Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Leaderboard

The search index is currently processing. Leaderboard results may not be complete.

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/18/2021 in all areas

  1. سلام Here's a Saheeh narration, regarding the blood money for each stage of a developing fetus. What's fascinating for me isn't the issue of blood money itself, rather it's the stages of development in the womb. The three intriguing points for me are: First, the very last stage of the development is the production/entering/appearing of the spirit inside the fetus. Second, before the spirit enters/appears, the fetus is not a nafs. Pay attention: a completed being, with the spirit inside, is called a nafs. A completed fetus, without the Ruh in it, is not a nafs. Therefore, even after the muscles have been placed on the bones, and the fetus has a human form, it is still not a nafs. The musculoskeletal tissues form at the end of the first trimester, early second trimester. It is around this time that the spirit would be produced in or enter the fetus. Only after the spirit is in the fetus, around or soon after the end of the first trimester, the fetus is transformed into a human baby. If you read the narration, you'd notice that the amount of the blood money suddenly jumps by many-folds after the spirit enters and the Nafs comes to be. Therefore, remember this, we do not believe that life starts at conception. And abortion at a time before the spirit enters into the fetus is not killing a nafs (a human child). (Do not blindly go along with the Catholic and Evangelical rhetoric regarding the "killing of unborn children." They believe life starts at conception. We don't.) Third, the presence of the spirit is a necessary condition for the existence of Nafs. Here's the narration; I'm only posting part of it. وَ بِهَذَا اَلْإِسْنَادِ عَنْ أَمِيرِ اَلْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ قَالَ: جَعَلَ دِيَةَ اَلْجَنِينِ مِائَةَ دِينَارٍ وَ جَعَلَ مَنِيَّ اَلرَّجُلِ إِلَى أَنْ يَكُونَ جَنِيناً خَمْسَةَ أَجْزَاءٍ فَإِذَا كَانَ جَنِيناً قَبْلَ أَنْ تَلِجَهُ اَلرُّوحُ مِائَةَ دِينَارٍ وَ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ اَللَّهَ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ خَلَقَ «اَلْإِنْسٰانَ مِنْ سُلاٰلَةٍ» وَ هِيَ اَلنُّطْفَةُ فَهَذَا جُزْءٌ ثُمَّ عَلَقَةً فَهُوَ جُزْءَانِ' ثُمَّ مُضْغَةً فَهُوَ ثَلاَثَةُ أَجْزَاءٍ ثُمَّ عَظْماً فَهُوَ أَرْبَعَةُ أَجْزَاءٍ ثُمَّ يُكْسَى لَحْماً فَحِينَئِذٍ تَمَّ جَنِيناً فَكَمَلَتْ لَهُ خَمْسَةُ أَجْزَاءٍ مِائَةُ دِينَارٍ وَ اَلْمِائَةُ دِينَارٍ خَمْسَةُ أَجْزَاءٍ فَجَعَلَ لِلنُّطْفَةِ خُمُسَ اَلْمِائَةِ عِشْرِينَ دِينَاراً وَ لِلْعَلَقَةِ خُمُسَيِ اَلْمِائَةِ أَرْبَعِينَ دِينَاراً وَ لِلْمُضْغَةِ ثَلاَثَةَ أَخْمَاسِ اَلْمِائَةِ سِتِّينَ دِينَاراً وَ لِلْعَظْمِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَخْمَاسِ اَلْمِائَةِ ثَمَانِينَ دِينَاراً فَإِذَا كُسِيَ اَللَّحْمَ كَانَتْ لَهُ مِائَةُ دِينَارٍ كَامِلَةً فَإِذَا نَشَأَ فِيهِ خَلْقٌ آخَرُ وَ هُوَ اَلرُّوحُ فَهُوَ حِينَئِذٍ نَفْسٌ فِيهِ أَلْفُ دِينَارٍ دِيَةٌ كَامِلَةٌ إِنْ كَانَ ذَكَراً وَ إِنْ كَانَ أُنْثَى فَخَمْسُمِائَةِ دِينَارٍ
    3 points
  2. I was not aware that there was a reward for remaining chaste until marriage. You have the hadith so obviously there is one, but I just thought that it was something that you were supposed to do and that obeying the command and remaining pure and moral was its own reward. I think a lot of people need to realize that there are some things that you should just do because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) commands it, rather than looking to see what the "reward" is. You don't get rewards for not breaking the law, you just don't get punished. Obeying the law is something that you're supposed to do and the same goes for Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) laws. Doing the right thing and obeying God (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is it's own reward.
    3 points
  3. سلام Here's a beautiful Saheeh narration. There are a couple of very fascinating points in it. مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى وَ عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ جَمِيعاً عَنِ اِبْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ رِئَابٍ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ يَقُولُ: اَلْمُؤْمِنُ أَخُو اَلْمُؤْمِنِ كَالْجَسَدِ اَلْوَاحِدِ إِنِ اِشْتَكَى شَيْئاً مِنْهُ وَجَدَ أَلَمَ ذَلِكَ فِي سَائِرِ جَسَدِهِ وَ أَرْوَاحُهُمَا مِنْ رُوحٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَ إِنَّ رُوحَ اَلْمُؤْمِنِ لَأَشَدُّ اِتِّصَالاً بِرُوحِ اَللَّهِ مِنِ اِتِّصَالِ شُعَاعِ اَلشَّمْسِ بِهَا . First, believers are brothers and close, like the same body (جسد). Like in a body, if one part hurts, so will another. Second, their spirits are from a single spirit. Third, the spirit of a believer is attached/linked to God's Spirit more strongly than sun rays are linked/attached to the sun.
    2 points
  4. I was born in and raised as Ukrainian Greek Catholic (in communion with Rome) until 14, and then I began visiting different Christian confessions to try and find the truth. There are no Muslims in my family. The little that I know about Islam, I learned from lurking this site and reading Wikipedia articles until I read through the Quran. I am very ignorant to the majority of Islam because of my background and upbringing in America and there is simply so much information out there regarding Islam that the idea that I will ever have even a simple majority of the information is not very probable. When I began looking into Islam, I had to wade through a lot of cultural practices that had little or nothing to do with Islam & I am still wading through these cultural practices and find myself having to hunt down what Islam really says about subjects. Reading through the Quran helps a lot, but I have not yet begun to dig through Hadith as I am not sure what is reliable and what is not nor how to determine this. I have gone to a Masjid, but it was a Sunni Masjid and thus, I was told that a lot of the way that I did things, from the position of my arms when I pray to how I perform Wudhu, was wrong. It is a very long and somewhat confusing learning process for me at times, and I do my best to make sure that my own bias does not come into play when researching a relevant topic, but I can't say for sure that I can always defeat this bias. Things would be a lot easier if there were a community of Shia who I could find a religious mentor from in the area, but this is not the case for me at the moment so really I do the best I can but certainly offer dua that I can (and will) do better.
    2 points
  5. This is a recipe I tried over the weekend. Boil some water and add some tablespoons of sugar. Let it cool Squeeze out some lemons (you'll work out the right quantity to taste over time). Mix the two Add carbonated/sparking water if you like fizzy. Add kala namak (translates as Himalayan black salt). This is the secret ingredient, it's very potent, only a tiny amount needed, it kills the acidity of the lemons. You can add mint if you like. It's fully natural, you can control the quantity of sugar.
    2 points
  6. Yes, Imam Ali is a guide and for every people there is a guide from the progeny of Imam Hassan, or Imam Hussein. i.e the Ahlulbayt.
    2 points
  7. Don't keep any at home. That's the first step. You might probably still end up going to the store and drinking it right there (stopping that will be the next step). Make sure you drink 1.5 to 2 liters of water a day, that's very important. Avoid drinking anything else as much as possible. When you crave sugar, have a fruit (apple, orange etc) instead of something packed with artificial sugar. Try not to exceed two fruits a day.
    2 points
  8. @Abdul-Hadi, I bought about 30 books with my last stimulus check...I got 'Manufacturing Consent' by Herman & Chomsky, 'Catcher In The Rye' by J.D. Salinger, 'Custer Died For Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto' by Vine Deloria, 'Fingerprints of the Gods' by Graham Hancock, 'A People's History of the United States' by Howard Zinn, "Orientalism' by Edward Said...I bought a bunch of religious books too...'The Shepard of Hermes' J. B. Lightfoot translation, 'Islamic Government' by Imam Khomeini, 'Remembrance of Death and the Afterlife' by Imam Al Ghazali, 'The Lantern of the Path' Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq/Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri translation, 'The Sayings and Wisdom of Imam Ali' by Imam Ali/Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri translation, 'Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching: A Book about the Way and the Power of the Way' by Ursula K. Le Guin to name a few
    2 points
  9. It's like communism - only works in theory and will destroy itself. edit: When I say it works, I mean being able to last as a sustainable model. I'm not saying they're a good idea. There are societies based on Buddhism and Hinduism that have lasted for thousands of years. Communism and secularism don't have even that much, because they are as empty as it gets.
    2 points
  10. Dawkins would say that an alien created life on Earth because he's looking for any explanation but God (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) because he hates religion and religious people. He and the "New Atheists" have had disastrous consequences on American culture and the little shred of morality that we had left. I really can't stand the guy or anyone like him who has such an axe to grind against religion and religious people because they practice "Scientism": the idea that everything in the human experience can be explained through the scientific method.
    2 points
  11. Have you read "Who Rules the World?" That's a great one by him, but the one I'm working on now is "Hegemony or Survival" even though it would have been more topical in the 2000s when the US first invaded Iraq.
    2 points
  12. I think in these times if resources available and social media. People want answers if conclusion and theories are reached. Blind following of scholars doesn't cut it any more. So scholars need to give clear answers and methodology.
    2 points
  13. One of my favorite hadith I heard recently shows an amazing reward. God is proud of the abstinence that his servant has demonstrated for the honor of the almighty. The Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and his family said: "Verily Allah, most High, boasts about the worshiping young man to his angels, saying 'Look at My servant! He has abandoned his desires for my sake." [Kanz al- 'Ummal, no. 43057]
    2 points
  14. I'm 35 and have yet to discover a career that I'm "passionate" about. Most of the jobs I do, I do just because I need the money. There's nothing that I liked about washing dishes or cooking in a restaurant, so I stopped doing that and bounced around in construction for a little while. I found out that even though I wasn't passionate about the work that I was doing, that I liked being able to drive around town and say "Hey, I built that!" about different homes and buildings, so I decided to try and stay in construction despite the fact that I'm getting up there in age and people generally want to know why I don't have a "career" that I'm dedicated to and most of the time float from job to job. I guess you can say that I'm interested in anything having to do with building a home or a building and want to learn a little bit about how to do all different types of work that it takes to build something. I think if I had to say that I had a passion, it would be building homes for the poor but you generally don't get paid to do that and it is usually through Habitat for Humanity, which is all volunteer work. My advice is to try doing something that you never thought that you'd do, but interests you. You might learn that it's something that you're passionate about and good at, and then your problem is solved; but I think that the notion of "following your passion" is wishful thinking, as most people aren't passionate about their work, they're doing what they can tolerate doing that pays them the most money.
    2 points
  15. That's 2 hours of my life I'll never get back We're better off reading a book by Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i, Ali Shariati, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Edward Said or whoever...too much ego, male toxicity and braggadocio at Speaker's Corner
    2 points
  16. Dear Dave, Hello friend. Just a few comments in response to your statement above. I hope you don't mind a response. When you say the above, you see Jesus's reference to being the Good Shepherd as a claim to be God. After all, God reveals to Ezekiel in the passage above that He is the Good Shepherd. If Jesus makes the same claim, then clearly he's claiming to be God. Is that a fair understanding of your words? It's tight logic and I see where you're coming from. So let's look at the passage itself. In this prophecy, Adonai says that He will search for His sheep and care for them, both when they are scattered AND when they are brought home. Ezekiel's audience (and therefore God's target audience) is the Israelite exiles in Babylonia. In the earlier part of the prophecy, Ezekiel (and God) rails against the evil shepherds who have preyed upon Israel in its vulnerable state - benefiting and drawing wealth from the community but doing nothing to tend it. God sets up the idea of the good shepherd as a counterbalance and a future promise. Things will not always be bad. Israel will not always be preyed upon. In that context, this particular prophecy seems to break down to: 1.) Here's what a good shepherd would do for Israel. 2.) Israel doesn't have good shepherds. 3.) God will instead ensure the safety and security of His covenant people. It's a promise made to a weakened people who have been expelled from their native land. In the ancient world, gods were tied to a specific city or land. Israel's God is telling them that He will watch over them even in foreign lands and will return them home. When they return, they will know peace and healing. They will be reunited with their lost loved ones. It's a specific promise to a specific group of people. It seems to me that this leaves us with a few questions - 1.) Was this prophecy ever fulfilled? 2.) Did Jesus fulfill the prophecy? 3.) Is this prophecy setting up a figure of the "Good Shepherd"? 4.) Who would the Good Shepherd be? Let me say straight away that questions 1 and 2 are up for debate and I want to set them aside. My personal reading of history and the prophecy is that the answer is no to both (not to argue, but simply to clarify my POV). Clearly the Jewish audience of the Second Temple period (in all of its Messianic fervor) didn't think that it had been fulfilled by the time of Jesus's appearance in the world. The later Jewish community doesn't believe it has been accomplished, leading to continued Messianic expectations. The Christian community (which believes that the answer to 2 is yes) seems to feel that the prophecy was incompletely fulfilled as Revelation has Jesus returning to complete the prophecy in its plain meaning (again, let me know if you think that's an unfair understanding). Which brings us to the third question. While God claims that He will take responsibility for fulfilling the promise ("I Myself will graze my flock"), the development of this image in Ezekiel doesn't stop there. In Ezekiel 34:23, God goes to talk about David (presumably one from the house of David) as the "One Shepherd" over the land of Israel. This figure is described as "avdi" (my servant) who is established over Israel to feed, shepherd, and pasture the house of Israel. Similar promises of "One Shepherd" to fulfill this role are made in Zechariah, Amos, and Micah. So, yes, I would concur that this prophecy begins the development of a figure in prophetic literature that we can call the Good Shepherd and who is clearly a Messianic figure. This takes us to the fourth consideration - Who would the Good Shepherd be? The image of God as Shepherd over Israel begins with the literal man Israel who refers to God as his Shepherd in Genesis 48:15 and 49:24. Numbers 27:17 depicts God as directly implying that He is the Shepherd of Israel. In Psalm 23, David also declares God to be his Shepherd. Isaiah in 40:11 plays with this image, saying God will nourish, sustain, and gather Israel like a shepherd. At the same time, while "God is Shepherd of Israel", human beings are also called Shepherds in God's service. David is named by God as Shepherd over His people in 2 Samuel 5:2. The chieftains of the tribes are called Shepherds over Israel by God in 2 Samuel 7:7. In 1 Kings 22:17, the Israelites without a king are described as "without a shepherd". Shepherds are kings. The good Shepherd image is the archetype of good kingship. God is "King". We also see throughout Tanakh that He appoints kings. In numerous places throughout Tanakh, we see that when God claims something for Himself (shepherding, kingship, mercy, judgeship, and so on) it doesn't mean that if He appoints someone in a similar role, that person is also God. The evidence leads me to feel that the collective voice of the Tanakh builds a claim that the "good shepherd" figure is an appointed figure who acts on God's behalf to carry out His will. In Islam, we have a similar idea - Allah creates humanity to be His vicegerent upon the earth. The Prophets and Imams act as His vicegerent to humanity. Accordingly, we use language for them that is full of praise - even calling them "face of Allah" or "hands of Allah". Imam 'Ali (عليه السلام) said: Whoever recognizes me and my right has recognized his Lord, because I am the Vicegerent of His Prophet (S) on the earth and the proof on His creations. None of that means that the Prophet or the Imams are God. It means that they are Divinely Ordained, and that by recognizing them we can experience the Divine Will unfolding. I see something very similar with this promise of the good shepherd. And Allah knows best of all.
    2 points
  17. Agreed. To call this sunni centric would simply show one's ignorance of traditional shia beliefs as transmitted through the Qur'an and authentic hadith. Without wanting to be too disrespectful, I don't think this brother was a particular knowledgeable debater (he jumped in without having a good foundation) and even in this video he makes some ignorant statements. His first point is that apparently we told not to read the Qur'an without tafseer as we won't understand it. This isn't really the case (although some people do tend to think this). We are definitely enocuraged to read the Qur'an and to reflect upon it. However, the Qur'an and the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) are inseparable so one cannot take one without the other. This is why knowledge of the narrations and teachings of the Ahlulbayt is also essential. He goes on to make claims on behalf of 'twelver shi'i culture' and soon after claims that since he was in polemics he knew all the proofs and knows the scholars. In reality anyone who has watched his debates knows that he is unable to quote most traditional scholars and has a very limited understanding of Imami scholarship, history and theology. His knowledge of the Arabic language and classical works is close to nothing. The third point is about the adhan. He is not saying anything new as such, I think most people are aware that the so called third shahada is not part of the adhan and wasn't recited by the imams. This is hardly a 'sunni centric' belief, rather it is a universally acknowledged fact. Fourth point is about the definition of shirk and bid'ah. Again, his understanding of Shi'i teachings seems to come out of forums or layman definitions rather than our core texts where shirk and bid'ah are clearly described, discussed and condemned in the strongest terms. However it is true that Shia laymen in general are as poorly informed on such points as he used to be, so I believe this discussion is relevant. The idea that 'anything goes as long as we add the disclaimer that the imams depend on Allah' is indeed popular among some lesser informed laymen. He briefly touches upon tatbeer and other rituals. This hardly differentiates him, since various ulema have already condemned this modern-day act that didn't exist for several centuries. He goes on to say that Sayed al Sistani refuses to comment on it, which is inaccurate since his rulings on the subject are available and similar to most fuqaha. He then goes onto the topic of ilm ur rijaal and clearly he is out of his depth here by suggesting that the Shia don't apply rijaal standards (I would recommend him to refer to the volumes of works in ilmul hadith and ilmul rijaal in our school) To summarize -he hasn't really promoted any sunni beliefs, nor has he rejected any core shia beliefs -he was and still is quite ignorant of Shia theology
    2 points
  18. Here's the thing, I never genuinely cared for LGBT+ stuff until only a couple of years ago. Main reason being, that what started out as simply advocating for tolerance and legal rights of individuals who just have a different set of morals became a demand for a wholesale change of society. The LGBT+ discourse has gotten to a point of advocating for a kind of post-humanity, where you take the individual and push them to an extent where all socially enforced concepts (like gender) become obsolete. Where were start out at a completely blank page like in a videogame. You see that with folks who are now raising their kids without ever acknowledging their gender until their old enough to tell them what they identify to organizations actually getting in legal trouble for consistently using the term 'mother' rather than 'parent who has given birth'. There is an endpoint to this, the eradication of our humanity. Honestly, the old Christian folks here in Canada who used to talk about how gay marriage would lead to the end of the family don't seem cooky anymore. Even to some public gay figures like Glenn Greenwald. I really suggest that people watch this interesting post by Christian man Johnathan Pageau on queer theory and postmodernism, you get a good sense of what I'm trying to get at here.
    2 points
  19. Abdul-Hadi

    Streaming Jumu'ah

    Does anyone know of any Masjids that stream their Jumu'ah services? I have no Masjid to go to and would like to at least hear a khutbah today so I don't feel so alone (family is out of town for the week & local Islamic center is closed still because of virus). I figure since there is no Masjid for me to go to in person, the next best thing would be to stream a service.
    1 point
  20. Salam all, The majority of us have adhered to beliefs passed onto us by our parents. Most of the time we have a superficial understanding of religion at best and when we decide to seek knowledge we stay within our comfort zones. I have always been a believer of seeking knowledge in moderation so as to not overwhelm myself with information. I just wanted to know how you all have reach informed conclusions by virtue of proactively pursuing the truth, as opposed to accepting the beliefs of your immediate family members without question? And how do we make sure confirmation bias does not get in the way of this pursuit?
    1 point
  21. Do you believe in Imamate?
    1 point
  22. Here is what you have according to Al-Khoei: in his book Sirat al-Najat 2/452: يقول الخوئي: الروايات المتواترة الواصلة إلينا من طريق العامة والخاصة قد حددت الأئمة عليهم السلام باثني عشر من ناحية العدد ولم تحددهم بأسمائهم عليهم السلام واحداً بعد واحد، حتى لا يمكن فرض الشك في الإمام اللاحق بعد رحلة الإمام السابق، بل قد تقتضي المصلحة في ذلك الزمان اختفاءه والتستر عليه لدى الناس؛ بل لدى أصحابهم عليهم السلام إلا أصحاب السر لهم، وقد اتفقت هذه القضية في غير هذا المورد والله العالم 453 كتاب صراط النجاة ج2 ص Al Khoei says : The authentic mutawatir narrations that reached us through the public (’Ammah - Mainstream Muslims) and private (Khassah – Twelver Shia) paths have defined the imams, peace be upon them, to twelve in terms of number and did not specify them by their names, peace be upon them one by one, so that suspicion cannot be imposed on the later Imam after the previous Imam's journey, but it may require interest at that time that he hid and concealed it among the people. But among their companions, peace be upon them, except those who have the secret for them and this issue has been agreed upon in other than this resource. Sirat al-Najat 2, p. 452-3 So Akhi, don't bring me narrations about names, and even if you did, you see the contradictions that arise?
    1 point
  23. Wow, are there really people who will say that something is a "good bid'ha"? What exactly is the innovation that is "good" in the case of these people? Granted I'm like the furthest thing from a scholar on Islam and I don't even have a Masjid to go to (the closest Shia masjid is 100 miles north of here) so I don't really know a whole lot, but I know that any sort of innovation is supposed to be wrong and this is my big problem with so-called "progressive Islam".
    1 point
  24. Interesting that you mention him because I believe that Dawkins and the "New Atheist" movement have been a disaster for American society. We're more Godless now than we were when I was a kid directly because of their efforts to undermine and destroy Christianity and for what reason? To promote "tolerance" of alternative lifestyles and things that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) clearly forbids or just because Dawkins and his ilk have a passionate hatred for religious people?
    1 point
  25. The reward is not being immoral. That's why you wait until marriage to engage in certain activities. Some things you do because it's the right way for a Muslim to behave and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) commands it, and obeying that command is the reward in and of itself. You aren't necessarily rewarded for doing the right thing.
    1 point
  26. Well the statement "Black lives matter" is not the thing that I disagree with. I agree with the statement that black lives DO matter and generally believe that black people are treated unfairly in America because of racial profiling, systemic incarceration of young black males for victimless crimes, and institutional racism. HOWEVER-- I have done the research into what BLM the organization is about, and I do not like it. It is a Maoist movement based in critical race theory which teaches that there is something "fundamentally oppressive and bourgeois" about having white skin, and it seeks to push for so-called "socialist" revolution in the USA and make Whites second-class citizens in the country that their ancestors built (I say their rather than mine because my family was not here until 1922 from Ukraine). Because it is a Maoist movement, it is also fundamentally atheist at it's core and thus pushes against religion, most specifically Christianity which used to be the majority religion in the US because it equates Christianity with traditionalism and all Maoists seek to destroy tradition so that they can set The Party up as the final authority on all questions rather than Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) being the final authority. So as a Muslim, I support the statement "black lives matter" but do not support the organization BLM due to their aggressively secularist and socialist/atheist goals because I know that eventually, they will come to infiltrate and wreck Islam with bid'ah relating to alternative lifestyles, feminism, destruction of the nuclear family (one of their stated goals), so on and so forth.
    1 point
  27. I think that aggressive secularism has destroyed America and that people of faith in America let it happen by buying into the idea of "tolerance" in the 1990s which of course, did not stop at mere "tolerance" (Tolerate: to put up with begrudgingly) and of course by the 2010s, became "acceptance" which was not good enough either and which is why "celebration" is being pushed now when it comes to things that would not have been talked about in polite company when I was a child (homosexuality, promiscuity, transexuality, and any other perversion that one can imagine). This is because Christianity has been fundamentally defeated in America and the West because Christians bought into the idea of "tolerance" of alternative lifestyles rather than condemning them the way that they used to. The homosexual agenda was pushed throughout the 1990s and 2000s in media and with the help of the "New Atheist Movement" like Richard Dawkins, et al. Religion has all but been forced out of American public life. People don't go to church anymore and the open sewer that is American popular culture reflects it. I'm hoping that as more Muslims emigrate to America, that traditional Islamic values will at least put up a fight against the continued decadence and depravity of American media and popular culture, because I will admit: I was one of the ones who was scoffing and laughing at people like Jerry Falwell when they said that normalization of homosexuality was a "slippery slope" that would eventually lead to normalization of worse things... and now there is a movement to normalize "minor-attracted persons" and sex with children in American society because I've seen it on Twitter and FB when I still used them. My sister gets into arguments with people about men going into women's bathrooms and competing against women in sports by saying that they "identify as a woman" all the time and I told her that she needs to be careful because she lives in Canada where saying such things is considered to be "hate speech"
    1 point
  28. Allahamdullilah good post bro. Thats a little bit similar to me. I had both Sunni and Shia family. My early education was Sunni, and as a known "shia" my beliefs were attacked at the Sunni mosque. Thankfully I was then put into a Shia madressa where I learnt to defend myself against Sunni and understand my beliefs more.
    1 point
  29. notme

    sayyid-

    It means you are a descendant of The Prophet (عليه السلام).
    1 point
  30. You want your blood sugar levels to skyrocket ?
    1 point
  31. Hameedeh

    Suicidal thoughts

    If you want to discuss a punishment according to Islamic law, please search for a topic in General Islamic Discussion or in Jurisprudence. This topic is in Social/Family/Personal. The OP is asking for our help. Replies should be encouraging, not harsh or insulting. Some inappropriate replies were removed.
    1 point
  32. Dearest Abdul-Hadi, I would never take someone having reservations as "dogging on" a text. The canon of the Bible (depending on whose point of view you're looking at) seems to be under constant revision. That said, the earliest clear picture of core canon seems to emerge with the Septuagint - a Greek translation of the Hebrew text created by the Jewish community sometime between 300-200 BCE. The first century Jewish historian Josephus also testifies to a core canon, who wrote: For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain all the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death… the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. Other Israelite groups stemming from the earliest schisms have bodies of literature that are largely similar to the texts of the Jewish canon. The Samaritans, for example, have a Torah that is largely similar to Masoretic text. The Beta Israel of Ethiopia have Torah and several other prophetic works (along with many books of their own). In addition, the earliest fragments of the Tanakh that we have (such as from the Dead Sea Scrolls) largely line up with the modern text (although, where they don't, it's actually pretty interesting). None of this is to say that you shouldn't have reservations about the Bible. However, rather than basing your concerns on canonization of texts and possible scribal errors (which are relatively minor), I'd suggest that you look to the incoherence of the text itself. If one knows Hebrew well, Torah clearly appears as a compiled, composite text with numerous problems of internal coherence. To give you an example, I'd point you right to the creation narrative itself - or rather to the two separate creation stories. In the first (Genesis 1:1-2:2), Elohim (the name used for God in this story) creates the world by giving order and shape to a dynamic chaos, in a deliberate stage-by-stage (or "day-by-day") process. On each of the six days of Creation, He creates increasing complexity. The day before lays the foundation for the day to come. God takes creation from an immense deep water (the chaos of tohu v'vohu) and into it introduces space and time. From the waters, He brings forth land, then vegetation, then fish, birds, and animals. Only then does Elohim create humanity (both male and female) in the divine image, to rule over the Creation. On the seventh day, He refrains from giving forth new life, setting the world in motion and allowing it to unfold. And at each step of the way, God calls His creation good. In contrast, the second story of Creation (Genesis 2:3-3:24) is a single day operation and is almost an exact opposite of the first narrative. At the beginning the world is described as a barren, dry stasis. Into this ugly empty world, Y-H-W-H (the name for God in this narrative) creates only Adam. Then God realizes that Adam needs a place to be and a purpose, so then God creates the Garden. As an afterthought, He looks at Adam and basically says,"Oh wait... it's not good for the man to be by himself. I should really create more beings." Only after that does God create the animals. He realizes,"Huh. What about that? Animals aren't good enough to keep the man company. I'll have to get creative." So then He draws Eve out of Adam's body. And then the story ends on a sour note with Adam and Eve tasting the fruit of the tree and being kicked out of the garden. In this story, in the one day creation, God creates Adam and then everything else is almost an afterthought. In the first story, Humanity is created as a vicegerent to care for Creation. In the second story, the world is created to fulfill Adam's selfish needs. These are radically different stories and are completely incoherent when thrown together. Whoever laced them together considered each source to be authoritative and inspired (and so kept them intact without attempting to smooth them over and have them make sense). This isn't mere conjecture, by the way. This notion is rooted in Jewish tradition. The sages of the Talmud preserve a tradition from Ezra the scribe where he discusses how he "might have put passages in incorrect places" and is waiting for confirmation of his edition of the Torah from Elijah the Prophet. Accordingly, Ezra put dots above the passages of whose placement left him feeling uncertain. In other words, Ezra tells us that he wove the text together, putting passages from various sources in particular locations. In one place, Numbers 21:14-15, the Torah text itself quotes its post-Sinai source (The Book of the Wars of the Lord). People can argue about how the history of canonization unfolded, but the text of Torah itself reveals itself to be redacted from earlier sources (some of which I have no doubt were revealed - and so the text receives nothing but respect from me) which in many places seriously conflict. wa Allahu 'alam.
    1 point
  33. Never abandon the recitation brother. Keep doing it every day till your last breath. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) grant us towfeeq to recite the Quran with its due rights (حق تلاوته) and count us among those who are holding fast to thaqalayn.
    1 point
  34. Akhwayn

    Princes of Baqi

    Oh the Princes of Baqi Your graves are dusty and alone Oh the Princes of Baqi Laying broken under the sun Oh the princes of Baqi Up to this very day and year Oh the princes of Baqi After death you they still fear Oh the princes of Baqi Where you are buried we agree Oh the princes of Baqi At least those pictures we can see Where is the Sayyida Nabi's daughter, where is she buried Hasnain's mother, where is she buried No one knows! Would love to hear your feedback, criticisms, suggestions. Jazakallah
    1 point
  35. I believe that they are trying to weaken men further so there are no uprisings. They blame the “patriarchy” for being against lgbtq. They want us to submit to their rule without question. It’s why toxic masculinity is trending as a weapon against men. It’s brilliant I must say but obviously I am opposed to it.
    1 point
  36. Children should just be children. Sexualizing them is probably damaging and certainly unnecessary. I'm all for human rights and "live and let live" but little kids don't need to be thinking about sexuality and gender. This was on the YouTube channel though, not the TV channel. Everyone knows you can't let kids watch YouTube unless you prescreen each video.
    1 point
  37. Some atheists would then just say that time started with the Big Bang at t=0 and so the question of what happened “before” it is redundant.
    1 point
  38. Akhwayn

    Omnipotence Paradox

    This is a 'gotcha' type question such as being asked, 'Yes or no, do you still beat your wife?'. The question is based on a false pretense to start with. I will be releasing a series of short talks on my youtube page explaining such questions in an easy to understand way in the next few weeks. Take a look and subscribe inshallah :-)
    1 point
  39. 1 point
  40. MashaAllah great work brother. Always great to read the wisdom you share. Allah bless you
    1 point
  41. Bismehe Ta3ala, Assalam Alikum Brother I hope you are well and in good health. If I knew my friend was a lesbian, I wouldn't befriend her. That's not homophobic, that's protecting my family and myself from corruption. Do you think it is a good idea to have him hang around with you? I wouldn't mind if there is a possibility if you do tableegh and he becomes ex gay. But, if you know he is set on his ways, why are you friends with him? M3 Salamah, FE AMIN ALLAH
    1 point
  42. I would feel more for a conservative muslim (conservative not neo-con) than the liberals and progressives. A lot of muslims, just like non muslims fall for the liberal agenda because they think the liberals/progressives care about the common folk. Throughout history they have been power hungry just repeating slogans that get them power. Muslims should have no business in supporting pro choice, LGBTQ and other absurd views that are destroying society. I declined to get involved with Muslim women with those views that wanted to settle down with me. It annoys me just like the muslims that take up the banner of marxism which is essentially the same end.
    1 point
  43. It's quite incredible how in your eyes anyone who doesn't subscribe to the modern day muslim gangster culture in urban european cities is a 'progressive muslim who probably drinks and doesn't pray.' Dealing drugs, grooming underage girls, selling illegal firearms are not permitted in islam. Maybe the muslimeen should adhere to the rules of their religion instead of blaming their host countries (whose social benefits they seem to consider as halal, but everything else haram) for their state of negligence (ghaflah)
    1 point
  44. Cool

    12 Caliphs

    Who are those 12 Calips? Don't you understand simple questions? Or is it the matter that you have no answer? I have asked about 12 Caliphs. Where are the rest of 2 Imams by the way? Humm, lets take some complete references from Sahih Mislim only at the moment: 1) It has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: The Caliphate will remain among the Quraish even if only two persons are left (on the earth), وَحَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ يُونُسَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَاصِمُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ لاَ يَزَالُ هَذَا الأَمْرُ فِي قُرَيْشٍ مَا بَقِيَ مِنَ النَّاسِ اثْنَانِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ Reference : Sahih Muslim 1820 In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 4 2) It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I joined the company of the Prophet (ﷺ) with my father and I heard him say: This Caliphate will not end until there have been twelve Caliphs among them. The narrator said: Then he (the Holy Prophet) said something that I could not follow. I said to my father: What did he say? He said: He has said: All of them will be from the Quraish. حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ حُصَيْنٍ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ سَمُرَةَ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ح وَحَدَّثَنَا رِفَاعَةُ بْنُ الْهَيْثَمِ الْوَاسِطِيُّ، - وَاللَّفْظُ لَهُ - حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدٌ، - يَعْنِي ابْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الطَّحَّانَ - عَنْ حُصَيْنٍ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ سَمُرَةَ، قَالَ دَخَلْتُ مَعَ أَبِي عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ ‏"‏ إِنَّ هَذَا الأَمْرَ لاَ يَنْقَضِي حَتَّى يَمْضِيَ فِيهِمُ اثْنَا عَشَرَ خَلِيفَةً ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ ثُمَّ تَكَلَّمَ بِكَلاَمٍ خَفِيَ عَلَىَّ - قَالَ - فَقُلْتُ لأَبِي مَا قَالَ قَالَ ‏"‏ كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ Reference : Sahih Muslim 1821 a In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 5 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4477 3) It has been reported on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted (well) as long as they are governed by twelve men. Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said words which were obscure to me. I asked my father: What did the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say? He said: All of the (twelve men) will be from the Quraish. حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي عُمَرَ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ سَمُرَةَ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏"‏ لاَ يَزَالُ أَمْرُ النَّاسِ مَاضِيًا مَا وَلِيَهُمُ اثْنَا عَشَرَ رَجُلاً ‏"‏ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ تَكَلَّمَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِكَلِمَةٍ خَفِيَتْ عَلَىَّ فَسَأَلْتُ أَبِي مَاذَا قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ ‏"‏ كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ Reference : Sahih Muslim 1821 b In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 6 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4478 4) It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: Islam will continue to be triumphant until there have been twelve Caliphs. Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said something which I could not understand. I asked my father: What did he say? He said: He has said that all of them (twelve Caliphs) will be from the Quraish. حَدَّثَنَا هَدَّابُ بْنُ خَالِدٍ الأَزْدِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ سِمَاكِ بْنِ حَرْبٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ جَابِرَ بْنَ سَمُرَةَ، يَقُولُ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏"‏ لاَ يَزَالُ الإِسْلاَمُ عَزِيزًا إِلَى اثْنَىْ عَشَرَ خَلِيفَةً ‏"‏ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ قَالَ كَلِمَةً لَمْ أَفْهَمْهَا فَقُلْتُ لأَبِي مَا قَالَ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ Reference : Sahih Muslim 1821 d In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 8 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4480 5) It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: order will continue to be dominant until there have been twelve Caliphs. The narrator says: Then he said something which I could not understand, and I said to my father: What did he say? My father told me that he said that all of them (Caliphs) would be from the Quraish. حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنْ دَاوُدَ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، عَنْ جَابِرِ، بْنِ سَمُرَةَ قَالَ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ لاَ يَزَالُ هَذَا الأَمْرُ عَزِيزًا إِلَى اثْنَىْ عَشَرَ خَلِيفَةً ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ ثُمَّ تَكَلَّمَ بِشَىْءٍ لَمْ أَفْهَمْهُ فَقُلْتُ لأَبِي مَا قَالَ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ Reference : Sahih Muslim 1821 e In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 9 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4481 6) It has been reported on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I went with my father to the Messenger of Allah (may peeace be upon him) and I heard him say: This religion would continue to remain powerful and dominant until there have been twelve Caliphs. Then he added something which I couldn't catch on account of the noise of the people. I asked my father: What did he say? My father said: He has said that all of them will be from the Quraish. حَدَّثَنَا نَصْرُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الْجَهْضَمِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ زُرَيْعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عَوْنٍ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عُثْمَانَ النَّوْفَلِيُّ، - وَاللَّفْظُ لَهُ - حَدَّثَنَا أَزْهَرُ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عَوْنٍ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ سَمُرَةَ، قَالَ انْطَلَقْتُ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَمَعِي أَبِي فَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ ‏"‏ لاَ يَزَالُ هَذَا الدِّينُ عَزِيزًا مَنِيعًا إِلَى اثْنَىْ عَشَرَ خَلِيفَةً ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ كَلِمَةً صَمَّنِيهَا النَّاسُ فَقُلْتُ لأَبِي مَا قَالَ قَالَ ‏"‏ كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ Reference : Sahih Muslim 1821 f In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 10 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4482 7) It has been narrated on the authority of Amir b. Sa'd b. Abu Waqqas who said: I wrote (a letter) to Jabir b. Samura and sent it to him through my servant Nafi', asking him to inform me of something he had heard from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He wrote to me (in reply): I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say on Friday evening, the day on which al-Aslami was stoned to death (for committing adultery): The Islamic religion will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled over by twelve Caliphs, all of them being from the Quraish. also heard him say: A small force of the Muslims will capture the white palace, the police of the Persian Emperor or his descendants. I also heard him say: Before the Day of Judgment there will appear (a number of) impostors. You are to guard against them. I also heard him say: When God grants wealth to any one of you, he should first spend it on himself and his family (and then give it in charity to the poor). I heard him (also) say: I will be your forerunner at the Cistern (expecting your arrival). حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، وَأَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا حَاتِمٌ، - وَهُوَ ابْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ - عَنِ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ مِسْمَارٍ، عَنْ عَامِرِ بْنِ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ، قَالَ كَتَبْتُ إِلَى جَابِرِ بْنِ سَمُرَةَ مَعَ غُلاَمِي نَافِعٍ أَنْ أَخْبِرْنِي بِشَىْءٍ، سَمِعْتَهُ مِنْ، رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ فَكَتَبَ إِلَىَّ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمَ جُمُعَةٍ عَشِيَّةَ رُجِمَ الأَسْلَمِيُّ يَقُولُ ‏"‏ لاَ يَزَالُ الدِّينُ قَائِمًا حَتَّى تَقُومَ السَّاعَةُ أَوْ يَكُونَ عَلَيْكُمُ اثْنَا عَشَرَ خَلِيفَةً كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ ‏"‏ عُصَيْبَةٌ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَفْتَتِحُونَ الْبَيْتَ الأَبْيَضَ بَيْتَ كِسْرَى أَوْ آلِ كِسْرَى ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ ‏"‏ إِنَّ بَيْنَ يَدَىِ السَّاعَةِ كَذَّابِينَ فَاحْذَرُوهُمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ ‏"‏ إِذَا أَعْطَى اللَّهُ أَحَدَكُمْ خَيْرًا فَلْيَبْدَأْ بِنَفْسِهِ وَأَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ ‏"‏ أَنَا الْفَرَطُ عَلَى الْحَوْضِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ Reference : Sahih Muslim 1822 a In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 11 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4483 Next time you will get complete references from Bukhari as well as from your other books. So question here again with reference to the 1st hadith: Where is the caliph? (The Caliphate will remain among the Quraish even if only two persons are left (on the earth),) Question with reference to rest of the ahadith: Who are these 12 Caliphs?
    1 point
  45. Don't try to shame people who want to attend counseling or therapy or take medications. You didn't understand what I meant by "cure". If you have thoughts of suicide, for example, it is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain and you need medication. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
    1 point
  46. Alhamdulilah is different from stating a different sentence and thinking differently. Everyone needs therapy at some point in their life because people are not professionals to understand the psychological and cognitive damanges done when people go through trauma of any kind. You shouldn't be even giving this harmful advice because having spiritual connection is different from therapy. OP: many times, people who know you well don't know how to hear you out or give you advice. Therapists, wether non-Muslim or Muslim, are trained and understand the cognitive complexities better than anybody else. Regular people will just tell you to forgive your mom and accept her, not understanding the impact she's had on you.
    1 point
  47. Not true at all. The best counselors, who understood my disorder and thought process, were non Muslim. They do not try to take you further from Islam - they give you a different perspective and how to rewire your negativistic ways. EX: I hate my life. Into: Showing gratitude for the journey you are on and knowing you're making small changes for the better. "Although I'm not where I would like to be, life is beautiful." Therapists are not to give you religious advice. You want religious advice, see a sheikh. OP: attend therapy - you won't regret it.
    1 point
  48. Yoel

    Talmud And Zionism

    Salaam everyone, After a somewhat disturbing discussion on another thread, one of the ShiaChatters gave me this idea to start a Talmud class and to explain how the Zionists twist Judaism. I studied in traditional anti-Zionist rabbinical institutions, so I am well familiar with this topic and decided to give it a go. First, back to the aforementioned discussion. Some Christian person here on ShiaChat, evidently a Protestant of some kind, expressed the following combination of highly disturbing beliefs: 1) That “pharisaic” Judaism and its central text, Talmud, are “satanic”; 2) That Islam is similar to Talmudic Judaism and therefore, by extension, is also “satanic”. 3) That the entire world must support the state of “Israel” and that Palestinians are bad, because they don't support it. Interestingly enough, these beliefs represent in a distilled form the original core idea of Zionism and demonstrate its origins very well. In colonial times, various British and American Protestant theologians of the early 19th century started spreading the idea of the “restoration of the Jews”. Based on their peculiar interpretation of the Christian Bible, they came to believe that if the Jews will gather in Palestine and establish there their own state, such event would trigger the Second Coming of Christ. Apparently, this idea originated from the Catholic Jesuit circles, but found a solid ground among the Anglo-Saxon Protestants, some of whom came to believe to another weird idea that they are the descendents of the original Hebrew tribes and therefore have the right to control Palestine. This website has a large collection of historical articles about these developments within Protestant groups. Contrary to Judaism, these people viewed Jews as a race and not a religion. The colonial West in the 18th and 19th centuries was in general obsessed with racial and nationalist theories. The Church condemned the Jewish Talmud since the Middle Ages, primarily because it sharply criticizes the Christian Trinity doctrine and because is written is a style that most Christian couldn't comprehend. After the series of liberal revolutions, more and more assimilated Jews became emancipated in the Western society, but due to the spread of nationalism, new anti-Jewish currents emerged in the West. In contrast to traditional anti-Judaism of the Church, these new currents were based on racial mythologies. Some assimilated Jews picked up the “brilliant” solution that early Christian Zionists offered for them: to establish their own state, based on the “enlightened” Western values of secular nationalism and colonial attitudes to non-Western people. Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, wanted originally to convert all Jews to Christianity, but later modified his views and supported “plain” secularization. Here comes a major paradox: those British and American Christians who supported this idea really wanted the Jews (and everyone in the world) to become Christians, but wished them to move to Palestine, where they could serve as allies of the colonial West. They didn't want anything “Talmudic”; they just wanted to create another “civilized” Western colonial state like South Africa. Traditional Talmudic Jews, on their hand, were totally opposed to Zionism, because the Talmud explicitly forbids this idea of gathering in Palestine and establishing their own state. This idea contradicts the basic Jewish belief that only the true Redeemer sent from God can gather them in a miraculous way and even that is not universally accepted. According to some more esoteric Jewish teachings, the future messianic Redemption of universal harmony will transcend state politics altogether. This is the real Zionist “conspiracy”: the entire Zionist movement started as a result of cooperation between Anglo-Saxon Protestants and anti-traditional assimilated Jewish nationalists. The Talmud as such plays no role in classical Zionism, except that some isolated concepts from it were adopted as secularized slogans, often in a completely twisted fashion. 90% of Jewish Zionists, let alone the Christian ones, are unable to read the Talmud at all. At best, they may consider it an important historical piece of Jewish literature. Typical high-rank supporters of the Zionist state like bankers and politicians are usually totally secular and have no serious Jewish education. As long as they thinks and acts like their right-wing Protestant Christian fellow ruthless businessmen, they are “cool”. If they would act "Talmudic", they wouldn't fit into the club. Since the Zionists captured and twisted the minds of many Jews, new heretical varieties of Judaism emerged from this confusion. Such notorious fascists as Baruch Goldstein or Meir Kahane undoubtedly considered themselves followers of the Talmud. We hear now chief rabbis and famous religious figures supporting Zionism and spreading hatred against the Palestinians and Muslims. How did this happen? Simple enough and in some ways quite similar to Wahhabi currents in Islam. The Talmudic corpus and related literature is a very large and complicated collection of texts, which may be compared to the Muslim Hadith collections. The Quran (5:32) contains an explicit quote from the Talmud and affirms the basic traditional Jewish belief that the Talmud contains supplemental parts of Moses' prophecy, which has been transmitted through oral narration. The above verse is found only in the Talmudic literature and not anywhere in the Bible. A number of other verses in Quran also have parallels in the Talmud and not found in the Scripture. Besides orally transmitted information from the prophets, the Talmud contains many legal decisions that the Talmudic sages derived using certain logical rules, which were also transmitted from Moses. It also contains historical rabbinical decrees, esoteric interpretations of the Scripture, theological and ethical discussions, various folk legends and even ancient medicinal remedies. Those Christians who tried to study the Talmud and came to hate it didn't get what it is all about. The Talmudic literature is a extremely large and diverse collection of discussions about all sorts of things, recorded during many centuries mostly in Persia and written in a very Persian multilayer story-inside-story style. The largest and most reliable collection is called “Bavli”, which means the Babylonian or Iranian Talmud. It's written mostly in Sassanian dialects of Aramaic, not in Hebrew. Practical law or advices comprise only a fraction of the Talmud and are a matter of debates and analysis. Many narrations and interpretations are rejected by the Talmudic text itself, but were still considered worth recording or allowing an esoteric interpretation. In some cases, parallel narrations allow to decide, which variant is more reliable in practice. A number of schools within Judaism, somewhat like Islamic madhhabs, derive various laws from the Talmud by somewhat different rules. One school considers a certain narrator or some text more practically reliable than another etc. No one in traditional Judaism, since the Middle Ages, derives any law directly from the Talmud without consulting first classic commentators and existing practical legal literature. Proper understanding of the Talmud requires years of systematic study and reading lots of commentaries. Maybe, this link to another Shiachat thread could help the readers to understand where most of these old Christian accusations come from. Anti-Muslim writers use the Ahadith in the same exact fashion, taking things out of context or by amplifying weak rejected narrations. Many Talmudic discussions are related to similar theoretical issues. Capital punishment was abolished in Judaism about 2000 years ago, because no one is considered righteous enough to serve as a judge or witness for such serious cases. Even when capital punishment existed, it was very rarely practiced by the line of tradition that became what's known today as rabbinical Judaism. Only very directly committed offenses, with at least two righteous male witnesses and a proper warning, could lead to death penalty. In many cases, the Talmud discusses, whether some weird and disgusting actions could be punished, in theory, by a human court, or whether one who did them may perform certain religious rituals. Such discussions also help to understand the metaphysical, philosophical and esoteric underpinnings of various laws. One classic example that Christians constantly use against the Talmud is that a Jew who kills a non-Jew is exempt from death penalty. First of all, some commentators explain that it only applies to people who worship idols and have no morality, and not to Christians and Muslims. Murder of a Jew or non-Jew is a terrible sin, whether punishable by human means or not. Second, the Talmud lists many other situations when a murderer is exempt from penalty. The general line in the Talmud is to find all possible ways and arguments to avoid death penalty. A court who would kill even one person in 70 years would be considered a “bloody court” and some sages provided a logic that, in Islamic terms, avoids “hudud” altogether. Another classic example Christians use against the Talmud that it allegedly teaches that sex with a girl below 3 years is permitted. Absolutely not! What it says that if such undoubtedly disgusting act happened, the girl would still be considered a virgin and her honor would not be blemished. The main and most famous complaint against the Talmud is its alleged teachings of Jewish supremacy. The Talmud never considers non-Jews “subhuman”. That's simply a fabrication. But it does contain pretty harsh statements about idol worshipers and teachings about the Jews' being a people who receive special and unique blessings from God, if they carefully follow Judaism. One main source of controversy and potential misunderstanding is that the Talmudic texts sometimes conflate the terms "goy" (non-Jew) and "akum" (abbreviation of "Star worshippers"), because most non-Jews, when the Talmud was written, were "by default" idol worshippers of various kinds. Careful analysis of parallel narrations shows that all this negative stuff is about idolaters. The Talmud praises non-Jewish monotheists, including some Persian kings and other people. The basic practical Talmudic structure of categories of believers/unbelievers, as their are interpreted in Judaism, goes as follows: Good people: Torah-observant Jews, who receive special blessings for following Moses' prophecy. A convert to Judaism is a Jew. According to traditional Judaism, it doesn't matter, whether Jews today are descendents of the ancient Hebrews or Khazars or Romans. Righteous non-Jews, who follow the prophecy of Noah and receive special blessings. Muslims are usually included in this category or in a somewhat different respected category of people. Trinitarian Christians are included by many opinions, but it's a matter of debate. Some schools of thought completely equate Muslims and Christians with the Jews on social and spiritual level. More liberal rabbinical authorities include all ethical people into this category, including polytheists and atheists, using basic ethics as the main criterion of righteousness. I personally agree with this opinion. It's a duty for Jews to support, love, help, treat well, respect all good people. Bad people: Classic idolaters of Antiquity. In times of peace, Jews must treat them well and with hospitality, deal with them fairly, help their poor, but the basic attitude is to stay away from them, not to get too friendly and not to help them too much. Ex-Jewish outright heretics and non-believers. The worst category in the Talmud. No love, no good treatment here. According to some hardcore opinions, they may be killed even without a court decree. To secular Jewish readers: No, neither me nor most Orthodox Jews today accept this attitude. People get confused and come up with all sorts of ideas. Some atheist definitions of nature or philosophical ground of being are more theologically sound than some other people's weird ideas about God, who may better decide, who is a heretic and who is not. The “gray zone”: Many classic sources of rabbinical law say that the Talmud condemns only the seven ancient Canaanite tribes who practiced human sacrifices or other ancient nations like the Romans who would come to a circus to entertain themselves watching animals tearing people apart or forcing slaves to fight each other to death. So, even someone would erect today a statue, proclaim it as a deity and bow to it, there is still room to disregard this behavior, love and respect such a person. Or, esoterically, one may say that everything is a reflection of God's names and this person in his heart really worships God. On the other hand, because the status of Trinitarian Christianity is a matter a debate in Judaism and because the Church systematically persecuted, killed, tortured and humiliated the Jews until recent times, there are many Orthodox Jews who avoid having close friendship with Christians and have negative opinions of their religion. For Christian readers: No, I don't agree with this attitude and many Orthodox Jews don't. But there is enough room for opposite opinions here. More inclusively minded Orthodox Jews tend to value ethical bevahior over religious beliefs, while more hardcore Orthodox tend to regard people as heretics and idolaters for any slight deviation. In any case, traditional Judaism requires to treat everyone nicely and fairly. Traditionally, Islam was always considered the closest religion to Judaism. Christianity, on the other hand, was often viewed negatively. Very many classic commentaries to the Torah and Talmud were written in Muslim countries, often originally in Arabic. Most classical schools of rabbinical law were established in Muslim countries. The Zionists turned the Jewish history upside down. They discarded the long history of Jewish-Islamic cultural synthesis and invented the myth of “Judeo-Christian” civilization. Classical Judaism with its Talmud, which explicitly forbids the Jews to create a state in Palestine and which was written in a “politically incorrect” region (Iraq and Iran), has no place in classical secular Zionism. But here comes a surprising twist. After the Nazi genocide of millions of European Jews, the Zionist movement captured the attention of most Jews who were well familiar with the long history of traditional Christian anti-Jewish hatred. But the Zionist's best allies and the originators of their ideology were some Protestant sects who don't exactly like Judaism. So the Zionists projected the history of Christian anti-Jewish persecution on the Muslims. To be fair, persecutions did happen under various Muslim rulers, but they were not nearly as common as in the Christian world and they were actions of certain corrupt individuals and not an integral doctrine of religion. The Jews perfectly understood that, but the Zionists seized the moment after the Nazi genocide and managed to confuse many people. Another factor that helped this confusion was that the governments in some Muslim countries made the conditions of the local Jewish communities unbearable after the Zionist state was established and forced them to leave the Arab countries. This was a very bad move, which only popularized Zionism and helped to created this new myth of anti-Jewish Muslim hatred. The final factor is the Salafi/Wahhabi type of Muslims who basically copied the old Christian hatred against the Jews. So, two very anti-traditional and somewhat similar movements, both strangely connected to Anglo-Saxon Protestantism in their ideology - Wahhabism and Zionist pseudo-religion - started fighting each other and polluting the world with their ideas. As a result of all that, new forms of “religious” Zionists emerged. All negativity against the idolaters and oppressive types of Christians that one can find throughout the history of Judaism was redirected in a highly amplified and concentrated form to the Muslims. The fact that this negativity has to do with theology (idols and Trinity) was ignored. On the contrary, Muslims became somehow equated in this Zionist twisted version of Judaism with the worst kind of idolaters, who should be normally still treated nicely and without trying to dominate them. But here is a catch: one may kill “even the best of idolaters”, according to the Talmud, during a military combat. The “religious” Zionists declared that their state is in constant war with the Muslims who want to kill all Jews. Such twisted logic basically gives a license to kill. The same exact logic is used by Wahhabis who removed the concept of “Ahl Al-Kitab” from their version of Islam and consider everyone at permanent war with Muslims. There is a good book written by Yakov Rabkin, A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, which explains how traditional Judaism and Zionism are totally incompatible. The author is an Orthodox Jew and a history professor. I strongly don't recommend books written by anti-religious authors (Israel Shahak) or fanatical right-wing Christians (David Duke, Israel Shamir), because such authors usually have no serious knowledge of Judaism and often promote hatred against both Jews and Muslims under a mask of “anti-Zionism”. I hope this rough introduction is clear enough. If people here will find these topics interesting, we could go into more detailed discussions. There also also esoteric trends in Judaism, kind of similar to Bektashis or Alawites, who tend to emphasize things like personal devotion and non-literal interpretations over fixed rules. My main interest on this forum is not battling Zionism. I am trying to apply Henry Corbin's methodology to Jewish philosophy and esoterica, and I find studies of Hadith and Irfan in comparison to Talmud and Kabbalah very refreshing and important.
    1 point
  49. Yoel

    Talmud And Zionism

    Yeah, sure. I grew up in the USSR. The Soviet government had anti-religious attitudes, but they officialy published a Yiddish magazine, secular Jewish books etc. People prayed in synagogues in Moscow, right in the middle of the capital. So, please, don't equate Hitler with my country. :)
    1 point
  50. Yoel

    Talmud And Zionism

    The oldest version of this Talmudic quote is exactly like the Quranic verse. It doesn't mention Jews in particular. The Yerushalmi Talmud, the Midrashim and other parallel transmissions of this quote are exactly like the Quran. It could be that the version in the Bavli (Sanhedrin 37a) is corrupted or makes a difference between Jews and immoral non-believers. In Islamic terms, this is an example of a "weak Hadith". This Michael Hofman is a typical Christian missionary who picks up wrong and twisted interpretations... The same tract of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59a) says that a non-Jew who studies the Torah of Moses is like the High Priest in the Jerusalem Temple. Numerous commentators, e.g. Menachem Meiri or Nachman of Breslov, explain that the souls of ethical non-Jews are completely equal to Jews and are also microcosms (entire worlds).
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...