Jump to content
  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Salam What do you want to know?
    • وَأَمَّا الْجِدَارُ فَكَانَ لِغُلَامَيْنِ يَتِيمَيْنِ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ وَكَانَ تَحْتَهُ كَنْزٌ لَهُمَا وَكَانَ أَبُوهُمَا صَالِحًا فَأَرَادَ رَبُّكَ أَنْ يَبْلُغَا أَشُدَّهُمَا وَيَسْتَخْرِجَا كَنْزَهُمَا رَحْمَةً مِنْ رَبِّكَ ۚ وَمَا فَعَلْتُهُ عَنْ أَمْرِي ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَأْوِيلُ مَا لَمْ تَسْطِعْ عَلَيْهِ صَبْرًا {82} [Shakir 18:82] And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father was a righteous man; so your Lord desired that they should attain their maturity and take out their treasure, a mercy from your Lord, and I did not do it of my own accord. This is the significance of that with which you could not have patience.
      [Pickthal 18:82] And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father had been righteous, and thy Lord intended that they should come to their full strength and should bring forth their treasure as a mercy from their Lord; and I did it not upon my own command. Such is the interpretation of that wherewith thou couldst not bear.
      [Yusufali 18:82] "As for the wall, it belonged to two youths, orphans, in the Town; there was, beneath it, a buried treasure, to which they were entitled: their father had been a righteous man: So thy Lord desired that they should attain their age of full strength and get out their treasure - a mercy (and favour) from thy Lord. I did it not of my own accord. Such is the interpretation of (those things) over which thou wast unable to hold patience." ***** Whatever is in the Qur'an is for our understanding not to have a court case to judge Allah(awj) creation. Usually, we spend a lot of time, judging the conduct of Allah(awj) creation, if they sinned or not. There is Law for Humans to follow, and violation of it is called a Sin.So, apparently, they are saying that the one who is to Teach us the Book, Law and Wisdom broke the law? Because what is a Sin, A sin is going against  the Sharia(Law)? If it is the Will of Allahسُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, try not to look at it from the measure that is for humans to be judged. ( Sharia (Law). So, like Prophet Musa(as) some may look at things , based on the Law/Book. Read the answer in Bold in the verse.   
    • Of course men not used to see women will stare. Now I suppose Arabs have dressed the way they do even before Islam. Sun is dangerous in the desert. Not like here in Scandinavia where winter is dark and the Sun often covered by clouds. Being covered here is not very healthy, we need the Sunrays. In the rainforest people almost do not dress at all. It is warm and humid. Are men staring at the almost naked women there. Dont think so, they are used to it. On Swedish beaches girls lie topless in summertime. Why stare, it is normal. A refugee from Syria would probably stare a week or so. Or at least until he has gotten used to it.
    • “If the eyes of a female cry over a man that oppressed her, angels will curse him with every step he walks”— Imam Ali
    • @Jebreil The problem is none of these arguments apply to me. I consider myself more Western than Eastern, have great respect for Western intellectual tradition, and am at least as critical of Muslims as I am of 'the West' (see my numerous posts on the gullibility of Muslims, their blind adherence to tradition, their racism, etc). I am under no illusions about the current state of the Muslim world, but neither am I blind to the serious moral and intellectual issues (of a mostly different nature to those in the Muslim world) that are currently blighting the Western world. Wahdat on the other hand barely ever has any criticisms to make of the West, so grateful does he seem to be that they allow him to live here. He talks about the more advanced state of the Western world, without ever acknowledging the massive role played by the exploitation of other nations, both in the past and in the present. This is a issue if he is going to constantly bleat on about how morally superior the West is. What good is it to be nice to Muslims at home, if you are busy bombing, oppressing, and enslaving them abroad? How can anyone look at, to take one of many examples, what is going on in Yemen, and have the nerve to talk about Western moral superiority? How can any Muslim, particularly one 'confident in their Islamic skin', look at the direction Western culture has taken in the past few decades, and see anything other than moral decay? Plenty of Christians (and others) can see it, but apparently Wahdat is blind to it, or at the very least doesn't think Muslims have any right to comment on it. Wahdat's issue is that he has no balance, and worse, is openly hostile to any moral or intellectual critique of the West, even when it agrees with what many non-Muslim Westerners themselves say. His attitude seems to be that Muslims should just shut up and be grateful. This is the attitude of a slave, rather than that of a free man. Many of those who post on here were born in the West, and/or have parents born in the West. They have just as much right to offer criticisms of their society as anyone else, and have no need to live in a state of eternal gratitude.