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

Bernanke

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

832 profile views
  1. So shias have no logical reasoning behind their claim. What did Umar personally gain from prohibiting Mutah?
  2. What did Umar gain from Muta's prohibition? What's the shia take on this?
  3. This is a very valid explanation. During the those times, the dissemination of information wasn't guaranteed. Also, why would Umar just prohibit an Islamic injunction. He might be a hothead but I don't see a reason why he would get up one day and ban an Islamic provision. Doesn't make sense.
  4. barbaric. Funny thing is Umar usually sought second opinions himself. Was Umar not the one who was not "satisfied" with the treaty of Hudaibiya? He sought the opinion of Abu Bakr after the Prophet had already decided the matter.
  5. Hi all Suppose I had taken a $50 loan for education. Now that I am earning I have $100 in my account through my earnings in one year. Is the tax applicable on the entire $100? Also, I do not intend to pay the loan in that year. Thanks
  6. So which people are the subject of the verse then? Maybe that will clear the matter. From the verse it is clear that the Prophet was seeking forgiveness for some pagans.
  7. Muslim or not, Abu Talib did a great service for the religion. Abu Talib and Khadijah provided the indispensable impetus and protection for the religion and the Prophet, at a time when the movement could easily have been withered away by the Makkans. All muslims are forever indebted to these two personalities.
  8. Shias are the most deficient in interpreting history while Sunnis needlessly sing relentless praises of companions. Both groups are blinded by their dogmas and fail to treat facts as facts. They twist and interpret historical record to the point at which the literature is essentially just a mirror of their initial beliefs. This is very similar to quantitative analysis in the financial industry (analysts run numerous regressions until they find the result they intended). Umar was a hot head and it wouldn't come as a surprise if he did indeed threaten to burn the house of Fatima. It is entirely compatible with his past behavior. Ayesha too was a very ordinary woman. Yet sunnis treat them beyond reproach. Why? I thought only shias believe in infallibility. Ali on the other hand would have naturally felt left out when others decided the matter of leadership without his consultation. What Shias cannot see here is that after all, Ali was a human being and it was natural for him to feel that way. How on earth do Shias claim Ali's divine right to rule is beyond my comprehension. At least I have yet to see any proof. Did Ali at least claim leadership during the reign of the first three Caliphs, backed by explicit Prophetic narrations? I understand shias have a fancy way of explaining Imamate, but where are the eloquent speeches by Ali in which he claims his right to rule. He might have thought he was better suited for Caliphate, which he clearly was, but where is the explicit claim of divine right?
  9. By default I should show love to and be considerate of every human being unless the situation suggests otherwise. That is a general guideline of all religions. I fail to see why. If special needs arise, a Prophet, who has direct link with God, can direct the adherents to show special affection to a particular subject unconditionally. Wouldn't the Prophet have the foresight of this? Especially since Ali was to fight several wars that involved muslims turning against each other. Many held a grudge against Ali unreasonably. Ali also closely resembled the Prophet in his actions. Of course people would have a hard time being reasonable to a guy who, in a sense, followed a purer version of Islam. So, I can easily make a case for Prophet's foresight in this matter and his timely reminder. Again, the default case can be turned unconditional by a leader. Why not? Divine authority it is then. Call it whatever you like. I interpret it as divine guidance to love and show affection to Ali after the Prophet's demise.
  10. Umar was evidently a capable statesmen and pragmatist. Whether he reached the highest levels of "faith" is completely a different matter. Why can't Shias and Sunnis just stick to facts and stop unnecessarily vilifying/eulogizing the guy?
  11. Someone going against the direct orders of the Prophet.
  12. I don't fall into any of the neatly defined camps. I like to form my own opinions and don't believe everything I hear. Unfortunately, religion has a very powerful effect on it adherents, for better or the worst. More often than not, religion deprives the followers of critical thinking. I try to stay away from such pitfalls. That being said, no, i dont believe that. There is no evidence to suggest that Mauvia loved Ali. Ali represented everything that Mauvia despised.
  13. So what are you suggesting? he gathered them to remind them that he was their leader? Wasn't he already in that position by that time?
  14. but this context doesn't prove his sole right to the Caliphate. Judging from the context you have provided, it seems he was merely reminding the people of his status.. He reminds them that the Prophet made it mandatory to love him.
  15. What is the context of this event? i.e Ali gathering the people at al-Rahbah?
×
×
  • Create New...