ZethaPonderer

I have a question for you and this is also going to be personal on my end as well just to enlighten you.
In the verse of The Quran Surah 33 Ayat 33, it mentions the following,

Sahih International Translation: And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.
Remember this is an explicit ayat of The Quran itself. An explicit statement overrides any implicit statement. An Explicit Statement has only 1 interpretation which is crystal clear.
Asking duas to Imams directly doesn't make sense to me personally speaking since it would imply that they are independent upon Allah rather than dependent upon Allah which would definitely qualify as an act of shirk. So I have a challenge to represent not just you but also to the Wahabbis, Salafis, and those Sunnis who believe that Shia Muslims are shirk committing people,
This is my prayer to Allah that I pray to Him directly since 7 years and I practice this saying of my prayer to Him on a daily basis ever since,
"O Allah! Please allow the Ahlul-Bayt including Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) his Family, the 12 Imams to become the Mediators of our Family, the Majority of The Muslim Community and to some extent The Christian and Jew community who believe in their purification according to Surah 33:33; to allow them speak to You O Allah on behalf of Me, My Family, the majority of The Muslim Community and to some extent The Christian and Jew community that our sins, crimes, and shortcomings be ultimately forgiven. Be they Major or Minor. Be they Hidden or Known. Be they Intentional or Unintentional. Ameen"
Given this personal prayer of mine that I recite to Allah after finishing Namaaz do ANY of you along with the vast majority of Muslims REJECT this at all.
You can't say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that I am directly committing an act of Shirk since I'm still directly praying to Allah anyway. I firmly believe that the Ahlul-Bayt are dependent upon Allah just as much as the rest of His creations. But they are purified are they not? So Allah will listen to them. Therefore, I just made a condition in my prayer for Allah to allow His particular creations He Himself has purified to become the Mediators of Me, My Family, the vast majority of The Muslim Community and to some extent The Christian and Jew community to allow them to speak to Allah on behalf of Me, My Family, the vast majority of The Muslim Community and to some extent The Christian and Jew community that our Sins be Forgiven Ultimately.
Do ANY of you Object to this?

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).

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).

When a person calls another person "an animal" in a derogatory sense, it is an informal use of the word and is a form of slang.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slang
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/animal
It isn't just slang according to me alone, It is slang by the nature of it's use. 
But if someone says that homo sapiens are a species of animal, then animal is being used in a professional way and it is no longer derogatory slang.
There are lots of slang words that are alterations from their original meanings. It's common. But we can't go around changing words just because people decide to use them in derogatory ways.
 

Yes, I agree. We shouldn’t shame ppl for their sins, but Yazid and his father has nothing to do with the people who we shouldn’t shame. They murdered, cursed and insulted the family of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), this is why we always shamed them, curse them and talk about their sins. People should know who they are. 

There are lots of words in the English language that have different meanings.
The word "stupid" for example can have a professional meaning, or it can be used as a derogatory term for an otherwise regular person.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stupid
But just because a word appears to be derogatory, doesn't mean that we should change the professionalized version of the word to something else. If anything, it is the lay-version that should change, simply because it often is more of a non professional "slang".
I could make up a slang term and could start calling space shuttles "rocket ships" in a derogatory way if I wanted to. But I wouldn't expect NASA to rename rocket ships just because some old people became offended that I called them rocketships. Slang is too subjective to necessarily alter professional definitions.
And just the same, people aren't going to rename great apes, just because the term "ape" could be used in a negative way.

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.

The air of Victorian and Edwardian superiority complex means that even to atheists we are not similar to animals. Anything that doesn't seem to have intellect or follow our norms are animals. They used to have similar views to Africans and Indians sadly.
For example, we only openly reserve the term animal for serial killers, rapists and paedophiles, something I'm sure a bumblebee would be highly offended by.
The animal-human narrative pleases those who disbelieve in God, they pick and choose it as they wish. On one day they tell us we're animals and religion is a lie, on another day when everyone is #prayingforinsertcityhere (see the irony there?) the human suddenly becomes distinct from the animal. "What sort of animal would do this?" They say amongst themselves. These animals that we called humans only the day before never become our problem because of this animal-human divide, we wash our hands and such animals are better off dead or left to rot in a zoo a.k.a prison system. This is partially why society never learns, if something doesn't conform to our principals it can go on the landfill site to rot or be flushed down the toilet. A Goldfish with swim bladder problems, a dining chair, a serial killer, if they are broken why fix them?

In Urdu language, Animal is translated as "Haywan", it is the opposite of "Insaan" which means Human. 

What surprised me is that when I saw the Arabic word "Hayawan" in Qur'an, a verse is mentioning that "the hereafter is the "Hayawan, if you but knew". Hayawan, as per Arabic means "the real life".

Similarly, Animalis is a Latin word derived from the root word "anima" which means breath. Animalis means "having breath" or "having Soul" or even "Living Being". So the Animal in English is perhaps came from the Latin. 

No.
Epistemology separates 'justified belief' from opinion.
Science is quantized, something that is measured.
What separates a Science from a Philosophy (including beliefs and opinions) iz that a Science is self correcting.
"As someone who was a teacher, l Iove doing these squelch-to-squash operations. Smashing, isn't it?"

[Mod Note: Expand the two quotes below to see short notices about the deceased, their names, photos, a bit about who they were. Condolences.]
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 have mercy upon them and upon those who not only believe in Him, but have faith in Him.

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.

[Mod Note: Expand the two quotes below to see short notices about the deceased, their names, photos, a bit about who they were. Condolences.]
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 have mercy upon them and upon those who not only believe in Him, but have faith in Him.

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.

Is it OK for you to give us the reference to how you got this information? Because I've never heard about The Mongol Invasion being so destructive within The Muslim Ummah from South Asia to The Middle East (to some extent) that the earliest books documenting the Pre-Islamic Arabian Lifestyle to Islamic Arabian Lifestyle were destroyed by them.
Damn Chinggis Khan and his subordinate Amir Timur to Hell. Damn them and their Mongol Army.

In general I think education (both in the general sense and with Islam itself, Sunni or Shia) has a lot to do with it, as well as those who grow up around Muslim types that go around damning others and not allowing a window for critical thought on the religion (as well as other religions), people forcing others to believe something etc.
In the West, it's more that in the 20th century things started pushing towards moral and collective decadence very early on, combined with the massive and lasting shock that both world wars have had on the collective consciousness of the world in general. But beyond that, the relativist ideology is more and more a default position in the Western world.....and of course, it has inevitable consequences when taken beyond subjective opinion.

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

This is all too philosophically jumbled for me.

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.

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).

Why not both? Have a hardline established ‘philosophy of peace’ that ALL of Humanity can agree on which will allow for scientific growths and achievements dedicated for bettering Humanity and achieving peace.
Science and Philosophy should go together. Imam Jafar Sadiq (AS)’s legacy speaks for itself.
If there is no established ‘Philosophy of Peace’ to support Scientific Growth, then we’ll just be walking the path of Qabil by creating even more Weapons of Mass Destruction and Chaos.
 
My vote: Philosophy. Because to me, Philosophy comes first, then Science later.

An article about wombat's poop turning into cube shaped poops. What a brilliant metaphor for how close minded and facetious you're coming across. It's one thing to disagree on what people think the Muslim world needs right now, but its another thing entirely for you to look down upon the whole art of philosophy being nothing more than people being pretentious and pseudo-intellectual madmen.
So what's your statement that I highlighted, underlined, and increased the size of one word for convenience, emphasis, and understanding,
"All of what constitutes Philosophy are pretentious, intellectual flatulence".
You sir could make the same remark about The Prophets (AS) of Allah along with Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his Ahlul Bayt's philosophies being nothing more than pretentious, intellectual flatulence for the ignorant masses. What sheer hypocrisy.
I have nothing against Science. I just don't put my trust on this field anymore due to a few bad apples of scientists using "Science' as a means of indulging in Eugenics (Gene Manipulation of All Living Things) and Weapons of Mass Destruction (Atom Bombs and Nuclear Weapons).