Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
There's nothing here yet
Latest Blog Entries
By shuaybi in Ahlul Bayt MissionBased on the hadith of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), we should abstain from consuming the following parts of animals:
Blood All reproductive parts (penis, testicles, vagina, vulva, cervix, uterus, cervix) Spleen Heart Gallbladder Glands (small organs found all over the body and in the brain) Chords/Veins Spine Placenta Anything in the loins Eyeballs Kidneys Bone marrow The above list is based on the following hadith from Al Kafi:
Also published on my word press blog: https://ahlulbaytmission.org/2019/07/21/animal-parts-to-avoid-consuming/
By Simon the Canaanite in Mystical HeresiesI’bn Arābi said in ʿāl-Fūtūḥāt ʿāl-Mākkīyāh, (“the Illuminations of Mecca,”) volume 4, page 218.
“Thus, the existence is not [except] God, for there isn’t anything in the being, except for Him.”
Mūllā Ṣadrā said in Asrār ʿāl-Ayāt, page 24.
“There isn’t [anything] in the existence, except for His self, qualities and acts, which are: an ‘envisage’ of His names, and a ‘manifestation’ of His qualities…”
By Haji 2003 in ContemporaniaThe Trump administration gave up on JCPOA, partly because it did not like 'Iran's regional influence'. This is at the heart of the current dispute.
Apart from Persoids who believe that giving up on Lebanon, Syria and Iraq will somehow make Iran safer, everyone else knows that Iran reigning in its regional influence will win it a matter of months of respite before its enemies seek to push home the advantage for regime change.
At the same time Israel is seeking to build up its own sphere of influence amongst the Gulf Arab states. And Iranian actions are getting in the way. Currently a war seems to be the only way to settle this, but there is another option.
Why don't Israel and Iran come to a grand bargain to split up the Middle East?
The Israelis can have North Africa (they've controlled Egypt since Sadat anyway). They can have the Saudi peninsula except for Hijaz and Yemen (MbS is their [Edited Out] as it is). So they can also have control over Jordan, the UAE and Bahrain. This is a basic recognition of current reality rather than Muslims giving up something.
Iran keeps its influence over Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
I don't know what to do about Kuwait. It should be part of Iraq anyway.
So in both instances the facts on the ground are recognised, but the effect of the bargain would be to draw a line in the sand and have an agreement that Iran would not seek to influence countries in the Israeli sphere and vice versa.
Obviously the chances of the above happening are 0%, but sometimes it takes someone naive to point out that the Emperor wears no clothes. In the current situation the corollary is that somehow the Arab states are independent and somehow the current antagonisms are between them and the Iranians. There's also the fiction that somehow the Americans and the British have some sort of role.
But this is an Iranian and Israeli issue. Everyone else is an observer.
By Haji 2003 in ContemporaniaAs I mentioned previously Maryam asked to take the 5D and the lenses with her on the school trip. It's professional equipment, albeit everyone in Hong Kong seems to have better. Here's some of what she came back with. Oh and all the equipment came back too.
By Haji 2003 in ContemporaniaI've always thought that since British Mandate the Palestinians have been in a no win position. If they accepted the offers the Israelis gave them there would have been an incentive for the Israelis to take more land (if the Pals don't time yielding some they might not mind yielding more) and if the Pals had resisted that would also have given the Israelis a pre-text to take more land (for defensive purposes).
In short whatever the Pals decided did not matter, the Israelis were in too dominant a position.
Turning now to a totally different situation, the following piece in the FT neatly summarises how I feel about the situation between the U.S. government and Huawei.
In a previous FT story about the same subject I posted a comment that this situation is similar to the British attempts to stop Indian technological development by banning the Indians from making their own steam engines, at the start of the 20th century. The British may have delayed Indian development by some decades, but that's all they were able to do. Whether the British took no action to stop Indian technological development or whether they proactively tried to hinder it, ultimately they would lose.
There are now far too many Indians with every increasing levels of capability to stop the juggernaut.
In summary I think the U.S. government feels a threat to its economic/technological dominance. And the sanctions are its attempt to fight back. But whether the U.S. decides to fight or not, I think in the longer term that dominance will have to be compromised. Huawei and the Chinese are now too far along the technological path of development and they are far further ahead than the India of the early 20th century.
The U.S. is now in a similar technological position that the Palestinians have been in terms of geography. Whatever option the US chooses, it will ultimately 'lose'. Loss in this context is not necessarily ceding technological leadership to the Chinese, but it may well involve acknowledging their superiority in certain areas.
By Haji 2003 in ContemporaniaThe case against artificial ingredients is well worn in terms of the possible damage to health. The health benefits of foods that are as natural as possible with limited human interference I.e. processing seems compelling.
For a couple of decades and perhaps for a couple more going forwards organic foods have given people something to believe in. Organic represents good, wholesome and natural and the opposite - foods that have chemicals added to aid their growth and which have been through a range of processes in order to give them longer-shelf lives represent what is bad. Whatever limitations organic foods may have are, for some people, more than compensated by their health and environmental benefits.
Consuming organic is virtuous and whatever sacrifices need to be made in order to do this are similar to those theists are willing to make for their beliefs. Of course the believer in organic may claim scientific evidence to back their behaviour.
The question is whether the 'organic faith' is likely to be a permanent state of affairs. I think not. Because natural food production processes are not scalable for an ever increasing global population.
In contrast, the ability of humans to interfere productively in food production has been established over millennia and we've been getting better at it. Our interventions raise all sorts of scientific, environmental, moral and economic issues and as a result I don't think God would lead us to a developmental dead-end. So I think the current preference for organic and natural food that is devoid of processing is likely to be a short-term fad, albeit a well-meaning one.
We now have better knowledge of how not to process and the costs and risks of different processing methods, and overtime I think we will become better at processing and as the following story highlights the need to develop artificial ie. man-made processes for making foods is likely to increase and so is our ability to do so. Along the way we may well find ways of processing that do still cause health and other disbenefits, but it'll be up to us to find novel solutions. Relying on historical processes won't be an answer.
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.