge is literally to be aware of something and, at a later date, the ability to recall that something you were previously made aware of. Whether the thing you remember is an equation (a what) or how you got to the equation, how you felt when it happened and so on (what we would describe as the experience) is still just a memory; the distinction is made by us. Obviously, in such an example, we assume the ideal scenario and hypothesise the transference of 'ideal knowledge'. Your objection can be easily removed by rephrasing the question to state, "Would you rather have the memories of Ayatollah Khoei or money?" The memories would include both the knowledge he had and his life experiences (wisdom). Yet, the fundamental choice underlying this hypothetical scenario remains.
  8. Would you befriend a Wahhabi?

    Except, that's not how the word is used in reality, especially among the Shi'a. For one, a lot of who you would call Wahhabis prefer Salafi. Secondly, most Shi'a today use Wahhabi to refer to the ideologies of Salafism/Deobandism/Saudi family interchangeably. While all of these groups may hold Ibn Wahhab to a very high standard, not all of them follow his writings to the letter, not all of them hate Shi'as and so on. Many of the people who today call themselves Wahabis/Salafis would not fit your definition. Are they supposed to change their name just because you want to impose your definition on them? As Intellectual Resistance pointed out above, Salafis are generally a puritanical movement who believe in practicing Islam in the exact same way as it was done in the time of, and by, the Prophet. Ibn Wahhab may be the most famous modern champion of such views but he's not the first, and not the only one to do so. Everyone's Islam is different. We do have a billion types of Muslim today. Shia's, Sunnis, Salafis, Hanafis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis, Malikis, Sufis, Urafa, Zaidi, Twelvers, Seveners, and so on and so forth. Even among each group, there are actually thousands of varieties of Muslims based on specific beliefs - we may all on this site believe in Twelve Imams but one of us might believe in Sahw an-Nabi and another might not. We label specific groups based on a shared common understanding of the collective whole - the above two people would both be Shi'as because that is what the majority of those who wanted to be called Shi'a decided, and because they didn't want to be further divided into Sahwi Shi'as and non-Sahwi Shi'as. Similarly, Wahhabis today are the people who call themselves Wahhabis/Salafis, and not who you think they should be. All of this brings to the fore the fact that many Shi'as today conflate Wahhabism with Salafism, and the two with the Saudi government. Sure, there are overlaps among them all but they are not a monolith, which is a basic fact about any religious group.
  9. Would you befriend a Wahhabi?

    What if I Wahhabis took your approach and started saying you're not a Shi'a if you don't believe Ali is God? The very basic principle of any kind of comparative religion studies or inter-religious dialogue is that you can't define the beliefs of the opposing party; you have to let them do it. Exactly what makes all Wahhabis so worthy of hate in your eyes? Hatred of Shi'as? Like others have pointed out, they have Wahhabi friends so obviously that's not a universal truth. You refer to the rights of Lady Fatima and Imam Hussain. If you're referring to Fadak, then not just Wahhabis but a ton of other Sunni groups also believe that Abu Bakr was right and that Prophets don't leave an inheritance to their children. So, will you not touch all Sunnis with a stick and hate them, then? About Imam Hussain, perhaps you're referring to some Wahhabis who say it was all a battle between two princes or even some who claim that he was wrong. For one, you can already see a spectrum of beliefs among them regarding Karbala. Secondly, let's assume all of them take the worst possible view: that Imam Hussain was wrong. How can you use Imam Hussain to justify your hatred when the Imam himself to his last breath was trying to guide them? You think if even one of those people dropped their swords, the Imam wouldn't immediately embrace them? How can you say you follow Imam Hussain when your opinion of millions of human beings is that they are worse than faeces? How are you supposed to be a representative of the Ahlulbayt and guide such people if you would not even talk to them? I read above someone saying, "If they were to realise there wrong beliefs by themselves and stop being Wahhabis, then I would be their friend." Is that what we see in the actions of Allah? Because, if that were the case, why did He send 124,000 Prophets if people are just supposed to figure it all out by themselves? If Wahhabis have the wrong beliefs, we are supposed to act as the representative of our Imams and try and guide them; that's definitely not going to happen given what you think of all of them, and not just the really bad apples like ISIS.
  10. Would you befriend a Wahhabi?

    Except, Shimr was an oppressor. Wahhabis are a denomination, numbering in the millions, among whom there are some terrible people like ISIS, and also some normal people who, as the multiple people who have posted here show, even befriend Shi'as and treat them with respect. And it is utter nonsense for you to define what a Wahhabi is or isn't, and to assign a violent hatred of Shi'as to all of the people who claim to be Wahhabi/Deobandi. In that, you are no better than the actual bad Wahhabis who spout similar tales about all Shi'as worshiping Imam Ali and so on.
  11. Would you befriend a Wahhabi?

    I would suggest you repent over such blatant hatred. Even Wahhabis are human beings. Do you think this is how the Prophet of Islam would speak of people? You claim to hate Wahhabis over their blind hatred; do you not see that statements like the above show you have become that which you hate?
  12. Stephen Hawking died

    Why not? We know his ideas, and his achievements in Physics. He served to elucidate the nature of this world, something which the Qur'an itself commands the believers to do. Yes, maybe after he did that he strayed from the path and came to the wrong conclusion about God but choosing to rebuke him - or to insinuate that his achievements are not worthy of praise simply because he was wrong about one thing - how is that right? His achievements are numerous and, yet, you'll argue contrary to all logic that they're not worthy of praise? This is ultimately what you entire argument boils down to, isn't it? Just because people are simple-minded, we should dumb down everything and even negate a man's incredible achievements simply because one word of praise about his scientific work could be misconstrued by a simpler person as praise for his views on theology. And, there are so many problems with this position. Firstly, just on the last page, you stated, "Just because many people are simple-minded does not mean they should be left to go pursue whatever misguidance that comes their way. Such people are still capable of reaching truth, it just has to be packaged specifically for them." Well, aren't you doing the exact opposite of what you're saying, and instead of showing optimism for such simple-minded people to learn the distinction between his roles as a scientist and as a theologian, you instead choose to muddy the truth and treat such simple-minded people as if they are forever incapable of understanding the nuance. Humans are rational creatures and before one is religious, one must be rational. Otherwise, the religiosity they have will be that of the Khawarij and ISIS. In the above problem, as far as I'm concerned, the real problem isn't that people may choose to emulate Hawkings' views on religion because of his fame but the fact that they aren't rational enough to understand the nuance between the different roles an individual serves in society. Becoming an atheist at Hawking's behest is the symptom, not the disease. As such, your solution may treat the symptom, yes, but not the real problem. Are you truly helping them reach the truth, then, or are you simply 'leaving them behind to pursue their misguidance', albeit a form of misguidance that you perhaps do not see yourself. Secondly, is the above concern even worthy of consideration? Who here is praising his views on God? From what I've seen, people are leaving comments about the loss of a brilliant mind/scientist. There's nothing about his views on religion. It seems everyone here is quite capable of understanding the difference between the two so why are you assuming they can't? I certainly am not seeing anyone here who's driven to atheism just because Hawkings said so. I'm sure you will then argue, "What about the future generations?" Well, Hawkings is hardly the first atheist scientist to have been born. Yet, here we are, the current generation, who can still understand the difference so why do you have so little hope for your children to achieve the bare minimum that you have already accomplished? Furthermore, to divert from Hawkings and speak more broadly on this matter, people often leave religion not because of a superior belief in science but because of the irrational reactions of religious leaders in response to science. Take Galileo, for example. When he proved the heliocentric view of the solar system, the Church burned the man. Many atheists will point to this story as the reason for disbelief not because Galileo was right but because the Church was so wrong. Creating an air of hostility between religion and science will fundamentally lead to the downfall of religion, and statements such as yours (let's not praise Hawkings' science because he was wrong on religion) is exactly what further fuels such hostility and only adds to the arsenal of atheists: "Look, these guys are so immersed in their dogma, they can't even recognise the most famous scientist of our time simply because he was an atheist." In conclusion, I'd like you to consider again the famous hadith, "The statement of wisdom is the lost property of the believer, so wherever he finds it then he has a right to it.” Islam celebrates the accumulation of knowledge as the most worthy of treasures, and is it not only polite to thank the man who gave you this treasure, regardless of whether he's a believer or not?
  13. A Creator or Creators?

    As mentioned above, such a statement is ghuluw (exaggeration of the attributes and status of the ma'soomeen) and should not be uttered by a true believer of tawheed. The only creator and author of the Qur'an is Allah. Anyone who says otherwise has deviated from the teachings of the ma'soomeen.
  14. Post Your Voices!

    Mere mortals cannot bear the magnificence of my voice. Your lowly ears would tremble at my treble, leaving you deaf and depressed for all eternity - or, however long you mortals live.
  15. Best book for Tawheed (in English)

    That seems to be the Kitab al-Tawhid from Muhammad ibn Adbul Wahab, i.e. the father of Wahabism. I think you're looking for the Kitab al-Tawhid (Book of Monotheism) that is one of the volumes of al-Kafi, as linked here: http://www.imamiyya.com/hadith/usul-kafi/book-3