Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About teenager

  • Rank
    Ismi Muqawematon

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. This is the link:

  2. Salam

    Can you send me the book where Imam Ali speaks about the end time?

  3. (bismillah) I have a PDF copy of this book. If you want a copy, send me a PM and I will email it to you InshaAllah. (salam)
  4. (bismillah) (salam) Does anyone have the province-by-province breakdown of the data from the 2001 Iranian Presidential election? Or know where I can find it? (1997 election would be good if too if anyone can find it). Thanks.
  5. salam, salawat bar

    Mohammad wa Aalay Mohammad

    may Allah bless you on your birthday

  6. (bismillah) Dear IloveImamHussain, You are right that they are not complete reasons, himself saying that it is of a "variety". However, it is a start, and I consider it a significant reason that when one cannot be sure to the existence of God, meaning that such is impossible, it points to the Atheistic line. (salam)
  7. Sunniforum.com

    (bismillah) It is an absolute primary responsibility of the adherents of this Shi'a school of thought to truthfully set aright any false conceptions regarding beliefs, lest these harmful speculations will perforate. It is the absolute primary responsibility of the Sunni school of thought to also set aright any false conceptions Shi'a may have regarding thier beliefs. What you did what a constructive step in that direction; i.e. first identifying what these misconceptions are (Jazak'Allah Khairun). Now, to the task of clearing them of falsehood? Shall we take the initiative? Or wait for the next time? (salam)
  8. Christian Passover

    (bismillah) Do Christians commemorate the events of Passover by any specific rituals/prayers/etc? (salam)
  9. (bismillah) Dear Son of Placid, Thank you for your compliments and post. I do not dispute that accusations against me do take focus away from the topic at hand, but I consider it better that I clarify lest some may believe the lies that I am diabolical on intending the Bible "false" or making more of the issue than mere questioning. If by "undertones" you mean to say my words are implying something besides the obvious, there may be no compelling need to guess what these are; simply ask me and I will set certain what "undertones" I intend and what "undertones" are as a result of error. However, I do take your point that I may have to anticipate accusations, in light of the questions I am investigating. To speak of the topic, what is your opinion/research on the issue raised? (salam)
  10. (bismillah) This is an interesting topic, as interesting as inquiring why people are of one religion/thought/belief over another. However, while it is certainly justifiable to state that "I am a Muslim because I was never anything else", it doesn't exactly specify the reason why you are a Muslim. I would contend that it would be beneficial to state actual reasons, as member FreedomFromReligion did, in order to better understand causes; why. Some would assert that they are Jewish, for example, because "codified Islam was in Arabic and Christians pray to a Trinity". I would say that although this is interesting, it would be more beneficial to state actual merits of the belief instead of comparing to others. Instead of "why can't it be", let us ask "why can it be?". For the above example, one could assert that they are Jewish because Judaism has openly incorporated the doctrines of Maimonides and his 13 Principles of Faith, as well as his dictation of negative theology. That would be describing a merit unique to Judaism without boldly comparing to other religions. Can we do the same for atheism? (salam)
  11. (bismillah) Dear Son of Placid, Thank you for trying to provoke a negative response from me, it is well-appreciated, however futile. I intend to teach according to my ability, I intend "Maimonides" to teach according to his ability, and I intend you teach according to your ability. Above all, however, we should all learn more than teach; to stumble a rock into a pond; to end our own placidity. Let us disturb, no, impose it upon ourselves to be progressive in learning in all situations. Eager willingness to learn with few other factors equals promoting knowledge; bias with few other factors equals obstructing knowledge. My intention, to amass appreciation and knowledge through breaking down the obstacles I find, is same in meaning to my last clause. These obstacles I refer to mean purely difficulties, bias being among them. I am trying my best to put myself in a Christian's place, reading historical criticism of what I contend to be the Word of God, and seeking answers to those questions. If you, or anyone, instead of helping me, aims to hamper, then so be it. If I am wrong and you do intend goodwill on pursuit of understanding, then be certain to state so clearly. (salam)
  12. (bismillah) Dear Maimonides, Thank you for your reply. I do willingly entertain the possibility that all three "Mighty Men" were not simultaneous, as you urged me to consider. Looking, however, I find some points that confuse rather than clarify the issue still. Perhaps it is my frailty of mind, but I have not yet found what I may to be assuredly conforming to both logic and historical literature. Regarding your speculation of Shammah indicative to come "after him", may we also cherish reasonable that Eleazer came after another possible retire or death, as it seems to indicate in the verse regarding Eleazer? I understand your awkward position to my questions not adequately directed towards those of Jewish faith. In light of my Christianity-biased questions, it would be just as adequate for you to say that you do not believe in the Christian scholars' learned opinions. Although it may not cherish my fair purpose, it would be sufficient in your possible perspective according to your preconceived notions. I will comment that your parable is well appreciated, but also assuming to much of me that I have not explicitly given mention of. I have not any fascination to this particular verse nor "Akedah". I am, however, obliged to systematically seek out in full whatever I do not understand, so if God and time will permit, I will continue to systematically seek answers to my questions. Regarding power and beauty of the Torah (and/or Bible) and why I have not been reading about it, I answer in the view of a student not yet learned in Dr. Suess why he does not appreciate the beauty and power of Hawthorne; allow me to start with what I do not understand so that I may progress my knowledge. You will not certainly contend that one can be soaked in "awesome wonder" without first comprehending, will you? And your final implication, granted less severe that your previous ones against me, still relies in the assumption that I am intent on finding [insignificant] faults with the Bible as a reason (read excuse) to dismiss it completely. Absolutely not and the single most accurate characterization of your assumption is preposterous. Will a student work algebra until he finds an extraneous root and then quit it all? Again, preposterous. My intention is to inquire about the volume of knowledge, and fulfill it eventually, but I am obligated to clear up my doubts first. Is this any other than the logical way to proceed? If you disagree and contend I should accept something on "faith" (mere temporary assumption of truth, you'll say), then save your contention to slay another's existence benumbed; another someone without the shield of innate skepticism that I possess. (salam)
  13. (bismillah) Dear InHisLove, Your assumption regarding my own intention is false and I would love nothing more than to sleep with ease, to move on to more important matters, and to generally pass over instability in the historical effects and reactions of Christianity. I am not, as you describe, intent on proving my own presuppositions true, because I have no presuppositions regarding practical merit, but I do have questions, and I do have research, and I do have the courage to ask, because I know that although people will transgress and accuse me falsely of diabolical intentions, a sincere questioner cannot falter in his intent. Raising the issue of what a contradiction actually is does benefit the discussion. I have had sedulous study in logic, and in my view, the Law of Contradiction or Non-Contradiction, as Aristotle does openly agree, is a circular law; that is, one must rely upon itself to prove, and upon itself to disprove, and no independent reasoning can derive it or prove that it cannot be derived. This means that philosophically speaking, the "Law of Contradiction" is sophistry; it assumes too much to be logically sound. For this reason and others, the primary intention of the "Law of Contradiction" is to delineate absolute Truths and absolute Falsehoods to determine their absolute juxtaposition in Absolutist reality. It seems clear, ergo, that while it holds interesting discussion in philosophical circles, it isn't of any real practical use. For my purpose of simplicity in asking, I use a definition that doesn't require philosophical studiousness to understand. I intend the word "contradiction" as synonym to "incongruity" or "inconsistency". If we must first, determinately and unquestionably, positively ascertain the absolute negation of an affirmation without any hypothetical ideas, I promise you we'll be here in perpetuum until infinity marks a final purple streak across the sky, because it is, realistically and philosophically, impossible. (salam)
  14. (bismillah) Dear Maimonides, Thank you for your response. I am glad that I am not reading untrue sources that suggest the Rashi commentary may include more or less than simply Rashi. I do accept that what eventually went into the "official Rashi Commentary" was probably in agreement with his prominent students, but I do not venture to possess certainty in claiming there was no room for innovation in "his" commentaries on Chronicles I and II, to a larger extent, and in his commentaries in the rest of the volumes, to a lesser extent. Your point bolding "after him" does not seem adequate indication that Shammah was not of the original three "mighty men" and was merely later, after the death or retirement of one. This is because 2 Samuel 23:9 also seems to use "after him". [2 Samuel 23:9] And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines that were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away: Your point regarding John Wesley is brief, but contains several implications. First, I think you may have misspoken in saying he was not among the writers of the Tanakh, which is clearly obvious and not exceptionally relevant. Secondly, you imply that anyone not involved in the "transmittance" of the Hebrew Bible is not qualified to be an expert on it. John Wesley is highly esteemed, even beyond the United Methodist Church, of which he was one of the leaders, to different movements within Christianity such as the Pentecostal movement, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, and more. Undoubtedly, therefore, his credentials are highly established, at least in the view of the majority of Christians. Regarding the Bible Version The Message, I understand that to facilitate clarity, The Message does not literally translate every word, as placement of certain clauses in different languages differ. Instead, it translated the meaning of the verse, so that "after him", used to describe Eleazer and "after him" used to describe Shammah, chronologically become "next of" and "third". The point remains, therefore, in the view of this widely-used Bible, that the three of the Elites were Josheb-Basshebeth, Eleazer, and Shammah. (salam)