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

inferno

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    286
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

inferno last won the day on March 20 2013

inferno had the most liked content!

About inferno

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Islam; Shia

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,100 profile views
  1. He did prove the authenticity of the rest of the narrations. Are you a selective reader? He clearly proves that grand scholars such as Majlisi authenticated such narrations found in Shia books. Rather, the onus is on you to find a narration that interprets the setting of the sun in murky water as something illusory or allegorical, in sync with established modern science. Systematic, Make a thread about this issue. I find it worthy to be looked into further. It's rather disconcerting.
  2. ^ Ah, this is why I love you, Marbs. You're a cultured, autodidact, and I draw inspiration from your spirit and drive. Hopefully, that didn't sound too cringe worthy. :rolleyes: Care to flesh out some details? Like, what the enterprise is and how you run it? Or is that private?
  3. No offence, but it's a shame that Rizvi has the status of a scholar. There are some persons on this forum that are more knowledgeable than him, with much better insight.
  4. Yes, I really tried. I'll post a video / audio on Shiachat next time I confront him. I'll criticize his lecture diplomatically. It's a positive thing, actually. It will instil a sense of free thinking within the community.
  5. Er.. Yeah, that's not envy. That's sociopathic. Or psycho.
  6. ShiaChat rebukes this guy. You can see past threads for confirmation. People on the forum are becoming increasingly disillusioned by him. I don't know what he'll be lecturing on that day, but it won't be anything special. He'll just rehash the same, sometimes false, material he's been using for ages; his gift of the gab lends him the prestige. I really need to confront him one of these days. I tried to last year, but there were too many paps around him.
  7. You mindlessly repeat yourself. Maybe this will work, but I doubt it'll register in your head. 2.68 "They said, "Call upon your Lord for us that He may make plain to us what it is!" He (Moses) said, "He says, 'Verily, it is a cow neither too old nor too young, but (it is) between the two conditions', so do what you are commanded." Well, what do we have here? The people of Moses ask him to pray to their Lord to help them discern the type of cow to look for. Clearly, your absurd argument has been refuted. Moses was alive and could hear the request. Moses is now dead. We cannot pray to him because he is not all seeing and all hearing like Allah. The same applies to the Imams.
  8. Ugh. You're so thick. I won't even grace this with a response. Not even worth it. You're just proving to everyone your level of intelligence. The Imams are not all seeing, all hearing.
  9. I've already addressed this argument in the post you responded to. Your mum and dad are human beings. A human being interacts with other human beings. There's no comparison whatsoever. The argument doesn't even make coherent sense. I can't believe I'm having to explain this.
  10. You're simply not getting it, mate. It has everything to do with it. Calling the Imams from any place, any time, strongly implies that they share the same divine ability as Allah to receive every call simultaneously. The Imams were human beings and it's not an ability that they had when they were alive; and even if they are still alive in the spiritual realms they are still limited. To have full cognisance over all things renders one a deity. The only argument you could possibly make is that Imams can hear your greetings at their gravesite. You claim that calling on Allah through Imam Ali will not make a difference as to asking Him directly. Question: so, why not call Allah directly if it makes no difference? Are you actually telling me that the efficacy of the Du'a directly toward Allah is deficient as opposed to going through an Imam.. Really? Is the Imam more merciful, more receptive than the One who created him? Are you going to pertinently respond to my points without the tangents and ad hominem? We'll see. Wow. The same rank sophistry is recycled over and over. Subhanallah. I'll make it simple. Here's the difference. The person I ask to make a Du'a on my behalf is alive, facing me, and can hear me. I don't ask my dead relatives to make a Du'a for me. This is NOT hard to understand. Only someone totally effaced in blind dogma can come up with such absurd arguments. It takes a truly liberated mind to see things for what they're worth.
  11. Ali b. Ibrahim, from his father (Ibrahim b. Hashim), from ibn abi Umair, from abi Ayyub al Khazzaz, from Muhammad b. Muslim who said: I asked aba Ja'far regarding the man who intends to marry a woman, may he look at her? Imam replied: "Yes, he is just purchasing her for a hefty price (i.e. the dowry). Sayyiduna Talq ibn Ali (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “When a man calls his wife for sexual intimacy, she should come, even if she is (busy) in the cooking area.” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi & Sunan al-Nasa’i) al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb related from Mālik b. `Aṭiyyah from Muḥammad b. Muslim from Abū Ja`far عليه السلام. He said: A woman came to the Messenger of Allāh صلى الله عليه واله and said: "O’ Messenger of Allāh! What is the right of the husband over the wife? He said to her: She obeys him and does not disobey him, does not give anything in charity from her house except with his permission, she does not keep a voluntary fast without his permission and ""does not prevent him from herself even if she be on hunchback..."" "The second right of a husband is the right of intercourse with the wife. In this respect the wife has to be totally obedient to the husband. If she does otherwise, in the view of all the Jurists, she is Nashiza (disobedient).Such a woman cannot demand food, clothing and shelter from the husband because she is denying him the right to intercourse. The Holy Quran has strong views about this matter. There are several traditions too on the subject. The author of Wasail writes that a young girl came to the presence of the Prophet of Allah (s) and inquired, “O Prophet of Allah! I want to get married. What rights does the husband have over the wife?” The Prophet (s) said, “The first right that the husband has over the wife is that she should not act like a thief at home. She should not become rebellious. She should not pretend to do something and in reality do something else.” The girl said, “I shall take good care of this matter!” Then the Prophet (s) said, “The second right of the husband is that the wife must totally submit to his natural instinct of sexual intercourse.” The girl assented to this condition too." http://www.al-islam.org/islamicfamily-life/21.htm As you can see, In Islam, the wife should be obedient and submissive to the husband in matters of sex, barring other matters. This is nothing but ownership of her vuvla which is gained via the Mahr. This should not at all be disconcerting. At the end of the day, if a master must treat his female slave with goodness while owning her, the same applies to the husband towards the wife. The weight of evidence supporting this conception of the reason for the Mahr is copious.
  12. Ditto. Ha. Classic. Claim your perspective is de facto "obvious," that anyone who differs is "not worth your time" in order to evade any real discussion and brush it to the side. If you had an ounce of common sense, you'd understand that I have not found your understanding of Mahr anywhere in the primary sources; hence the reason I asked. You made the claim, not me. That you are unable to provide a response is admission of defeat. You have no idea what you are talking about.
  13. The wives take 1/8 of what is left after the debts and legacies are paid. the others then receive their shares of what is left. So the 2 or more daughters take together 2/3 of what remains after the wives get their share, and the parents get 1/6 each. This adds up as 2/3+2*(1/6) = 100% of what is left after debts, legacies, and wives' portions have been removed. No contradiction.
×
×
  • Create New...