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

onereligion

Banned
  • Content Count

    280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About onereligion

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,254 profile views
  1. Typical (il)logical response! Answer a question with a question and then add a straitjacketing phrase at the end of it. Too much Peshawar Nights for you so allow me to re-introduce you to a few Islamic concepts. 1. The kingdom went from Talut (as) to Dawood (as) and then to Sulaiman (as). If we must maintain consistency (since it was the same kingdom, therefore, we should) it must be inheritance - to stay in line with your argument - all throughout. When the kingdom was transferred to Sulaiman (as), you claim that it was inheritance (parent to child). However, no one taught you, or you are quick to throw dust in everyone's eyes, that the kingdom began with Talut (as) and it was transferred to Dawood (as) before it even got to Sulaiman (as). If we apply inheritance to the second transfer (from Dawood to Sulaiman, peace be upon them), then we must also claim inheritance for the first transfer (from Talut to Dawood, peace be upon them). When we do that, we disturb the balance, the consistency, because Talut (as) and Dawood (as) were not blood relatives, let alone sharing a parent-child relationship. Therefore, the kingdom was transferred from Talut (as) [with whom it was an amanah] to Dawood (as) and then to Sulaiman (as). 2. Dawood (as) had many children, many sons. If this was inheritance, you are accusing a great prophet (as) of injustice for giving his kingdom to one of his sons, leaving the rest of his children with little or nothing to share between them. Sort of the same accusation (of injustice) that you unknowingly level against the Prophet (saw) by claiming that he (saw) gave Fadak to Fatima (ra), leaving the remainder of his children with next to nothing.
  2. - I have lied? How so? Find me one more comment (of mine) where I have disrespected any scholar, Shia or Sunni. - "Grand Ayatollah Sheikh" whoever he may be is not as noble as the dust on the left shoe of the Prophet (saw). The Prophet (saw) narrated that a prophet (asws) is buried where he dies. Is the "Grand Ayatollah Sheikh" a proof against the Prophet (saw)? - I believe this gentleman should ask for forgiveness for speaking hastily, without knowledge and uttering things that add fuel to the sectarian fire.
  3. Question: what Sulaiman (as) inherited from Dawood (as) was an amanah from Allah [swt] given originally to Talut (as) when Bani Israel started mocking him [Talut a.s.] for being a king without a worldly kingdom (as we understand a kingdom to be....palaces, riches, etc). And in case you did not know, Talut (as) was not Dawood's (as) father. Will you now say that Dawood (as) "inherited" it from Talut (as)? You like hashtags a lot. Here is one for you: #ReadQur'an PS - I won't even trouble your logic and reasoning, or lack thereof, by reminding you that Dawood (as) had many children, not just Sulaiman (as).
  4. Though I reserve more respect for scholars, I must say this Khorasani gentleman is a dimwit. The Prophet (saw), through an authentic narration we find, said that a Prophet (asws) is buried where he dies. When the Prophet (saw) left this world, Abu Talhah [ra] lifted the bed on which the Prophet (saw) died, dug underneath and cut the ground to make the tomb. This has nothing to do with inheriting, or usurping, land. On a side-note, I would request this gentleman to - instead of inciting flames of hatred causing our youth to run rampant - dig up the graves of Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] himself. He may not be able to dig up their graves but I can assure you that they will dig his grave instantly (and the grave of any and all fools who even dare think to act upon his nonsensical prescription).
  5. @Christianlady Salaam alaykum, With too much on my plate, I will return to address your post. However, the majority of your post - the bulk of what you have shared with us (quoting verses and what not) - does not address the issue. What is relevant to our discussion is the following statement you made: "I have provided texts from the Tanakh (Old Testament) and New Testament." Yes, you have presented texts but these are (mis)interpreted, according to your own preferences and liking, as I have proved with "almah" which you mistranslated to "virgin" and then restricted to "young unmarried woman". Now you claim that "almah" does not rule out a "young unmarried woman". As we have seen, there are endless possibilities on how to interpret that word. Furthermore, Isaiah 8 informs us of the one who was born. How you, and the Christian world, try to take a huge number of possibilities and a character already identified in Isaiah 8 to be none other but Jesus (as) completely baffles me.
  6. - Imam Ghazali [rah] is too big for you to comprehend. He was a genius, someone who is said to have done a disservice to Islam by raising the ceiling for Islamic philosophy to such a height that it cannot be surpassed; there is nothing beyond it, they say. As for being a murji'i, it is the first time I am hearing this. Since you are resorting to name-calling and categorization - no surprise coming from an isolationist - I won't bother to reply. However, if you had quoted me directly (with my username intact), I would have gotten to your blunder a lot sooner (as it would have sent me a notification). Regarding the existence of Takfiris, it is as unfortunate as your existence (with Takfiris being far worse). A group that restricts itself to a few while cursing the most pious and best group of Muslims. If true Islamic aqeedah was violated to pave way for you to come into existence, is it any wonder that others, like Takfiris, also ceased that opportunity? - The idea was to remind you that you are upon error. Of course if you repeatedly curse noble personalities, you are compounding upon that error. How you derived "original sin" - not found in my post - out of it is just as mysterious as you deriving Imamat from the Qur'an and Sunnah! - Threat? No! It was a reminder that you were speaking nonsense. Our leniency in religion has made it possible for you to perform the rites of the 5th pillar. Instead of seeing it as something positive, you wanted to turn it as a flaw in our outlook and approach.
  7. - A very shallow argument which is why I will not comment on the verses you had quoted because your premise (for the argument), from the very get-go, is flawed (hence, no need to cross-examine the verses you quoted as supporting evidence). The story in Isaiah 7 (someone born to "almah") is continued in Isaiah 8. Allow me to re-quote: " In fact, the very next chapter in Isaiah, chapter eight, continues the story. Isaiah goes to the prophetess and she conceives and bears a son. In verses 3-4, they call him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz ("quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil") because before the boy is very old the king of Assyria will "plunder" and "spoil" Damascus and Samaria. And verses 8 and 10 again refer to Immanuel ("God is with us"), because Yhwh will save Ahaz and because even though the Assyrians will sweep all the way into Judah (701 BCE), their plans against Jerusalem will not succeed. Whether Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and Immanuel are the same child or two different children matters not; both belong in time to the 700's BCE and to chapters 7 and 8 of Isaiah." To say it differently, the child born was either "Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" or "Immanuel" both of whom were born around 700 BCE, well before Jesus (as). So just because Jesus (as) referred to a few individuals as "my children" or "my son" or the equivalent does not give us the right to squeeze him into Isaiah. We need to support our beliefs with textual proof; we do not give our whims, thoughts or emotions proof from the text. The problem in Christianity is the latter! - I believe in every word of the Qur'an. What the Qur'an says regarding Jesus (as) is 100% truth and I believe in it one hundred percent. - May God's peace and blessings be upon you, your family, loved ones and friends.
  8. - I always respected you, however, my respect for you has grown after what you said (regarding preserving your chastity). - This is not a "then versus now" situation. The Hebrew word "almah" means "young woman", not young unmarried woman, as you have us to believe. A young woman can also be a young married woman who can then give birth. - Qur'an agrees that Mary (as) was a virgin and we believe it wholeheartedly. For that, I need neither Matthew nor Isaiah. - In the Islamic tradition, we believe that the people of Moses (as), or Jews, were promised a series of Prophets (as) one of whom was Jesus (as). However, textually speaking, Isaiah is not a foundation for Matthew (whatever there is regarding virgin birth) because Isaiah, as I have highlighted, is speaking of something that Jesus (as) could not fulfill because it was before his time.
  9. You have a loaded statement here with nothing to back it up with. While I care less about what you think of us, allow me to turn your own ignorance and arrogance into an argument against you. Within Sunni aqeedah, anyone who believes in Allah [swt] and His Prophet (saw) - la illaha ilallah, Muhammad-ur RasulAllah - is a Muslim. That, to me, makes you a Muslim irrespective of your addition "Ali-un waliullah" to that declaration or your relentless effort to compound upon your sin (which dates back many centuries) of cursing the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw), Sahaba (ra), et cetera. You should be thankful that we have that belief because it makes it possible for you to visit the Holy City (Mecca, not Karbala).
  10. You bring hadiths to counter the Qur'an. We, however, can and should proceed further. Quantitatively, I think we can both agree that the Prophet (saw) lived for many years, enough for everyone to see how many times he (saw) prayed in a day. To overshadow his 23 years, you presented 3 narrations. Let us assume there are 100 narrations regarding combining prayers; let us assume that the Prophet (saw) combined prayers on 100 occasions. There are 365 days in one year so combining prayers on 100 occasions, even on separate days, amounts to 3 months and 10 days. There are 276 months in 23 years; 3 months amounts to 1.086% of the Prophetic era. Qualitatively, you are presenting evidence in favor for exceptions. As far as my limited knowledge is concerned, there is no narration regarding the Prophet (saw) praying five times-a-day. Can you guess why? The fact that the Prophet (saw) prayed five times was, and is, common knowledge. It is on par with mutawatir reports, perhaps even ijma (because everyone believes that there are five prayers; a few disagree on when they should be prayed). It is common practice, in fact imperative, to document exceptions to a rule. A nation that had seen its Prophet (saw) live in their midst and pray five times a day did not need additional reminders (in the form of narrations) to pray five times a day. The same nation, however, needed (and needs) to know the proper guidelines to any exceptions to this rule which is why you can quote me a few narrations regarding combining prayers but I cannot show you anything which states that the Prophet (saw) prayed five (distinct) times a day (because the latter was common knowledge). The way I have explained this to you, both on quantitative and qualitative levels, is the reason why our Shia brothers consider us to be in error. It is too much to ask from Shias, an offshoot group deeply rooted in the idea of isolation and exclusion (from Qur'an, Sunnah and logic), to spare a moment to think about our stance.
  11. You bring hadiths to counter the Qur'an. We, however, can and should proceed further. Quantitatively, I think we can both agree that the Prophet (saw) lived for many years, enough for everyone to see how many times he (saw) prayed in a day. To overshadow his 23 years, you presented 3 narrations. Let us assume there are 100 narrations regarding combining prayers; let us assume that the Prophet (saw) combined prayers on 100 occasions. There are 365 days in one year so combining prayers on 100 occasions, even on separate days, amounts to 3 months and 10 days. There are 276 months in 23 years; 3 months amounts to 1.086% of the Prophetic era. Qualitatively, you are presenting evidence in favor for exceptions. As far as my limited knowledge is concerned, there is no narration regarding the Prophet (saw) praying five times-a-day. Can you guess why? The fact that the Prophet (saw) prayed five times was, and is, common knowledge. It is on par with mutawatir reports, perhaps even ijma (because everyone believes that there are five prayers; a few disagree on when they should be prayed). It is common practice, in fact imperative, to document exceptions to a rule. A nation that had seen its Prophet (saw) live in their midst and pray five times a day did not need additional reminders (in the form of narrations) to pray five times a day. The same nation, however, needed (and needs) to know the proper guidelines to any exceptions to this rule which is why you can quote me a few narrations regarding combining prayers but I cannot show you anything which states that the Prophet (saw) prayed five (distinct) times a day (because the latter was common knowledge).
  12. Walaykum as salaam wa rahmatullah, While the rest of your questions will lead us to endless debates - after all, Abu Bakr (ra), for example, is not around to present his case and no Shia (for the most part) will take accept any of our responses - allow me to only address your last question since it revolves around the Prophet's (saw) greatest miracle, the Qur'an, which exists among us even today (and will remain with us till Day of Judgment) so as to avoid the endless back-n-forth (which usually goes south very quickly). The five prayers are mentioned in the Qur'an. In fact, they are pronounced far more clearly than Imamah (a nonexistent usool with no roots in the Qur'an). You see, the trend with splinter groups (and I say this in all humility) is that they are isolated from the orthodox and therefore have an isolated approach and understanding towards everything. They, in case of Muslim offshoot groups, abide by selected Qur'anic verses and limited Prophetic narrations. So it is no wonder that they do not find five prayers in the Qur'an because they isolate a verse from the rest of the Qur'an, count three prayers in it and pass their judgment. They totally disregard the rest of the Qur'an (knowingly or unknowingly) and the Prophet's (saw) example. And it is the Qur'an which clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly commands us to follow the Prophet (saw) who prayed five times a day. Yet some of us argue for three over five. So where are the five prayers? (1) Fajr is mentioned by name in 24:58 (before sunrise). (2) Dhuhur is specified in 17:78 (when the sun declines). (3) Asr is alluded to in 2:238 (midway between noon and sunset). (4) Maghrib is clarified in 11:114 (immediately after sunset). (5) Isha is highlighted in 11:114 and is also mentioned by name in 24:58.
  13. Walaykum as salaam wa rahmatullah, Hope you are in the best of health along with family and loved ones. - Regarding prophecies, I think one has to be fulfilled for you and me to realize that a prophecy has been fulfilled. Otherwise, you are just squeezing someone into somewhere he or she does not fit. We will see an example of it in the very next point. - As for Isaiah 7:14, the most widely discussed NT interpretation "contrary to the literal and accepted meaning" of a Hebrew text is the dogma of the Virgin Birth, which Matthew bases on Isaiah 7:14, "Behold, the young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel." Matthew 1:22-23 says the virgin birth of Jesus happened to fulfill the words of the prophet Isaiah. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew was probably using the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) as his "Old Testament," and the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word almah, meaning "young woman," as the Greek word parthenos, "maiden, virgin, unmarried girl," so that the Greek text may falsely be read, "a virgin shall conceive." "Behold, the young maiden will conceive" does not mean she will be a virgin when she gives birth, nor does it imply that Yhwh will be the father. In other words, the original Hebrew text of Isaiah never prophesied a virgin birth, only that a young woman would bear a child. But that is by no means the worst problem! Besides using a misinterpretation of the Hebrew, the NT takes Isaiah 7:14 totally out of context. The passage actually refers to an imminent invasion of Israel by the Assyrians, which took place in the late 700s BCE. The story of Isaiah 7-8 goes as follows. During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, Kings Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem (7:1). Ahaz feared the worst, but Isaiah told him Yhwh would not allow the two kings to destroy Jerusalem. Then Isaiah tells Ahaz that Yhwh will give a sign to prove the truth of what he says: the young woman will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel, and before the boy is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, the land of the two kings, whom Ahaz fears, will be laid waste by the king of Assyria (Isa. 7:14-17). Obviously the king of Assyria did not destroy Israel and Aram when Jesus was a boy--no, that happened in 732 and 722-21 BCE, so Jesus could not fulfill this prophecy. The birth of the child in Isaiah was supposed to be a sign that the attack on Jerusalem in the 700s BC would fail. In fact, the very next chapter in Isaiah, chapter eight, continues the story. Isaiah goes to the prophetess and she conceives and bears a son. In verses 3-4, they call him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz ("quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil") because before the boy is very old the king of Assyria will "plunder" and "spoil" Damascus and Samaria. And verses 8 and 10 again refer to Immanuel ("God is with us"), because Yhwh will save Ahaz and because even though the Assyrians will sweep all the way into Judah (701 BCE), their plans against Jerusalem will not succeed. Whether Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and Immanuel are the same child or two different children matters not; both belong in time to the 700's BCE and to chapters 7 and 8 of Isaiah. Isaiah 8:18 even lets the reader know that the children in chapters 7-8 belong to Isaiah himself: "Here I am, and the children Yhwh has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel" (Isaiah's other child was Shear-Jashub, "a remnant will return," Isa. 7:3 and 10:21). To summarize this issue, the writer of the Gospel of Matthew both used a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 and conveniently ignored 7:15-17 and the context of the "Immanuel" verse, as he misused Isaiah to support the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus. But in the Greco-Roman world, the virgin birth of a divine or semi-divine hero was a common motif. - I am not obliged to answer any questions. You have made a positive claim regarding prophecies being fulfilled to Israel. I am only presenting a more coherent alternative that is more believable from OT itself. With peace and blessings!
  14. @Hassan Y Here is a detailed explanation of what I was referring to. I had this discussion years ago and since ShiaPen also used the same argument (in vain), another website has refuted them. (Rebutting ShiaPen's Claim) The fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) has been taken out of context by Shiapen. In this fatwa, Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) was reprimanding those who pray on rugs solely because they are concerned of “soil” – which they consider impure – getting on their clothes and bodies, and those who use rugs for themselves even though the mosque is carpeted. If praying on the rug is done to avoid praying on the carpets that are spread for everyone in the mosque (as in laying down your own rug over the carpet inside the mosque), or if a person does that to be on the safe side because there may be some impurity (najaasah) in the ground, then it is bid'ah. Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) said: Praying on rugs, in the sense that the worshipper insists on having one, was not the way of the salaf, the Muhaajireen and Ansaar and those who followed them in truth at the time of the Prophet (saw). Rather they used to pray on the ground in his mosque and none of them had a rug that was used just for prayer. It was narrated that when ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi came to Madeenah he spread out a rug, and Maalik ordered that it be taken away. It was said to him, “He is ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi.” Maalik said, “Do you not know that spreading a rug in our mosque is bid’ah (an innovation)?” Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 22/163 The same applies to the practice in many mosques of having a rug that is just for the imam, which is set out for him to pray on, even though the mosque is carpeted. It is laid down to distinguish him from the rest of the worshippers. The point is that putting down rugs in a carpeted mosque is a bid’ah unless there is a reason for that, such as it being very cold, or the floor being rough, or the mosque carpet being naajis (impure) or filthy, and so on.
  15. Since the video shows Uthman Al-Khamees, I thought we should allow him to present his point in its entirety. Personally, I do not endorse the inflammatory images used in this video. I only condone the bit relevant to our discussion, not the taunts or insults.
×
×
  • Create New...