Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, islam25 said:

Labelling of sect has no significance. You will judged by what is in your heart and not what is your label  (sunni,shia or whabby etc).The more your belief is close to real Tawheed of Allah the more true muslim you are. 

And none of us and am emphasizing this "None of us" are True Sunnis and True Shias.

A True Sunni is one who follows all major Sunnahs of Rasool Allah (saws) without Fail. With all Passion. And boy we don't even know his all major Sunnahs!

A True Shia is one who follows Rasool Allah and his commandment religiously. I have read many ahadeeths where some tyrants/kings when use to call some very pious followes of Islam as "look they are Shia of Ali" then those pious people use to cry and wail and they use to say Why do you call us with this name! ByAllah we don't have that status that we can be called Shia of Ali. They are much much ahead of us. We are not even dust of their feet.

Edited by Waseem162

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Salsabeel said:

Strange!

Todays Muslim dont know the sirat. 

Surah Al-Fatiha, Verse 7:
صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ الْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا الضَّالِّينَ

The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.
(English - Shakir)

 

Yes this ayah is referring to the straight path (Islam). Not the path of those who wrath is brought down (the Jews) nor those who gone astray (the Christians)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

Please share with us that incident.

One day Abu Hanifa was teaching at the college. Bahlool was sitting in a corner, listening to Abu Hanifa's lesson. In the middle of his lesson, Abu Hanifa said that, “Imam Jafar Sadiq says three things that I don't agree with. These are: Firstly, he says Shaitan will be punished in the Hell-fire. Since Shaitan is made of fire, then how is it possible that fire can hurt him? One kind of thing can't get hurt from the same kind of thing. Secondly, he says that we can't see Allah; but something that is present must also be able to be seen. Therefore, Allah can be seen by our eyes. Thirdly, he says that whoever does something is himself responsible for it; and will be questioned about it because he did it himself; but evidence is against this. Meaning, whatever a person does is done by Allah and the person has no control over what he does.”

As soon as Abu Hanifa said this, Bahlool picked up a clod of earth and threw it at him. It hit his forehead and gave him severe pain. Then Bahlool ran away. Abu Hanifa's students ran after Bahlool and caught him. Since Bahlool was related to the Khalifa, they took him to the Khalifa and narrated the whole incident.

Bahlool said, “Call Abu Hanifa so that I can give him my answer.”

Abu Hanifa was called and Bahlool said to him, “What wrong have I done to you?”

“You hit my forehead with a clod of earth. My forehead and head are in severe pain.”

“Can you show me your pain?”

“Can pain be seen?”

Bahlool replied, “You yourself say that every present thing can be seen and you criticize Imam Jafar Sadiq by saying how is it possible that Allah is present, but invisible. Secondly, you wrongly claim that the clod of earth pains your head; because the clod of earth is made of mud and you were also created from mud. Then how can one kind of thing hurt the same type of substance? Thirdly, you yourself said that all acts are done by Allah. Then how can you say that I am guilty, present me to the Khalifa, complain about me, and demand punishment for me!”

Abu Hanifa listened to Bahlool's intelligent answers and shamefully left Haroun's court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SunniBrother said:

Yes this ayah is referring to the straight path (Islam).

But this ayah is not referring to Islam. It is referring to the path of some people "sirat alladhina".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Waseem162 said:

One day Abu Hanifa was teaching at the college. Bahlool was sitting in a corner, listening to Abu Hanifa's lesson. In the middle of his lesson, Abu Hanifa said that, “Imam Jafar Sadiq says three things that I don't agree with. These are: Firstly, he says Shaitan will be punished in the Hell-fire. Since Shaitan is made of fire, then how is it possible that fire can hurt him? One kind of thing can't get hurt from the same kind of thing. Secondly, he says that we can't see Allah; but something that is present must also be able to be seen. Therefore, Allah can be seen by our eyes. Thirdly, he says that whoever does something is himself responsible for it; and will be questioned about it because he did it himself; but evidence is against this. Meaning, whatever a person does is done by Allah and the person has no control over what he does.”

As soon as Abu Hanifa said this, Bahlool picked up a clod of earth and threw it at him. It hit his forehead and gave him severe pain. Then Bahlool ran away. Abu Hanifa's students ran after Bahlool and caught him. Since Bahlool was related to the Khalifa, they took him to the Khalifa and narrated the whole incident.

Bahlool said, “Call Abu Hanifa so that I can give him my answer.”

Abu Hanifa was called and Bahlool said to him, “What wrong have I done to you?”

“You hit my forehead with a clod of earth. My forehead and head are in severe pain.”

“Can you show me your pain?”

“Can pain be seen?”

Bahlool replied, “You yourself say that every present thing can be seen and you criticize Imam Jafar Sadiq by saying how is it possible that Allah is present, but invisible. Secondly, you wrongly claim that the clod of earth pains your head; because the clod of earth is made of mud and you were also created from mud. Then how can one kind of thing hurt the same type of substance? Thirdly, you yourself said that all acts are done by Allah. Then how can you say that I am guilty, present me to the Khalifa, complain about me, and demand punishment for me!”

Abu Hanifa listened to Bahlool's intelligent answers and shamefully left Haroun's court.

Appreciate that brother. Many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Waseem162 said:

One day Abu Hanifa was teaching at the college. Bahlool was sitting in a corner, listening to Abu Hanifa's lesson. In the middle of his lesson, Abu Hanifa said that, “Imam Jafar Sadiq says three things that I don't agree with. These are: Firstly, he says Shaitan will be punished in the Hell-fire. Since Shaitan is made of fire, then how is it possible that fire can hurt him? One kind of thing can't get hurt from the same kind of thing. Secondly, he says that we can't see Allah; but something that is present must also be able to be seen. Therefore, Allah can be seen by our eyes. Thirdly, he says that whoever does something is himself responsible for it; and will be questioned about it because he did it himself; but evidence is against this. Meaning, whatever a person does is done by Allah and the person has no control over what he does.”

As soon as Abu Hanifa said this, Bahlool picked up a clod of earth and threw it at him. It hit his forehead and gave him severe pain. Then Bahlool ran away. Abu Hanifa's students ran after Bahlool and caught him. Since Bahlool was related to the Khalifa, they took him to the Khalifa and narrated the whole incident.

Bahlool said, “Call Abu Hanifa so that I can give him my answer.”

Abu Hanifa was called and Bahlool said to him, “What wrong have I done to you?”

“You hit my forehead with a clod of earth. My forehead and head are in severe pain.”

“Can you show me your pain?”

“Can pain be seen?”

Bahlool replied, “You yourself say that every present thing can be seen and you criticize Imam Jafar Sadiq by saying how is it possible that Allah is present, but invisible. Secondly, you wrongly claim that the clod of earth pains your head; because the clod of earth is made of mud and you were also created from mud. Then how can one kind of thing hurt the same type of substance? Thirdly, you yourself said that all acts are done by Allah. Then how can you say that I am guilty, present me to the Khalifa, complain about me, and demand punishment for me!”

Abu Hanifa listened to Bahlool's intelligent answers and shamefully left Haroun's court.

Masha Allah. Hahhaha kinda funny and clever. See, they engaged in intellectual discourses, not labels of kufr, shirk and bidah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SunniBrother said:

Masha Allah. Hahhaha kinda funny and clever. See, they engaged in intellectual discourses, not labels of kufr, shirk and bidah.

If you want to read more stories of Hazrat Behlool you can search it on Google as "Stories of Behlool". A 43 paged book is there on Al Islam.org. It is full of his intellectual wisdom and piety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

Surah At-Takwir, Verse 29:

وَمَا تَشَاءُونَ إِلَّا أَن يَشَاءَ اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ

And you do not please except that Allah please, the Lord of the worlds.

(English - Shakir)

For the sake of complete understanding, I would like to ask you to elaborate what is meant by Amr-al-Takwini & Amr-al-Tashri'i?

'Amr = Command

Takwini = Engendering or Existential (comes from the roots of K-W-N and is related to the word "Kun" in the quranic phrase "Kun Fa Ya Kun").  

The Engendering Command is the command of God: "Be!".  His Command is one, and through this command, through this word "Be", everything else gets its existence or appears.   This command is also referred to as "the Breath of the All-Merciful", because it isbthroigh this breath that all other words (creatures) become articulated and are given expression.  This command is identical to the Muhammadan Reality (Haqiqa Muhammadiyya) because this Haqiqa Muhammadiyyah is "Rahmatul Lil Aalameen", a mercy to all the worlds.  

The Prescriptive Command (al-amr al-tashri'i), is God's legislative commands and prohibitions.  This is where mankind has freedom of choice.  But despite what he freely chooses, he is predetermined from the takwini or engendering point of view.  

So, for example, it was due to God's engendering command that Satan had no choice but to refuse to prostrate, and from this point of view, he was commanded NOT to prostrate.

It was through God's prescriptive command, however, that Satan had a choice to obey or not to obey.  From this prescriptive command point of view, he is free and is consequently responsible for it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

and through this command, through this word "Be", everything else gets its existence or appears.

Many thanks brother for this valued explanation. I would like to absorb more from your knowledge and would like to ask few more questions with reference to couple of Quranic verses.

If everything comes into existence through "kun" (Be), why is that some things took specified period of time for coming into existence? For instance, if the heavens & earth came into being through "kun", their creation would have never took 6 days or periods.

Similarly, the creation of Adam would be instant, but we see it took time from the collection of black altered mud to the infusion of breath.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

Many thanks brother for this valued explanation. I would like to absorb more from your knowledge and would like to ask few more questions with reference to couple of Quranic verses.

If everything comes into existence through "kun" (Be), why is that some things took specified period of time for coming into existence? For instance, if the heavens & earth came into being through "kun", their creation would have never took 6 days or periods.

Similarly, the creation of Adam would be instant, but we see it took time from the collection of black altered mud to the infusion of breath.

5

Salam,

"Kun" doesn't happen instantly or in an instant.  "Kun" does not also happen through a process or through a duration (or through succession).   "Kun" is God's eternal command and it is ever present (for it is NOW, in an eternal way / it is eternally now).  It is the substance of all creation.  When you say a whole sentence, there is one breath, but through this one breath an entire series of words, are successively and orderly articulated.  All of the creation is one creation / one breath (it looks like there are many due to our limitations but, in fact, it is all just one creation (it is "Be" or the Muhammadan Substance).               

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Salam,

"Kun" doesn't happen instantly or in an instant.  "Kun" does not also happen through a process or through a duration (or through succession).   "Kun" is God's eternal command and it is ever present (for it is NOW, in an eternal way / it is eternally now).  It is the substance of all creation.  When you speak a whole sentence, there is one breath, but through this one breath an entire series of words, are successively and orderly articulated.  All of the creation is one creation / one breath (it looks like there are many due to our limitations but, in fact, it is all just one creation (it is "Be" or the Muhammadan Substance).               

Many thanks once again.

How do you explain His words as mentioned in the following verse:

Surah Al-Qamar, Verse 50:

وَمَا أَمْرُنَا إِلَّا وَاحِدَةٌ كَلَمْحٍ بِالْبَصَرِ

And Our command is but one, as the twinkling of an eye.

(English - Shakir)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Salam,

"Kun" doesn't happen instantly or in an instant.  "Kun" does not also happen through a process or through a duration (or through succession).   "Kun" is God's eternal command and it is ever present (for it is NOW, in an eternal way / it is eternally now).  It is the substance of all creation.  When you say a whole sentence, there is one breath, but through this one breath an entire series of words, are successively and orderly articulated.  All of the creation is one creation / one breath (it looks like there are many due to our limitations but, in fact, it is all just one creation (it is "Be" or the Muhammadan Substance).               

Was there  a  time  when  there  was  no  creation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, islam25 said:

Was there  a  time  when  there  was  no  creation. 

But if the roving thought of any one should wander through the images of bygone time, and wonder that You, the God Almighty, and All-creating, and All-sustaining, the Architect of heaven and earth, for innumerable ages refrained from so great a work before You would make it, let him awake and consider that he wonders at false things. For whence could innumerable ages pass by which You did not make, since You are the Author and Creator of all ages? Or what times should those be which were not made by You? Or how should they pass by if they had not been? Since, therefore, You are the Creator of all times, if any time was before You made heaven and earth, why is it said that You refrained from working? For that very time You made, nor could times pass by before You made times. But if before heaven and earth there was no time, why is it asked, What were You doing then? For there was no then when time was not.

16. Nor dost Thou by time precede time; else would not Thou precede all times. But in the excellency of an ever-present eternity, Thou precedest all times past, and survivest all future times, because they are future, and when they have come they will be past; but You are the same, and Your years shall have no end.Your years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come, that all may come. All Your years stand at once since they do stand; nor were they when departing excluded by coming years, because they pass not away; but all these of ours shall be when all shall cease to be. Your years are one day, and Your day is not daily, but today; because Your today yields not with tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Your today is eternity; therefore You begot the Co-eternal, to whom You said, This day have I begotten You. You have made all time; and before all times You are, nor in any time was there not time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, islam25 said:

Was there  a  time  when  there  was  no  creation. 

But if the roving thought of any one should wander through the images of bygone time, and wonder that You, the God Almighty, and All-creating, and All-sustaining, the Architect of heaven and earth, for innumerable ages refrained from so great a work before You would make it, let him awake and consider that he wonders at false things. For whence could innumerable ages pass by which You did not make, since You are the Author and Creator of all ages? Or what times should those be which were not made by You? Or how should they pass by if they had not been? Since, therefore, You are the Creator of all times, if any time was before You made heaven and earth, why is it said that You refrained from working? For that very time You made, nor could times pass by before You made times. But if before heaven and earth there was no time, why is it asked, What were You doing then? For there was no then when time was not.

16. Nor dost Thou by time precede time; else would not Thou precede all times. But in the excellency of an ever-present eternity, Thou precedest all times past, and survivest all future times, because they are future, and when they have come they will be past; but You are the same, and Your years shall have no end.Your years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come, that all may come. All Your years stand at once since they do stand; nor were they when departing excluded by coming years, because they pass not away; but all these of ours shall be when all shall cease to be. Your years are one day, and Your day is not daily, but today; because Your today yields not with tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Your today is eternity; therefore You begot the Co-eternal, to whom You said, This day have I begotten You. You have made all time; and before all times You are, nor in any time was there not time.

 

---St.  Augustine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

But if before heaven and earth there was no time, why is it asked, What were You doing then? For there was no then when time was not.

:) So we are entering into the discussions of periodic antiquity (zamani), timeless antiquity (dahri) & eternal antiquity (sarmadi).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

Your today is eternity; therefore You begot the Co-eternal, to whom You said, This day have I begotten You. You have made all time; and before all times You are, nor in any time was there not time.

"Lam yalid walam youlad"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

"Lam yalid walam youlad"

It doesn't contradict that verse.  This word is God's eternal command, "Be", which didn't begin at any time.  This "Be" does not exist in and of itself, it is a "relationship" between God and not God, and such does not exist (since relationships in themselves do not exist).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

It doesn't contradict that verse.  This word is God's eternal command, "Be", which didn't begin at any time.  This "Be" does not exist in and of itself, it is a "relationship" between God and not God, and such does not exist (since relationships in themselves do not exist).  

What about the phrase "begot the co-eternal"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

What about the phrase "begot the co-eternal"?

There is nothing wrong with using the word "begotten" so long as it does not imply duality (through a causal relationship).  A Muslim can imply duality when he talks about God causing the world and would consequently be guilty of claiming that God begets the world even if he doesn't use the word "beget".  On the other hand a Christian can use the word "beget" without implying any sort of duality and causal relationship between God and the world and yet not be guilty of claiming that "God begets the world".  Perhaps the reason why Muslims have to recite Surat Al-Ikhlas on a daily basis is that they are just as prone to fall into the trap of duality and causal relationship between God and the world (so they need to be constantly reminded not to think that way about God).

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

There is nothing wrong with using the word "begotten" so long as it does not imply duality (through a causal relationship).  A Muslim can imply duality when He talks about God causing the world and would consequently be guilty of claiming that God begets the world even if he doesn't use the word "beget".  On the other hand a Christian can use the word "beget" without implying any sort of duality and causal relationship between God and the world and yet not be guilty of claiming that "God begets the world".

"In the beginning was word, the word was with god, and the word was god" 

Begot the co-eternal gives the impression of demi god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

"In the beginning was word, the word was with god, and the word was god" 

Begot the co-eternal gives the impression of demi god.

The Word was indeed with God. If we think otherwise then we are being dualistic.  Duality implies a demi god.   

 

Perhaps the reason why Muslims have to recite Surat Al-Ikhlas on a daily basis is that they are just as prone to fall into the trap of duality and causal relationship between God and the world (so they need to be constantly reminded not to think that way about God).

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

The Word was indeed with God. If we think otherwise then we are being dualistic.  Duality implies a demi god.   

Yes, I have no doubt about it.

I just argue that "beginning" was not the word but God & that the "word" cannot be God. 

"Begot the co-eternal" looks like christian aproach. There can be many words of God 

Surah Luqman, Verse 27:

وَلَوْ أَنَّمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ مِن شَجَرَةٍ أَقْلَامٌ وَالْبَحْرُ يَمُدُّهُ مِن بَعْدِهِ سَبْعَةُ أَبْحُرٍ مَّا نَفِدَتْ كَلِمَاتُ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

And were every tree that is in the earth (made into) pens and the sea (to supply it with ink), with seven more seas to increase it, the words of Allah would not come to an end; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

(English - Shakir)

 

Edited by Salsabeel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

Yes, I have no doubt about it.

I just argue that "beginning" was not the word but God & that the "word" cannot be God. 

"Begot the co-eternal" looks like christian aproach. There can be many words of God 

Surah Luqman, Verse 27:

وَلَوْ أَنَّمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ مِن شَجَرَةٍ أَقْلَامٌ وَالْبَحْرُ يَمُدُّهُ مِن بَعْدِهِ سَبْعَةُ أَبْحُرٍ مَّا نَفِدَتْ كَلِمَاتُ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

And were every tree that is in the earth (made into) pens and the sea (to supply it with ink), with seven more seas to increase it, the words of Allah would not come to an end; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

(English - Shakir)

 

The separation between God in Himself (essence or Dhat) and the Word is only in our minds (it is i'tibari & mafhumi), not in reality (misdaq / haqiqa).  Another name for the Word is "Al-Uluhiyyah (the Divinity).  Al-Uluhiyyah is God with respect to His Name(s) (which are all encompassed under one name, "Allah").  Each name is a barzakh / an isthmus / a relationshi/ it is therefore non-existent in and of itself (because the very relations in relationships don't exist by themselves).  The Imams have said, "Nahnu Asma Allah" (We are the names of God).  This is referring not to their individual personalities or to their individual historical manifestations within time and space, but rather this is referring to their haqiqa (their reality, their nur, which is one light).  What this means is that they are that barzakh between God and creation.  A barzakh is neither God nor the world.  Or you can say a barzakh is both the world and it is God.  It is, as Shaykh Al-Akber says, "God/not God", "He/ not He".  This barzakh of  "He/not He"  does not exist in and of itself because only He exists (there is only wujud).  

To say that the Word is one with God is tantamount to saying that the Name of God "Allah" (which, by the way, is the entire Quran summed up by one word), is not merely other than God (since it is a Name), but it is also God inasmuch as the Name names the named.  The Name "Allah" is ultimately & mysteriously identical with the Essence.  We cannot understand or relate to the Essence.  We can only relate to the Name.  We can only know the Name.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • PM your poll idea to an active member of the development team. 
    • 110 Sunni religious scholars mentioned Ghadir event in their book. I really don't understand why Sunni Muslims pretend to be blind on these facts.
    • Lol where are you coming up with these ideas? I had one but I’m not allowed to make a poll up.
    • Living in less gravity or more radiation would necessitate adaptation. Either we would need to use technology to adapt, or we would need to evolve. 
    • One of the most important thing to consider would be that our Holy Prophet pbuh who did even not curse his worst enemies came out in a state when he was sick to chase everyone except a few out of Medina & cursed those who disobeyed him & did not leave Medina at once. "Make haste in joining Usamah's legion. May Allah curse whoever fags behind Usamah's army."   We all know that Abu Bakr and Umar were both supposed to be in that army under an eighteen year old which means they disobeyed the direct orders of the Prophet pbuh and were part of those who were cursed by the Prophet. Just imagine what is going to happen to those who are cursed by the Holy Prophet pbuh.  Now the point to consider is why would our Prophet pbuh take so much pain to make sure everyone he wanted was out of Medina in his final days? Could it be that he envisaged something like Saqifa happening that he wanted to make it a clear ground for Imam Ali's elevation?
×