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


About ZethaPonderer

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Religion
    Shia Islam (Zaidi Branch)
  • Mood
  • Favorite Subjects
    Philosophy, History, Spirituality, Mathematics, Film, Animation, Video Games, Computer Programming, Boxing, and... Religion... Yeah

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,922 profile views
  1. My answer to your question @khamosh21 would be to meditate and understand this question with another question. Can we as Human Beings comprehend the Knowledge of the Unseen (ilm ul ghayb)? The answer is a clear cut NO. Humans can only comprehend Knowledge that is Revealed/Seen, and do not possess the necessary means to grasp The Unseen Knowledge. And even then, Human Beings don't necessarily possess Knowledge of The Revealed/Seen with absolute certainty since Human Beings based on how they are born begin as Jaahils (Ignorant) from the start. Therefore a limitation has been placed upon Humans from Allah Himself. It is up for Human Beings to decide if they wish to remain in their Jaahiliyat (Ignorance) status since birth to be even worse than an Animal or Seek Knowledge that is Revealed/Seen for them to be better people. One of the 99 names of Allah is All-Knowing (Al-Aalim). Therefore He knows ALL types of Knowledge. Revealed/Seen, Unseen, and who knows what other types of Knowledge Allah knows with absolute certainty. What are Prophets and Imams? Let's note down the similarities and differences as well, Prophets and Imams are Human Beings just like us, therefore they have limitations as a creation of Allah just like us, Jinns, and Angels. They eat, drink, sleep, and poop like the rest of us. However, unlike the rest of Human Beings they are divinely chosen from Allah to serve a divine purpose. Prophets are Messengers of Allah and their livelihood, breath, deeds are a reflection of the Revelation from Allah they spread on Humanity. Imams are Guardians that preserve The Revelation from Allah through His Prophets while also The Divinely Chosen Leader from Allah for Humanity. Not all Nabis are Rasuls, but all Rasuls are Nabis. A Rasul is a Prophet who is appointed from Allah to reveal a New Revelation from Allah, while a Nabi does not and only reveals The Revelation from Allah through the previous Rasuls. All of my answers up above is in direct accordance of how I was taught within Shia Islam (Zaidi Branch) and Shia Islam (Jaafari Branch). Now to answer your question directly, Is it a mistake for Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to marry Aisha when Humans nowadays have understood that Aisha was not a good person? To answer your question would be another question. Do you believe Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who is considered as The Seal of All Prophets from Allah which would also mean that he is an amalgamation of ALL of the Previous Prophets/Apostles that came before him (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), can FULLY COMPREHEND The Knowledge of Unseen like Allah can? The answer to that is, they are creations of Allah just like us. So as creations of Allah, they have the ability to comprehend The Knowledge of Unseen with ABSOLUTENESS as long as its in relation to the Revelation from Allah they are chosen from Him to spread upon Humanity. If Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) along with the rest of the Nabis (عليه السلام) and Rasuls (عليه السلام) before him can comprehend 100% of The Knowledge of Unseen like Allah can, than they are just as All-Knowing (Al-Aalim) as Allah is which is contradictory since Al-Aalim is one of the 99 names of Allah. Furthermore, the question itself is flawed and narrow-minded since previous Nabis and Rasuls (عليه السلام) before him (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) also married women who are NOT good in character. For example, Prophet Noah/Nuh (AS)'s wife and Prophet Lot/Lut (AS)'s wife? So what does the question itself tell us? That Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is truly the Amalgamation of ALL of the Nabis and Rasuls (عليه السلام) before him. He truly is the Seal of ALL Prophets of Allah. The question also tells us that Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is here to teach us just like Prophet Noah/Nuh (عليه السلام) and Prophet Lot/Lut (عليه السلام) did many years ago that in Marriage there will be compromises to make. You and your significant other might not be the best match at all as it may seem at first. Good and Evil live and flourish together in this world. Evil festers when you least expect it. Evil may look like its triumphing and trampling all over the Goodness of This World. But, Good ultimately does triumph over Evil in the end. Guess what happened to Aisha after Prophet Muhammad (SAW)'s return to the Afterlife through Martyrdom? The Battle of The Camel and her Humiliating Defeat landing in Camel Poop at the end. To me, this is all part of Allah's plan. For Humanity to live up to Allah's expectations that Humans are His Best Creation on top of defeating Satan/Shaytan's ambitions and making him eat his own words. That is all I want to convey. Peace (Salaam).
  2. Btw, it just came to my attention that even though I hate these people while at the same time don’t see the point in making fun of them implies that there’s a disconnect going on in my mind. Like a 404 error or 502 bad gateway happening on my brain. I know these people. My hatred for them is so profound that I’m willing to dissect every single solitary act and characteristics they are as evil sinful degenerate creatures of God through the Qur'an for how it describes the qualities and characteristics of Firaun and compare him to them to the teeth. So, basically my hatred for such people has reached so far that I’m having a hard time understanding seeing the value in making fun of them when I see more value in cursing them for their unadulterated pride of their Sins, educating myself constantly and towards others for their abominable character, and noting down all the characteristics of these horrible Human Beings so that I never become like them.
  3. Yeah that's a fair point. I hate them with a burning passion so I made the necessary corrections in my first post since I came across too bold and making it look like I never did when that is not true at all. Basically I come across as forthright and bold when making my posts generally, though in this post and the question that I'm having a hard time understanding, I shouldn't be too bold and forthright here and make the necessary corrections on my post in order to understand the question on a different level.
  4. This is an interesting question that I have a hard time understanding. I know that Allah is generally displeased with Sinners and those who've Sinned. But who are we as Human Beings to make fun of People who are Sinners and those who've Sinned. What if the Sinner is willing to learn from their mistakes and keep trying their best to overcome their Sins? As Human Beings it is irrational to overrule that line of reasoning since it is a possibility. So are those People who make fun of such people displeases Allah just as much if not more so than those who are Sinners and those who've Sinned? After all, most of Human Beings are Sinners (many people including me would be likely to believe that 99.99% of Humanity comprise of Sinners while only 0.01% of Humanity are the true Saints of Allah who've NEVER Sinned in their entire life). I usually don't make fun of people nor do I see the point of it as long as I believe and put my faith in Allah that the Sinner shall overcome his sins as long as Allah wills. The only time I might give into making fun of people if they've never overcomed their Sins and instead take pride in their Sins and acts to disbelieve in Allah. But still this question puzzles me even more when applying it towards Disbelievers in general. I just want to see your take on it based on how your preferred school of though within Shia Islam and Sunni Islam taught you? Cause I'm in many schools of thought other than my own and understanding a question like this on a particular level is hard for me to grasp completely. I hate Yazid ibn Muawiyah, Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, and most of the Banu Ummayads that are cursed by Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). But, I would be hesitant in resorting to making fun of them for their Sins, nor would I overrule out the possibility that some of the people in Banu Ummayah are willing to reject their tribe and become a devout follower of Ahlul-Bayt once they come to understand how cursed their tribe truly is according to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
  5. Hmm... good point there. I was just questioning the consistency of the terminologies that are acceptable within the Scientific Field since Science according to most lay people rely on being consistent and using specific terminologies that should have only 1 meaning should make Science more easy to understand. But, your line of reasoning is a fascinating take indeed. Btw, is Animal a slang according to you since your post revolves around the differences between 1 meaning only Professional Terminologies and Lay Terminologies with many meanings?
  6. For your first question I thought I made it clear there. Guess not. So let me elaborate further by using the dictionary from various https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/animal https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/animal What I take issue when understanding the definitions even in context is that there are some meanings of the term that are not logically equivalent, an·I·mal (an'I-măl), 1. A living, sentient organism that has membranous cell walls, requires oxygen and organic foods, and is capable of voluntary movement, as distinguished from a plant or mineral. 2. One of the lower animal organisms as distinguished from humans. [L.] Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012 As you can clearly see, the first meaning sounds good and fits in according to Science, the second meaning tries to justify the usage of the term as a means to describe other living creatures as beneath Humans. Therefore, with respect to the second meaning people can use the term "Animal" in a demeaning and derogatory way. The reason why this makes no logical sense to me is that I fail to see how the definition can have it both ways where on one hand we say Humans are Animals yet on the other hand we say Humans are not Animals. To have it both ways means that both the claims "Humans are Animals" and "Humans are not Animals" have equal weight to them which is a bit illogical. Basically, it boils to this, "We are, but we are not" What? Either you are or you are not? That's all I want to elaborate for your first question. It's sounds inconsistent to me. And if Science favors consistency in the long run I think they would much prefer using a terminology that would be consistent in the field. As for your second question, that's not a bad term to use though I suspect that the usage of the term "Creature" is becoming broad since there are some people willing to argue that Plants should be considered creatures and they are more than just things in nature. The terms I've picked are more in line to describe something that is neither a plant nor a mineral and is reasonably synonymous to the term "Animal". So it has to be either Carnal or Sensual or Flesh. Your post is exactly what I wanted out of this topic and you live up to your username. Even going out of your way to not necessarily agree with the line of thought that the term "Animal" is contradictory according to Philosophy through basic understanding of liguistics. But Science does derive what it is through the philosophy of Epistemology does it not? There's even a whole branch known as "The Philosophy of Science" that discusses how Science has many things in common with Epistemology. http://www2.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf http://www.typedynamic.com/2012/06/scientific-method-and-epistemology.html My line of reasoning Science is the Building while Philosophy is the Ground that holds the Building in place is not far from a stretch. Either way you're not wrong. Just that Quantity, Data, Statistics and Measurements are taken into account to justify that which is observable and being repeatedly tested from time to time.
  7. That’s what people nowadays want to think which I believe is very disingenuous in the long run. Why? Because when observing the principles and steps of the Scientific Method, https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method It sounds similar to a particular Philosophy known as Epistemology. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ Is the Scientific Method epistemological? Yes. So, if Biology is a part of Science just as much as Chemistry and Physics, then I fail to understand why can’t Philosophy and Science Mix? I see it that Philosophy is the Ground while Science is the Building on the Ground. Therefore, Science cannot stand on its own without the help of Philosophy. Then again these terms “Fleshly”, “Sensual”, and “Carnal” should be more appropriate for not just Humans, but for other Non-Human Creatures as well. I’m just saying that the term “Animal” sounds demeaning and derogatory. No different than calling someone a Beast or using Racial Slurs to understand Humanity. I’m living in a world currently where I bear witness reading about such lovely people advocating for that which is obviously disgusting and consent-defying on top of a lack of regard for the understanding of innocence to a sane person, https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-beastiality-be-made-legal https://www.debate.org/debates/Bestiality-Should-be-Legalized/1/ when being enlightened with the claim and evidence by the Scientific Community and Animal Rights Activists “Humans are Animals”. The degeneracy is growing stronger the more time passes. I might go insane and lose myself for who I am for my pursuit of knowledge and improving myself in the long run as a better person which is what fears me the most.
  8. You can consider me living in a rock, but to spare you the trouble I have read a lot of Science Books and this NEVER made any sense to me. The definition of the term "Animal" is borderline semantics according to Science and contradictory at worst according to Philosophy. To describe Humans as Animals is a bit demeaning and makes just as much sense as calling them "Beasts" or using Racial Slurs to describe the entirety of Humanity. So, wouldn't a much more appropriate terminology be taken into consideration for the Scientific Field to be taken seriously? Instead of Animals why not Fleshly (singular) or Fleshlies (plural)? Or Carnal(s)? Or Sensual(s)? All three of these terminologies share similarities with the term "Animal", but not in a demeaning and derogatory sort of way. So, instead of "Animal Kingdom" it should be "Fleshly Kingdom". Thus, Dogs and Cats are Fleshly Mammals. Chickens are Fleshly Birds. Snakes are Fleshly Reptiles. Salmon are Fleshly Fish. Frogs are Fleshly Amphibians. Therefore, Humans are Fleshly Mammals according to Science. This makes more logical sense than using the term "Animal" all the way to describe Non-Plant and Non-Mineral Living Creatures. I can buy that. Since the term "Animal" at best is used in a derogatory and demeaning manner when describing someone or something living just as much as using the term "Beast". Here's a social experiment for you all. Greet your fellow brethren and those as your equal with the following, "Hello there you animal" and see what their reaction is.
  9. So far here's how I've come to dig up the information when commemorating the victims of the New Zealand Mosque Shooting, https://www.insider.com/new-zealand-mass-shooting-victims-2019-3 https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2019/mar/21/christchurch-shooting-remembering-the-victims https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/world/Asia/new-zealand-shooting-victims-names.html In case the links don't work, here are the names of the victims of the last two websites in quotes. The first link isn't too critical for commemoration, just an explanation for the investigation team of New Zealand for their information about the victims along with the vicinity. The Guardian (theguardian.com) Link The New York Times (nytimes.com) Link May Allah shed mercy upon them and upon those who not only believe in Him, but have faith in Him.
  10. First thing first from what I have to say. May Allah grant the 50+ victims the status of "Martyr" and be remembered as such. I've made duas to the victims and their respective families ever since the incident was informed by my family members a day ago. Now with that out of the way, let's get down to business with what I have to say about this event and what I came to understand. DISCLAIMER: I'm not defending the "Shooter", but stating out an important reason why this event occurred and for what reason. Even still, Two wrongs don't make it right in the end and this "Shooter" should be branded as a "Terrorist" just as much as Salafi and Wahabbi Muslims out there and deserve to be given the death penalty. In the meantime, this "Shooter" as I put that term loosely, was a Neo-Nazi anti-Islamic memer who wanted to start a massive Civil War upon the US and probably the entirety of Europe for them to revolt and overthrow Muslims out of their countries so that "Islamic Terrorism" doesn't occur. He heartlessly massacred 50+ Muslims at New Zealand for the LOLZ and piss all over the media for not covering up the atrocities of what Muslims (Possibly from Sunni Islam since Sunnis make up 90% of the Muslim Ummah) are doing in their countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt against the minorities over there. For this "Shooter" to be considered Insane according to the News, he had reasonable motives and careful planning when observing his manifesto. So please don't let the media even glorify this "Shooter". Don't brand him Insane either. Just give him the death penalty with no court trial. I've read something interesting from other websites throughout the internet where some internet people are going out of their way to find embarrassing things and stuff to ridicule/de-glorify this "Shooter". As if that's going to help anyone other than hurting the "Shooter"'s infamous image and possibly his feelings. I'm sorry if anyone takes offense into reading this post, but I have to let it out of my chest since I cannot begin to process what has just happened and I have to understand what just happened. In the meantime, I'll soon make another post commemorating the victims and see what could I find about them so they be remembered. Perhaps this is a sign for things to come since the Wahabbi and Salafi sect of Sunni Islam have the utmost power to commit atrocities under the name of Islam.
  11. Well the way how I worded might seem jumbled due to my overthinking nature and not being concise. But, oh well. What's jumbled to some is clear to others.
  12. @hasanhh Because I do my best to serve Allah through following the traditions of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his family The Ahlul-Bayt. Not my own ego and I go to great lengths to remain ego-less. Hence I don't expect anyone, be they Muslim or Non-Muslim, to agree with me despite the question assuming everyone agreed with me because I do my best to serve Allah. Not my ego. I played my part, served my part, and leave my part up to Allah. Plus, the way how the question is worded caters towards people who'll answer this question with an ego.
  13. Personally speaking my answer is NO. Because Life in this Temporal Universe would be boring. If everyone agreed with me then there would be no reason for me to push myself to get good and strong as a person in terms of everything (mental, physical, spiritual, and intellectual). Plus, the whole notion of Free Will for Humanity becoming obsolete and yadayada. Plus, I don't expect anyone to agree with me regardless of my enmity or friendly towards them. I wonder what would the answer be for the Prophets of Allah/Ellah including the Ahlul-Bayt if they were presented with a question like this? Only Allah/Ellah knows. Only Allah/Ellah knows.
  14. Noam Chomsky. What an interesting thought provoking man. I always admired the way he articulates his points. It seems bizarre for a man like him being critical towards America and other western nations with their foreign policies towards Other Nations alongside Middle East nations. Especially with his upbringing being an American Jewish Family where many people would expect him to be pro-Israel and pro-West with his arguments. But no, he maintains a sense of realism when he addresses his points and takes no sides whatsoever as far as my readings about him tells me (prove me wrong). A critic that goes out of his way to be as unbiased as humanly possible (again prove me wrong if my readings about him is off).
  15. I have nothing good to say nor do I wish to associate myself with these presidents. Especially towards the Bush family. This man allowed his eldest son George W Bush led the foundation of instigating one of the most pointless wars in not just American History, but Human History for all time (Iraq War).
  • Create New...