Jump to content
hoskot

No Sahabi asked "Who are these Ulil Amri?".

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, islam25 said:

Who will decide what is Islamic and what is unislamic. We or ulilamar. 

Today erdgon is ulilamar. 

King of Saudi is ulilamar. 

Roohani of Iran is ulilamar. 

Abu Bakr was ulilamar. 

ALI was ulilamar. 

Muawiyah was ulilamar. 

Yazeed was ulilamar. 

And so on.

very true. and this confusing situation will not happen if hadith about companions asking who are these ulil amri is available in sunni hadith collection!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, islam25 said:

Who will decide what is Islamic and what is unislamic. We or ulilamar. 

Today erdgon is ulilamar. 

King of Saudi is ulilamar. 

Roohani of Iran is ulilamar. 

Abu Bakr was ulilamar. 

ALI was ulilamar. 

Muawiyah was ulilamar. 

Yazeed was ulilamar. 

And so on.

the quran answered your question. if we want to decide what is islamic or unislamic, we turn to the Allah and the messenger AS, in the form of quran and hadith. simple.

yes. they are/were all ulil amr. but today, these people arent ulil amr over you or me. the country the rule over, the people there are supposed to follow them in every islamic thing. simple. if you have a problem with there being so many different ulil amr, then demolish this country system and re-establish the khilafah so we only have one ulil amr.

Share this post


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

i just woud like to know, why no such hadith recorded in sunni hadith collection. any logical explanation for it?

i dont know. one could be that they did ask and you havent come across it yet. 

but supposing they didnt, i have no explanation for it. i dont need to have one. the sahaba didnt ask about teverything. 

Share this post


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

they did asked about

Shakir 2:189] They ask you concerning the new moon.

[Shakir 2:215] They ask you as to what they should spend.

[Shakir 2:222] And they ask you about menstruation.

[Shakir 8:1] They ask you about the windfalls

which, IMO, very much less weightier than ulil amri. don't u think so?

i believe, shias have such narrations, thus ulil amri is a non-issue for them,

i believe, sahabas did asked, but the umayyads and the abbasids forbade their propagations.

anyway thanks for sharing ur thoughts.

 

you can believe unicorns exist too. wont make it true brother.

Share this post


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

very true. and this confusing situation will not happen if hadith about companions asking who are these ulil amri is available in sunni hadith collection!!!

well, this confusion wouldn't occur if one follows the quran. ask the people of knowledge if you do not know. 

if the sahaba didnt ask about this matter, the prophet pbuh should have explained it to them as it was his job. quran 16:44

if he didnt, either he didnt fulfill his job, which is not possible, or it was an obvious thing, literally the people who have authority, as my entire explanation says.

Edited by just a muslim
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

well, this confusion wouldn't occur if one follows the quran. ask the people of knowledge if you do not know. 

if the sahaba didnt ask about this matter, the prophet pbuh should have explained it to them as it was his job. quran 16:44

if he didnt, either he didnt fulfill his job, which is not possible, or it was an obvious thing, literally the people who have authority, as my entire explanation says.

salam akhi

and may i know, who are these people of knowledge, whom we are supposed to ask? any quranic verse to backup it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, just a muslim said:

the quran answered your question. if we want to decide what is islamic or unislamic, we turn to the Allah and the messenger AS, in the form of quran and hadith. simple.

yes. they are/were all ulil amr. but today, these people arent ulil amr over you or me. the country the rule over, the people there are supposed to follow them in every islamic thing. simple. if you have a problem with there being so many different ulil amr, then demolish this country system and re-establish the khilafah so we only have one ulil amr.

Now some of citizens of Turkey and Saudi and Iran do not accept their rulers and consider them unislamic. So should they follow them. 

In past most accepted yazeed and Muawiya and Ali.

But some disagreed. 

So do they were right or wrong. 

In Quran it is said to follow ulilamar absolutely like one follows Allah and Messenger of Allah. 

Share this post


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

Now some of citizens of Turkey and Saudi and Iran do not accept their rulers and consider them unislamic. So should they follow them. 

In past most accepted yazeed and Muawiya and Ali.

But some disagreed. 

So do they were right or wrong. 

they should follow them in everything that is according to the quran and sunnah. anything against it, they shouldnt follow them.

i dont know about that. Ali RA was a khalifa. ameer ul momineen. muawiya and yazeed were kings. not khulafa. not matter how much a sunni tries to say otherwise. Ali AS was the 4th caliph. and muawiya rose against him unjustly. we have narrations saying that if two people claim khilafa, the first claimant is the true khalifa. and there are serious words about the second claimant. so, whoever followed Ali RA did right. whoever accepted muawiya while Ali RA was there, did wrong. after Ali RA, and Imam Hassan AS, khilafah ended and mulukiat started. 

33 minutes ago, islam25 said:

In Quran it is said to follow ulilamar absolutely like one follows Allah and Messenger of Allah. 

no akhi it doesnt. here is the translation:

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

this is a word for word translation. now let me explain. it says, obey Allah and obey the messenger. correct? notice how the explicit command/verb of obeying is only with Allah and Messenger. then it says "and those in authority among you". there is not separate verb for ulil amr. absolute obeying is hence only for Allah and his messenger. and it is as if Allah answers your claim in the very next line: "if you disagree in something, refer it to Allah and Messenger"

let me ask you this. would we disagree obeying Allah and messenger? no. because they command the same thing. the only margin of disagreement is with the ulil amr. if they tell us to do something, and we say something else, we return it to the quran(Allah) and sunnah(messenger), not to the ulil amr.

you may say that ulil amr doesnt have the verb itself because the messenger and those in authority have to be followed in the same way. i say, there's two problems with this. 1. does that mean that we dont have to follow Allah and the messenger in the same way? since both of them have got separate verbs for themselves? 2. when talking about refering back in case of disagreement, the quran says refer back to Allah and messenger, not the ulil amr, because absolute obeying is only for Allah and his messenger. so many places in the quran where it says to obey Allah and the messenger. nowhere does it talk about disagreements. the only place where it talks about obeying the ulil amr, the very next line talks about what to do about disagreements. 

Edited by just a muslim
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

they should follow them in everything that is according to the quran and sunnah. anything against it, they shouldnt follow them.

i dont know about that. Ali RA was a khalifa. ameer ul momineen. muawiya and yazeed were kings. not khulafa. not matter how much a sunni tries to say otherwise. Ali AS was the 4th caliph. and muawiya rose against him unjustly. we have narrations saying that if two people claim khilafa, the first claimant is the true khalifa. and there are serious words about the second claimant. so, whoever followed Ali RA did right. whoever accepted muawiya while Ali RA was there, did wrong. after Ali RA, and Imam Hassan AS, khilafah ended and mulukiat started. 

no akhi it doesnt. here is the translation:

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

this is a word for word translation. now let me explain. it says, obey Allah and obey the messenger. correct? notice how the explicit command/verb of obeying is only with Allah and Messenger. then it says "and those in authority among you". there is not separate verb for ulil amr. absolute obeying is hence only for Allah and his messenger. and it is as if Allah answers your claim in the very next line: "if you disagree in something, refer it to Allah and Messenger"

let me ask you this. would we disagree obeying Allah and messenger? no. because they command the same thing. the only margin of disagreement is with the ulil amr. if they tell us to do something, and we say something else, we return it to the quran(Allah) and sunnah(messenger), not to the ulil amr.

you may say that ulil amr doesnt have the verb itself because the messenger and those in authority have to be followed in the same way. i say, there's two problems with this. 1. does that mean that we dont have to follow Allah and the messenger in the same way? since both of them have got separate verbs for themselves? 2. when talking about refering back in case of disagreement, the quran says refer back to Allah and messenger, not the ulil amr, because absolute obeying is only for Allah and his messenger. so many places in the quran where it says to obey Allah and the messenger. nowhere does it talk about disagreements. the only place where it talks about obeying the ulil amr, the very next line talks about what to do about disagreements. 

You are partially Right.But sequence shows that you have to follow him absolutely. 

Second question following in what matters. Since religion is already complete. So why not follow Allah and Prophet puh in it at first. 

It you who today says yazeed muawiya etc where not ulilamar. But practicality they had authority and Muslims followed them.

Banu Ummayyad had authority for a century. 

Then Banu abbasi came and controlled the governance of Ummah. And grabbed authority from ummayads. 

So does it mean that Banu Abbassi became ulilamar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

they should follow them in everything that is according to the quran and sunnah. anything against it, they shouldnt follow them.

i dont know about that. Ali RA was a khalifa. ameer ul momineen. muawiya and yazeed were kings. not khulafa. not matter how much a sunni tries to say otherwise. Ali AS was the 4th caliph. and muawiya rose against him unjustly. we have narrations saying that if two people claim khilafa, the first claimant is the true khalifa. and there are serious words about the second claimant. so, whoever followed Ali RA did right. whoever accepted muawiya while Ali RA was there, did wrong. after Ali RA, and Imam Hassan AS, khilafah ended and mulukiat started. 

no akhi it doesnt. here is the translation:

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

this is a word for word translation. now let me explain. it says, obey Allah and obey the messenger. correct? notice how the explicit command/verb of obeying is only with Allah and Messenger. then it says "and those in authority among you". there is not separate verb for ulil amr. absolute obeying is hence only for Allah and his messenger. and it is as if Allah answers your claim in the very next line: "if you disagree in something, refer it to Allah and Messenger"

let me ask you this. would we disagree obeying Allah and messenger? no. because they command the same thing. the only margin of disagreement is with the ulil amr. if they tell us to do something, and we say something else, we return it to the quran(Allah) and sunnah(messenger), not to the ulil amr.

you may say that ulil amr doesnt have the verb itself because the messenger and those in authority have to be followed in the same way. i say, there's two problems with this. 1. does that mean that we dont have to follow Allah and the messenger in the same way? since both of them have got separate verbs for themselves? 2. when talking about refering back in case of disagreement, the quran says refer back to Allah and messenger, not the ulil amr, because absolute obeying is only for Allah and his messenger. so many places in the quran where it says to obey Allah and the messenger. nowhere does it talk about disagreements. the only place where it talks about obeying the ulil amr, the very next line talks about what to do about disagreements. 

You are partially Right.But sequence shows that you have to follow him absolutely. 

Second question following in what matters. Since religion is already complete. So why not follow Allah and Prophet puh in it at first. 

It you who today says yazeed muawiya etc where not ulilamar. But practicality they had authority and Muslims followed them.

Banu Ummayyad had authority for a century. 

Then Banu abbasi came and controlled the governance of Ummah. And grabbed authority from ummayads. 

So does it mean that Banu Abbassi became ulilamar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, just a muslim said:

i dont know. one could be that they did ask and you havent come across it yet. 

but supposing they didnt, i have no explanation for it. i dont need to have one. the sahaba didnt ask about teverything. 

akhi, let me ask u a hypothetical question: let's say, u were present when the verse 4:59 was revealed. in all honesty, would u asked the Prophet, who are these ulil amri, considering u have already asked about anfal/menstruation and other "worldy things"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, just a muslim said:

you can believe unicorns exist too. wont make it true brother.

i know. whether i believe in unicorn or not, is inconsequential to my akhirat. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, islam25 said:

You are partially Right.But sequence shows that you have to follow him absolutely. 

follow whom absolutely?

1 hour ago, islam25 said:

Second question following in what matters. Since religion is already complete. So why not follow Allah and Prophet puh in it at first. 

It you who today says yazeed muawiya etc where not ulilamar. But practicality they had authority and Muslims followed them.

Banu Ummayyad had authority for a century. 

Then Banu abbasi came and controlled the governance of Ummah. And grabbed authority from ummayads. 

So does it mean that Banu Abbassi became ulilamar. 

 

55 minutes ago, hoskot said:

akhi, let me ask u a hypothetical question: let's say, u were present when the verse 4:59 was revealed. in all honesty, would u asked the Prophet, who are these ulil amri, considering u have already asked about anfal/menstruation and other "worldy things"? 

i apologize. i failed to do proper research before answering you guys. lets get back to the OP. you said why the sahaba didnt ask about who the ulil amr were, right? here are 4 links that tell who the ulil amr were and the context of revelation of 4:59

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/148

https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/23/3

https://sunnah.com/muslim/33/45

https://sunnah.com/urn/179140

these are direct links to ahadith. not some long story book. shouldnt take more than 15 seconds per hadith. so, there you have your explanation akhi :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

follow whom absolutely?

 

i apologize. i failed to do proper research before answering you guys. lets get back to the OP. you said why the sahaba didnt ask about who the ulil amr were, right? here are 4 links that tell who the ulil amr were and the context of revelation of 4:59

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/148

https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/23/3

https://sunnah.com/muslim/33/45

https://sunnah.com/urn/179140

these are direct links to ahadith. not some long story book. shouldnt take more than 15 seconds per hadith. so, there you have your explanation akhi :)

So that is  it.

The above ahadith indicate that  ulilamar was appointed by Prophet puh himself. 

Now is it applicable today?

. Since we are not able declear or give authority of ulilamar to any. 

Or who so ever is in authority we have to follow him.

Edited by islam25

Share this post


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

So that is  it.

The above ahadith indicate that  ulilamar was appointed by Prophet puh himself. 

Now is it applicable today?

. Since we are not able declear or give authority of ulilamar to any. 

Or who so ever is in authority we have to follow him.

that is not exclusive to the prophet himself. other ahadith tells us to obey our leader, even if he is an Abyssinian slave. so, we obey whoever is in authority, as long as they do not command us to commit sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

that is not exclusive to the prophet himself. other ahadith tells us to obey our leader, even if he is an Abyssinian slave. so, we obey whoever is in authority, as long as they do not command us to commit sin.

So people following yazeed was true. Because yazeed was having authority. 

Even some Ahadith indicates to follow amir. 

bbas:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever notices something which he dislikes done by his ruler, then he should be patient, for whoever becomes separate from the company of the Muslims even for a span and then dies, he will die as those who died in the Pre-lslamic period of Ignorance (as rebellious sinners). (Fath-ul-Bari page 112, Vol. 16)

 
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو النُّعْمَانِ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، عَنِ الْجَعْدِ أَبِي عُثْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو رَجَاءٍ الْعُطَارِدِيُّ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ مَنْ رَأَى مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ شَيْئًا يَكْرَهُهُ فَلْيَصْبِرْ عَلَيْهِ، فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ فَارَقَ الْجَمَاعَةَ شِبْرًا فَمَاتَ، إِلاَّ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً ‏"‏‏.‏
Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 7054
In-book reference  : Book 92, Hadith 7
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 9, Book 88, Hadith 177
  (deprecated numbering scheme)
Report Error | Share
 
 
 

Share this post


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

So people following yazeed was true. Because yazeed was having authority. 

Even some Ahadith indicates to follow amir. 

bbas:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever notices something which he dislikes done by his ruler, then he should be patient, for whoever becomes separate from the company of the Muslims even for a span and then dies, he will die as those who died in the Pre-lslamic period of Ignorance (as rebellious sinners). (Fath-ul-Bari page 112, Vol. 16)

 
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو النُّعْمَانِ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، عَنِ الْجَعْدِ أَبِي عُثْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو رَجَاءٍ الْعُطَارِدِيُّ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ مَنْ رَأَى مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ شَيْئًا يَكْرَهُهُ فَلْيَصْبِرْ عَلَيْهِ، فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ فَارَقَ الْجَمَاعَةَ شِبْرًا فَمَاتَ، إِلاَّ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً ‏"‏‏.‏
Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 7054
In-book reference  : Book 92, Hadith 7
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 9, Book 88, Hadith 177
  (deprecated numbering scheme)
Report Error | Share
 
 
 

yes. following yazeed, but not in unislamic commands, no matter how bad he was, unless he showed clear kufr. 

the hadith, as i understand it, is to emphasize the importance of unity of ummah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

yes. following yazeed, but not in unislamic commands, no matter how bad he was, unless he showed clear kufr. 

the hadith, as i understand it, is to emphasize the importance of unity of ummah.

So yazeed was right. 

As  yazeed asked Hussain allegiance. That Hussain denied .it led to fight and death of Hussain.

 

And it is difficult to judge in political or state management issues to decide what truth. 

As   yazeed told people that Hussain has rebelled a khalif. And the people agreed to fight and kill a rebellion. 

Edited by islam25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, just a muslim said:

follow whom absolutely?

 

i apologize. i failed to do proper research before answering you guys. lets get back to the OP. you said why the sahaba didnt ask about who the ulil amr were, right? here are 4 links that tell who the ulil amr were and the context of revelation of 4:59

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/148

https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/23/3

https://sunnah.com/muslim/33/45

https://sunnah.com/urn/179140

these are direct links to ahadith. not some long story book. shouldnt take more than 15 seconds per hadith. so, there you have your explanation akhi :)

thanks akhi.

the ahadith posted only strengthen my case: no ahadith present in sunni hadith collection,  relating companions asking the Prophet who are these ulil amri.

So, unless you have a logical explanation for it, between u and me, let's put this to rest.

fastabiqul khairat....Quran 5:48

Share this post


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

So yazeed was right. 

As  yazeed asked Hussain allegiance. That Hussain denied .it led to fight and death of Hussain.

 

And it is difficult to judge in political or state management issues to decide what truth. 

As   yazeed told people that Hussain has rebelled a khalif. And the people agreed to fight and kill a rebellion. 

yazeed wasnt right in any way. he wasnt even a khalifa. i dont know much about history so i cant help you there.

no matter what, yazid was not right. in any way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hoskot said:

thanks akhi.

the ahadith posted only strengthen my case: no ahadith present in sunni hadith collection,  relating companions asking the Prophet who are these ulil amri.

So, unless you have a logical explanation for it, between u and me, let's put this to rest.

fastabiqul khairat....Quran 5:48

why do people ask questions? to know the answer. correct? if people already know the answer, would they still ask the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

yazeed wasnt right in any way. he wasnt even a khalifa. i dont know much about history so i cant help you there.

no matter what, yazid was not right. in any way. 

. He was both khalifa and ulilamar at that time 

Yes latter it was declared he was not guided khalifa. 

And  today muslim do not accept him.. But at that time was khalifa and had authority. 

Edited by islam25

Share this post


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

. He was both khalifa and ulilamar at that time 

Yes latter it was declared he was not guided khalifa. 

And  today muslim do not accept him.. But at that time was khalifa and had authority. 

no bro. he was not a khalifa. he was a king. khilafa ended after hasan AS. muawiya and the rest were kings. we have ahadith to prove that.

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!

    • Partially responding to the title question: 3:186 3:198
    • I posted but dc. So i forget what i explained. However, you should learn the manner/behavior of Imam Ahlul Bayt a.s. upon receiving bad word.
    • بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Despite the repeated use of the phrase “there is no proof or evidence for the existence of God,” I would imagine most atheists, and indeed most people, are unaware that there is in fact a technical difference between evidence and proof. Fittingly, the distinction between proof and evidence was initially taught to me in an introductory evolutionary biology course by an ardent atheist professor during my first year of university. My professor used this distinction to justify why she would not be receiving objections to evolution in her class. (Literally, she said that we were not allowed to question evolution or present counter evidence during the lecture, and that she would not entertain it during her office hours.) It was the most bizarre and dogmatic moment I had in my entire education, and I say this as someone who was blessed to study theology in a seminary environment for a year. Contrary to popular opinion, the seminaries are far less dogmatic when it comes to foundational beliefs, as they permit questioning the existence of God and raising objections to the proofs offered. She argued that evolution was based upon good evidence, but could never attain the status of complete certainty. It was a probabilistic argument, like virtually all of science, rather than a demonstration, as in the case of mathematical proofs (and, as we shall see, metaphysical arguments.) I still vividly remember the slide used to showcase an example of rational certainty – it was that of a triangle with some lines and an accompanying trigonometric proof. Because evolution (along with all empirical science) could never attain 100% rational certainty, she argued that it was always possible to be a skeptic, to raise objections about inductive inferences which are probabilistic at best, or to posit alternative explanations that could explain the data, no matter how improbable. Oh the irony. If scientific atheists only applied their standards consistently, they would either deny science or accept God. We will see why more clearly later on when we explore the evidence for the existence of God. But there is neither here nor there. For now, what I want to do is just go over some basic concepts in reason in order to set the table for the coming arguments...

      This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.
    • بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم As we stated earlier, before we can answer the question “how can I know that God exists?” we must first ask the question “how do I know anything at all.” There are multiple ways that the intellect comes to know, and these modalities (or ways) of knowing are arranged hierarchically. I will go from the lowest form of knowledge to the highest – though this may seem unintuitive to the modern mind, which has been conditioned to see certainty as ordered in precisely the opposite direction. I will sort out these modern confusions as we proceed upon each level, inshaAllah. The lowest form of knowing, and the least certain is that of sense perception. “Huh? But I thought you had to see it to believe it?” you may ask. Ah, but you see sense perception deceives us all the time. We readily admit that. Sometimes we see things that aren’t really there, and sometimes what we see does not reflect reality. For instance, we perceive the earth as being flat, the sun as setting upon the horizon, the stars as being small, and if I were to put my finger in a glass of water it would appear to break due to the refraction of light. Your eyes deceive you Take a look at this clip around 12:30 where Dawkins himself says that if he were to see a direct sign of God – the heavens opening up and seeing the angels – he would still disbelieve in God. Instead, he would find it more probable that he were hallucinating, that David Blaine or some magician were playing a trick on him, or that aliens with some advanced technology could manipulate reality to make him think he were seeing what he were seeing. You can hear his own words here....

      This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.
    • @Ali Hassan Hussain Mutah or marriage is not a solution to getting rid of masturbation addiction. Unfortunately many Muslims are uneducated in this sense and feel that it is a magical solution. As I said, masturbation is a behavioural addiction and it does not depend on you being married or not. Your brain is wired in a certain way (although you can fix it). There are numerous cases of Muslim/non-Muslim men who are addicted to masturbation even when they are married. Having a mindset that "marriage will solve my problem" is horrible. Guys who say this have no will power to get their addiction sorted. I feel sorry for girls who have to put up with those guys. Marriage is a way to keep you safe from masturbation to start with - so you don't develop an addiction. It can help you manage addiction but is not the ultimate solution. I'm just saying this to give you a very honest advice, one which very few people will give you.  Focus on building healthy habits. You need to have enough will power to say "no" when it comes to masturbation. Learn to hold yourself accountable. No matter how strong your desires are - it is possible to say no. Join an online community with other people who also have similar problems, to educate yourself on the potential consequences. In addition, you need to tell someone who you trust, be he a psychologist, stranger, friend or anyone. Keeping this addiction to yourself is part of the problem. Inshallah you can get rid of this addiction. Just man up and hold yourself accountable.   
×