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


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by colargol

  1. @Sajjad Zaidi When we die we are no more, save that which goes back to Allah S.W.T. Meaning that which goes back to Allah S.W.T. is the naffs as the verse you quote says. However this does not imply that the dead are somehow alive somewhere else, it simply says that the naffs goes back to it's Lord. We should remember that the duality of soul and body is also something alien to Islam. By duality i don't mean that the soul does not exist but i mean the concept where the soul is a cognitive being on it's own feeling touching hearing etc, enclosed inside a shell our body. When the shell dies the soul lives on in another world. Such concept was introduced to Islam through greek philosophy, which doesn't automatically make it a wrong concept, but it makes it open to questioning and investigation, especially in matters of belief. Regarding the lives of those who fall in the cause of God. And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, 2:260 And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah , "They are dead." Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not. 2:154 And those who emigrated for the cause of Allah and then were killed or died - Allah will surely provide for them a good provision. And indeed, it is Allah who is the best of providers. 22:58 compared with.. Every soul will taste death. Then to Us will you be returned.29:57 The clear verse here is the last 29:57, meaning the general rule of the Sunnan of God is that every soul will taste death. The one we have disagreement on, is the verses of the state of martyrs ie the mutashabihat verse in this case. We can understand the verses of those who have fallen in the cause of God using the clear verse Every soul shall taste death... as Imam Ali a.s. says part of it (The Quran) explains the other, meaning the part that explains are the clear verses "the other" are the verses where we disagree on a meaning. Their living could be understood that their memory their honor and glory and struggle will be remembered for generations to come until God wills, unlike most people. It is not an explanation that i support fully though Allah S.W.T. knows their state best, but such an explanation is not outside the boundaries of the Book of Allah S.W.T. and reason. It is a case of whether one understands the verse in it's literal sense or in it's metaphorical sense. I find your discussion on this, very interesting and beautiful, i don't agree though that the believers will die only once whereas those that don't, will die twice and live twice. The verse How do you deny Allah....is directed at all people. It does not address those that deny Allah S.W.T but it addresses the concept of denial of God or acceptance something that all humans reflect on. Particularly if you continue reading the verse that follow this verse, it becomes clear that it is directed at humanity. It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth...
  2. @Sajjad Zaidi. There is a problem with what people understand as death. Normally most religious people associate death with moving into another world. Many Muslims too ascribe such a meaning. However i find such a concept alien to Islam and more in line with cultural myths of the past, made to give the dying some sort of comfort. My opinion is that the Holy Quran refers to death as a state of nonexistence. When we die we are no more, save that which goes back to Allah S.W.T. "And they say, "When we are bones and crumbled particles, will we [truly] be resurrected as a new creation?" Say, "Be you stones or iron Or [any] creation of that which is great within your breasts." And they will say, "Who will restore us?" Say, "He who brought you forth the first time." Then they will nod their heads toward you and say, "When is that?" Say, "Perhaps it will be soon -"17:49-51 Similar verses to this in the Quran are plenty, and in all instances their contention that we die and are no more is not in question, it is even reinforced, but rather their lack of reason is what is questioned. Thus... "How do you deny Allah and you were dead and He gave you life? Again He will cause you to die and again bring you to life; then you shall brought back to Him." We did not exist, we where dead, and Allah S.W.T. gave us life, made us exist, and He S.W.T will cause us to die one more time, and cause us to exist a second time. Two deaths, and two lives. "They shall say: Our Lord! twice didst Thou make us subject to death, and twice hast Thou given us life, so we do confess our faults; is there then a way to get out." The third verse "Except our previous death? And we shall not be chastised" 37:59 Similar to " They will not taste death therein except the first death, and He will have protected them from the punishment of Hellfire " 44:56 The first death referred in this verse is the death of this world after we where brought into existence. The reason the verse says the "first death" has to do with the context of the verse. That is, that these verses talk about the second time humanity is brought into existence, a second life and unlike the first, we will not taste death anymore, hence the reference as the "first death". This can be inferred from another verse as well. "There is not but our first death, and we will not be resurrected. 44:35 These are the words of people who belied their existence a second time, but to us here important is the fact that they are referring to the death of this world as the "first death". And Allah S.W.T. Knows Best.
  3. Surah Tawbah or Barra'a is e Medinan chapter that came after the Opening of Macca, before and after the battle of Tabuk. It deals with the preparation of war against Roman Byzantines forces, and it's aftermath, also it deals with the attempted murder on the Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. the hypocrites, and Masjid ad-Dirar under abu amir al fasiq. The verse of jizya is an addition on the rules of war against other than the Quraysh. The muslims had encountered the Byzantines once at Mut'ah. This was the second time. The verse does not abrogate the rules of war "Fight those who fight you" it only adds to it. It means that on the event that such people attack us and on defeating such an enemy jizya is imposed on them. It is not dissimilar to modern war reparations laws. Both are punitive in nature with the exception that unlike war reparations which is a one time payment as a tax on the damage and suffering of war, jizya does not tax indiscriminately every citizen but it is selective and applicable to a portion of the society. This is because the verse does not say "Ahlu'l Kitaab" People of the Book and means the whole population but says "Utu'l Kitaab" Those to whom the Scripture has been given. Jizya is not a tax that is imposed on non muslims for no reason. It is a war tax. As such it is not imposed on others with whom we share a country and have equal rights. The Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. in Madinah before Surah Tawbah wrote a constitution, some say the first modern written constitution, that shared the responsibilities of citizenry and provided equal protection to all muslims jews. This is the reason why one can't impose jizya on citizens with whom we share a country. And Allah S.W.T. Knows Best.
  4. Another point is that your question is not dissimilar to asking God to make you a billionaire, otherwise you wish not to exist, or to let you do as you please, otherwise you don't wish to be, or many other similar paradoxial statements. The answer to which is that you can not condition or limit what God does, but He S.W.T. limits His Creation accordingly. A God that is limited is not God.
  5. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you ask to be erased from existence because of hell then you have to forfeit the possibility of being in heaven also, otherwise you are not asking not to exist but merely to be protected from hell, and protection from hell has already been given. It's up to us.
  6. Faruk. There is no need to assume that the companions where angels for the sake of this discussion, it is enough to assume that if they where at the same state of jahiliya in which they where before Islam and one would still conclude that they would have never let the murderer of Az-Zahra a.s. free to live his life, without a thorn touching him, if it where true, or even at least claiming the rights of blood that existed before Islam, or at the bare minimum making a mention of it. As for threatening Imam Ali a.s. to give bayah, i don't believe in it for a minute. Who would threaten? Abu Bakr and Umar? They did not have sufficient tribal power, or political power, to threaten anyone let alone Imam Ali a.s., even if we assume they wanted to. Rather it was Imam Ali a.s. who gave bayah on his own. As he a.s. says "The people gave their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, while I am the more deserving of that garment, but I restrained my anger and waited and lowered my chest to the ground (controlled my wrath).” This was his a.s. attitude towards khilafa, nobody could threaten him a.s. But he sacrificed his rights, and overlooked their deeds, for the sake of Islam and muslims. ( We must remember that the ansar and the muhajiroon, where vastly outnumbered in Medinah by the tulaqa, who where already unhappy at Abu Bakr's bayah as they themselves considered that they where more worthy of power. )
  7. Its inconceivable to have had such a thing take place in Madinah. Unless one concludes that most of Madinah was also deviated and enemies of Ahle Bayt a.s. who wanted to harm them. The story itself is close to impossible, not a single person regardless who they where could do such a thing even if they wanted to simply from the reverence the ansar and most companions of the time, had for Ahle Bayt a.s. To kill the daughter of the Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. and her unborn son is not something that muslims would have forgiven not at the time, not even during the jahiliya period. Let alone with Imam Ali a.s. present. In fact Umar himself makes mention of such reverence he himself had and other muslims too. It is a very contradictory event in so many levels. It is a lie invented much later probably by extremists among shia, to influence the debate of that time as to the status of companions and certain personalities among them.
  8. I am not a ithna ashari, perhaps i should have made it clear in my post, and spare you the "upset". As for my ignorance, people better then you and i have made similar statement regardless of what grading you give such reports. I stated only the facts. Those three caliphs are from the emigrants, all things being equal, they have the honor that belongs to this group of people, two of them fought at Badr and Uhud, regardless of how we grade their performance in the battle field ( and us grading their battle performance, when Allah has not tested us with what tested them, while we seat in the comfort of our homes, knowing the future that they did not know, is the ultimate delusion ). They spent their wealth in buying and freeing people for the sake of Allah S.W.T. this is also a fact, no serious scholar worth his cloak can deny them. We can try and dilute them by conjecture and speculation as often is the case, but these are facts that remain for any one sincere enough. So if these reasons are not enough to stop you from cursing, insulting, spreading hatred and sectarianism, then let your good akhlaq, and maybe even sound reason in preventing further hatred and bloodshed among ourselves, be it. Wa Salaam.
  9. These personalities are emigrants people who followed the Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. and fought when they needed to, (regardless how much it's belittled by ithna asharis) they spent of their wealth, and have much good with them that all muslims can agree with, and none denies these deeds of theirs, except one that is blinded by hatred. Saqqifa and what happened and how it happened is one of those things where they erred. There is disagreement among shia, as to what saqqifa amounts, a sin, kuffr, a bad deed etc, there is disagreement among ithna ashari ulama as well, that's why it is better not to curse. With regards to muawiya however or his son there is unanimity among all muslims regarding his son, while there is about muawiya some misconceptions among those who try and uphold his figure, even when this view is not shared nor supported among many respected ulama of ahle sunna of the classical times. Cursing is done as part of tabarra when the deeds are obvious, and verifiable and contrary to the fundamental principles we uphold such as justice peace etc, it is not done based on differences between madhhabs but on the root principles shared among all muslims and even among all human beings of sane heart and mind. muawiya's deeds or his son's are not deeds that contradict a particular madhhab's view on imamah or ruler ship only, but are deeds that are against every human and muslim principle. The mass killings, torture, wars, disregard for justice and fairness and so on are that obvious, and it is not without reason that Allah S.W.T. has made their names synonymous with evil for so long. Similar case about the three caliphs, can not be made without stretching the meaning and limits of these principles which muawiya and his son and those who followed them trumped with both feet. We can not claim the same for them, without stretching imagination and the events of their time, to the point where we disregard historical evidence and even reason to a degree so we can justify cursing them to feed our view and indignation about what happened in Saqqifa. Allah S.W.T bless brother tawheed for constantly calling people to stop this insanity. Go to youtube see some of the videos of Sayyid Fadlallah r.h. and see what they write underneath. Dajjal kaffir la'in etc, Allah forgive us, these are shia who are writing, they are sending la'na on the Sayyids the ulama and whoever disagrees with them on historical events or madhhab's beliefs, and it won't end with the three caliphs but it will go on and on, until they curse everyone including the shia but themselves. It's not just Sayyid Fadlallah, Al Waeli r.h., too, even Khamenei has his own share of curses from ithna asharis. This is not tashayyu this is madness. For Allah's sake stop it, you have no idea how much you are hindering people from the path of Ahle Bayt a.s. with this stupidity, you are becoming unwilling callers not to Ahle Bayt a.s. but to hate and curse, sectarianism, and even fassad and bloodshed in our societies. And what argument you bring here for not following Tawheed's advice? As if he was calling you to something dreadful or evil, while you see it as something good, and know it in your hearts there is nothing wrong in what he is advising?........ "It's part of tabarra, we have to curse" .......This barely qualifies as a coherent answer, let alone as an excuse for such a catastrophic understanding of tashayyu.
  10. Your cousin has caught on to something that he feels it's true. And it probably is true to an extent what he says about hatred, intolerance, treatment of other people, etc. His conclusion though is what it wrong. It seems from his writing that he is rejecting the organised religious dogma for the most part. If Isalm promoted indiscriminate violence then it no longer is a religion of truth. Religion is understood through reason, and that which is contrary to sound reason, can not be religious. We know goodness, we know that bloodshed is a grave thing, even without religion or revelation we know them to be bad deeds, through our fitrah. Religion therefore or revelation, confirms that which the fitrah knows, and adds to it what is accepted through reason. He has to understand that people promote violence intolerance hatred, not religions. Yes it is true, today muslims are the ones killing each other, no doubt, but it is something that is not quantifiable in religion, rather in people. They can use region to further their lack of humanism, and blood thirstiness but it doesn't make their acts religious in anyway. If they where maoist, atheists, they would do the same. Religion prevents these ugly sins, but people can corrupt religious thought and manipulate people to further their aims and goals. Muslims are not immune from shaytan l.a. and his l.a. ways, just as any other people are not immune. As for the Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. and the Jewish people of Medinah. It is a lie, invented long ago, dismissed by both muslim scholars and western orientalists. There was one case which he cites that of Banu Qurayda, but in that case it was the warriors among them that where killed, ( mind you not the jews of banu qurayda but only who betrayed their city and the constitution and fought against their compatriots ). The jews continued to live in Madinah far longer after the Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. had passed away. There where more then six or seven jewish tribes in Madinah at the time, and only those three who betrayed their city and their people where expelled, their possessions where allowed to be taken with them, and they where not touched or wronged in the least. Equally there where Jewish people who fought side by side with the Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. against the Quraysh, for whom the Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. said "They are the best of the Jews". Omar the second Khalifa, when Palestine was conquered, he found that the jews of Palestine had been expelled from their homes by the Christians, he ordered the jews come back and settle in their country, and in their home. I advise your cousin to read the Jewish encyclopedia with regards to their return in the time of Omar. There is no hatred in Islam for jewish people or any people, apart from what muslims feel today against them with regards to their treatment of our Palestinian brothers. There are ignorant muslims who hate others who are racist, who are homophobic, but such is not sanctioned in Islam, and not part of religion. you judge truth by it's content not by it's people. Tell your cousin that he is right in some of the points he makes with regard to our situation today, but it is his duty to read further, and not jump to emotional conclusions, if he truly wants to answer the biggest question that would determine his whole life, he has to read and not become an emotional atheist, or a person who is too clever to accept falsehood of religious scholars, but too ignorant to find the truth. His fitra is telling him that injustice bloodshed, hatred, are wrong, and that is the correct view to have, it is the humanistic view, the Islamic view, the most beautiful verses of the Holy Quran are dedicated to these points. Study, learn, with an open mind ready to criticize and accept, then choose your path. May Allah Guide him, and Guide us.
  11. You could use riwayat to justify whatever point of view. You could make the case that someone altered adhaan and commited bida'a yet you could justify the same act when adding 'I testify Ali a.s. is Waliyullah" in the adhaan. The question on muta should be whether such a thing is morally acceptable to people, ie we are not defining any new moral standard that goes against the general spirit of the Book of Allah S.W.T., reason and logic, and well established views on ethics and moral be them Islamic established precepts or simply the state of fitrah that people have in them. What are it's benefits, how does it benefit society and people, or the opposite how does it harm society, how does it effect families, and the state of children born under muta. If the argument is constructed in this way, muta has no benefit and its harms are clear. In youtube one can find plenty of stories of children born under muta from an Iraqi channel if i remember it correctly, or of woman who have suffered abuse and continue to because of it or their children too, or prostitutes from Thailand to Singapore China who are professional in muta because of the number of muslims who go to them for such service. In fact if they see a muslim, they will ask you... muta?? The effort to justify such an act through hadith even though it is against norms social, fitrawi, or Quranic, is what is wrong with religion today in general. In that people write laws and hadiths with their own hands and say it is from Allah S.W.T, then they attempt to justify the unjustifiable under the threat of hell, kuffr, or what have you, or under the praise of sunna. While Allah S.W.T. and His Prophet s.a.w.a. order only what is good, and forbid only what is evil, how can it be different when Allah S.W.T. orders people to do the same, and He S.W.T. is never unjust to anybody.
  12. If you speak arabic and want to learn about the theory of evolution, search in youtube for نظرية التطور l الدكتور عدنان ابراهيم or click this video and on youtube you have all the series of the program. The first episode has english subs the rest is only in arabic.
  13. @StrugglingForTheLight The Quran can say that brother, because of Allah's S.W.T. absolute Knowledge and Truth, whereas we don't have such attributes to be able to make such a statement to others. The statement is done out of ignorance on the part of man, but out of absolute knowledge and truth on the part of Allah S.W.T.
  14. I just saw the full interview today. The best interview i have seen in some time, on the subject of differences between muslims, and actually beyond that, among people in general, and more. Powerful taddabur of the Quran. One goes for a cup of water from Sayyid al Haydari, and soon after, find themselves swimming in an ocean of knowledge. May Allah preserve him for us.
  15. I will answer your questions despite you neglecting my post. 1) A person is rightly guided if they do not follow Ahle Bayt a.s. and they follow the Quran. They believe in Allah S.W.T. His Prophets a.s., His Angels, His Revelation and the Day of Judgment. 2) A person is not guided if they follow Ahle Bayt a.s. only and not the Quran. Hadith alThaqalayn does not give you a right to neglect the Quranic message in favor of sayings of Imams a.s. that may or may not be true, and are measured by people as to their authenticity. Nor gives you the right to make them equal weights, after The Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. has distinguished them first then joined them together. The difference between you and me, is that you think guidance is a membership contract whereas i think it is maqams, stages. You believe that guidance is a right on you to stick your fingers in people's eyes and i believe guidance prevents you from just that.
  16. Indeed, [O Muhammad], you do not guide whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He is most knowing of the [rightly] guided. (28:56) And those who strive for Us - We will surely guide them to Our ways. And indeed, Allah is with the doers of good. (26:69) But those who wrong follow their [own] desires without knowledge. Then who can guide one whom Allah has sent astray? And for them there are no helpers. (30:29) The means with which guidance of Allah S.W.T. comes to people is revelation. "Alif, Lam, Meem. This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah " (2:1:2) And We certainly gave Moses the Scripture, so do not be in doubt over his meeting. And we made the Torah guidance for the Children of Israel. (32:23) "And We had certainly given Moses guidance, and We caused the Children of Israel to inherit the Scripture. As guidance and a reminder for those of understanding." 40:53:54) Allah has sent down the best statement: a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. The skins shiver therefrom of those who fear their Lord; then their skins and their hearts relax at the remembrance of Allah. That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whom He wills. And one whom Allah leaves astray - for him there is no guide. (39:23) I find it amazing that you would overwrite the message of the Quran on salvation using a hadith. I was planing on quoting a few, but i realize that your interest is solely the fortification of your own ideas and opinions. More amazing is the fact that you open a thread about salvation and completely neglect the verses about salvation from the Quran, even though it is filled with them, clear verses, from beginning to the end. And even when someone tells you the opinion of scholars and ulama contrary to yours, you dismiss it and assume for yourself the position of "tawatur" and ijma'a of Ahle Bayt a.s. from two hadiths and a hadith from muawiya. La Hawla wa la Kuwatta ila Bilah.
  17. @hasanhh Agreed. Dislike and so on are emotional responses hate is a more complex process involving reason or lack thereof. I am from the east of europe, and i have some idea of what a hate rally is. They don't surprise me or shock me, i expect nothing else in such societies. However "my beef" is mostly with us, muslims, and our "hate rallies", be them on tv, or religious gatherings, that differ with the europeans only in methodology.
  18. @hasanhh as-Salaam Alaikum brother. Love and hate, are the processes with which one does tawali and tabarra. ...."Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah . We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone" .... Qur'an (60:5) The Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. is alleged to have said "The strongest faith is to be sincere for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah (Tabarra), to love for the sake of Allah (Tawalla), and to discard for the sake of Allah." Similarly one finds alleged quotes from Imam Jaffar as-Sadiq a.s. to the extent of "....is faith anything but love and hate?" Shaykh at-Tusi r.h. classifies them (love and hate) as faculties available not just to humans but to animals as well. He distinguishes the human in intellect as the main driver of these two. Thus a person who doesn't use it as much, hates as you said in your post without much mental effort, and falls to the level of an animal and lower, but the enlightened man equally does not eliminate it, he/she merely directs it in it's proper place and context. Excellence in moral and character, piety and knowledge does not mean a lack of hate, but control over it.
  19. Hate is not bad. Hate is good. It is one of the many character traits granted by Allah S.W.T. to humanity. An upright person hates violence for it's sake, hates suffering of others, hates disobedience to God, hates ignorance, and so on and so forth. shaytan l.a. always works by manipulating reality or better said by manipulating our perception of the sunnan of Allah S.W.T. (reality) so then a person who is effected instead of using these nia'ma to benefit himself and others, begins to utilize these character traits hate fear anger, to hate humans because of their skin, or because of their gender, race, religion, to hate, fear what they don't understand, and even become violent. If you where to ask these neo nazis or whatever they think they are, they would reason with you and give all the justifications why they hate others, and all these justifications and reasons always deal with how they perceive the world humanity and their place in it. We too share similarities with them. We do not hate other races at least not openly because of clear injunctions in Islam against that, so we don't manifest hate the way they do by dressing up and shaving our heads saluting hitler, but we manifest it according to our beliefs and culture, in this instance by spreading hate in our gatherings, hate for each other, hate for the rest of the world, we dress up too, grow a beard and become violent. That is because shaytan is an enemy to humanity not just to us muslims but to all people, including those neonazis in belgium, and us. Except for the Servants of God who are saved from such influence, and those are very few indeed.
  20. Nothing proves the point against wahabi beliefs better then jokes about the sacred symbols of God, of Islam, the Arsh and maybe even God. Of course it's all in the name of defeating the wahabi ideology so it's all good. But if the wahabi depict khomeini r.h. with a skull as a face in one of their videos attacking shi'i beliefs, boy oh boy do we get mad.
  21. There is a debating technique among wahabis that targets shias by insulting what the shia hold most dear, In an effort to put them off balance by agitating them. Ibn taymiyya was the first to start such a trend, while today one can find wahabis preaching using this technique, mostly in London, one of whom is a known agitator, who was thrown out of al Azhar for "indecent behavior". The technique of this person aka whatever his nickname is very similar to his, and reminds me of his style of writing. There is no need to insult him, he is already debased and despised. They are not here to debate but to insult. In a wahabi mind insulting whomever, does not matter because they are doing it for God they claim. By agitating they aim to make someone anyone say something that they can cache and build their debate around it, so they can then claim victory over the "shia". Their minds are a strange world where every sin is excused as being necessary from killing to insulting, spreading hate and fitnah, or in the case of indecencies with other students is excused as beyond the control of the flash, a momentary lapse in judgment. Even when they ask forgiveness for it, they do it with some sick pleasure in their minds, thinking they are cheating their way into forgiveness while retaining the pleasures of their deeds. And Allah S.W.T. knows what is hidden in their hearts. Let them be. They are on a collision course with their ill fate, don't stand in their way.
  22. As-Salaam alaikum brother StrugglingForTheLight. I completely agree with you regarding the Quran being clear, Allah S.W.T. says so about the Quran in many verses. In fact it is a common problem today where the Quran is either treated as a second source even if we don't admit as much, or we fear to approach it and try to understand it's meaning to the best of our level of piety and ability without attributing to it from other sources. On the subject an old sermon from Adnan Ibrahim. WaSalaam.
  23. Wa Alaykum al-Salaam brother. I don't know what the verse you quoted means with certainty. But neither do you. You assume it means what you said because you believe in the second coming of Isa a.s. and you believe in it not because you have proof from the Quran on the contrary the theory of second coming or the belief in it, becomes problematic when confronted with the many verses of the Holy Quran. In other words you already have a theory, a picture, and you are understanding from the verse what fits your theory or belief. Imagine for a moment you did not know of the second coming of Isa a.s. would you give the verse the meaning you just gave? I doubt anyone would. The Quran always speaks for itself, ours is to listen and not impose our opinions and beliefs to it, but built opinions and beliefs from it. First of all. I show and i believe as is in the Quran the word rafaa does not mean physical ascension to heaven. This much is clear. Moving to the verse that follows. The verse you quote "وَإِن مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلاَّ لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا " "And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them." There are three explanations of this verse. The one you quote, the one you dismiss, and a third one. The third explanation: A look at the english translations version reveals the disagreements of scholars some translate it as "him" and some as "it" some even say " (a belief of no value) in the case of sarwar. Shakir translates it as "this" and Yusuf Ali as "him" the arabic word at the center of the disagreement is "bihi" بِهِ. It has been translated as him because of the belief in second coming of Isa a.s. and not because the arabic word it'self is suggesting or the context that it means "him", and not "it". Rather the preceding verse speaks of the subject of the allegations of crucifixion of Isa a.s. as i said in the other post such a death is cursed according to Jews (Deuteronomy 21:22–23 in the bible, ie they believe that God curses anyone who brakes God's law and his body hanging on a pole as a public display of judgment.) The word "it" refers to the belief in the crucifixion of Isa a.s. Belief that is not only from the christians but from the jews as well. And this belief is to this day among the people of the book both jews and christian exactly as the verse says it will be. One believes they killed him a.s. but don't believe in him, and another believes they killed him a.s. but believe in him. The common belief of both of them is "they crucified Isa a.s." not the belief in Isa a.s. And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this.... "This" refers to their belief of having crucified Isa a.s. and not to believing Isa a.s. and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them. Isa a.s. a witness against them in the Day of Judgment for this belief of theirs, for their claims of having crucified him, cursed him according to their beliefs, which is clearly in contradiction with the understanding that people of the Book will believe in Isa a.s. There are too many other inconsistencies and problems with the idea that the verse means belief in Isa a.s., that will only prolong the post more then what it already is. From the belief in "One belief for all people" which contradicts the Quran, and it is in my opinion a Jewish belief, that has nothing to do with Islam, to the problem of past and present people of the book not believing in Isa a.s. and much much more, that it becomes an exercise in stubbornness to continue to believe in something that has no evidence in Quran and even contradicts it. Wasalaam.
  24. Mercy. Where in the Quran did you find that Isa a.s. was raised in the sky? The word rafa'a is used for other Prophets a.s. in the Quran and they all died normal deaths, it is used to denote honor with God, status. The reason that Allah S.W.T. saved Isa a.s. from crucifixion is because the jews considered death by crucifixion as cursed, by crucifying Isa a.s. they wanted to prove that he was not a Prophet, that's why they did not agree with death by any other means or by imprisonment when Pontus Pilate offered it. It is not about saving Isa a.s. from death, as death touches everyone but rather to prove that he was a prophet by saving him from crucifixion, and slanders of the jews .
  25. Brother Reader. Respecting sahaba out of respect of our Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. is a good thing, but it must not be to the degree that we commit injustice and sin even with our tongue. It is one thing to have different opinions about certain personalities among sahaba which even the shia have disagreement among themselves, and another to persist in something so ugly and unjust that it threatens the picture of the whole sunni Islam, as is the deference of muawiya. I will not waste your time with stories and deeds of muawiya. As whatever i say you will probably excuse him somehow. Just a note though be careful brother with what you say about him bcs at his hand many sahaba where martyred, least you invoke the anger of Allah S.W.T. with praises for their murderer. Regarding the handing over of khilafa. If you say that Imam Hassan a.s. handed power and did the right thing, what then of Imam Ali a.s.? What of the order of God in the Quran to fight rebels (baghi)? Would you ascribe sins and disobedience of Allah S.W.T. to the Master of the Youth of Paradise, or to his father, one better then him a.s. just so the name of muawiya remains untarnished? There is a single hadith that supports the view that you have put forth. That is the hadith of Abu Bakra the words in that hadith are his not from the one he narrates from, and the hadith is problematic. The one that begins with Wallah al Hassan led armies like mountains..... Imam Hassan al Mujtaba a.s. was the most knowledgeable after Imam Ali a.s. and the one resembling the Holy Prophet s.a.w.a. in behavior and understanding, and appearance, and in knowledge of the Holy Qur'an which was unmatched after Imam Ali a.s. This is well established in both Bukhari and Muslim. Handing power to muawiya was done because that was is mandated in the sunnan of Allah S.W.T. not because he thought muawiya was worthy or decent. When Musa and Haroon a.s. where ordered to fight, the israelites refused the order, for which they where humiliated and perished in the deserts. Musa and Haroon a.s. who where left alone and had nobody to support them, did not fight. Fighting is ordained as long as there is the support of the people, otherwise the order is not pursued. Imam Hassan a.s. followed the same principle. He fought according with the command of God against the rebel (baghi), just like his father a.s. had done in defense of muslims, and when he a.s. saw that many of the tribes that had come where in for the money, and those who where supposed to stand up from Madinah and Kuffah, for what is right, and just, where either silenced by muawiya's money, or where in doubt and refused to obey, Imam Hassan a.s. handed power to him and left people have what they desired. Furthermore there where more worthy people Imam Hassan a.s. could have handed power to, if it was that he desired what you say, but he handed it to muawiya whose justification had been that he was fighting for the right of blood only and not power. People saw him later on that he was really fighting to usurp the khilafa, but by that time it was too late. Handing power to him specifically and not others revealed for those who had some doubt in that time his true intentions. One of them was ibn Umar r.a. When muawiya boasted in Masjid an Nabawi infront of sahabas many of them high esteemed companions, " We (banu Ummaya) are more worthy of this (khilafa) then you and your father " he was looking at ibn Umar when he said this, Ibn Umar stood up and says "I wanted to tell him, no, rather the ones who fought you and your father in Islam are more worthy, but I FEARED BLOODSHED, so i sat down and didn't speak. In hid deathbed ibn Umar r.a. regretted only one thing "Not fighting "the party of rebels" with Imam Ali a.s.
  • Create New...