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

Follower of Ahlulbayt

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Follower of Ahlulbayt last won the day on September 16

Follower of Ahlulbayt had the most liked content!

5 Followers

About Follower of Ahlulbayt

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,195 profile views
  1. Just because we disagree with them theologically and we may believe they got some things horribly wrong, it doesn't mean they can't have tremendous insights that we can benefit from on other things e.g. arguments for the existence of God and deriving divine attributes from these arguments.
  2. If we were to be just, then we should not just quote the Qur'anic verses which seem to agree with your position that the Prophet and Imams know all things. As it is clear from other numerous Qur'anic verses, that the Prophet did not have knowledge in certain matters. For example, quoting from this article:
  3. If you say God doesn't need to receive sound waves, then things don't need to make sounds in order for God to hear them. But then you contradict yourself in your next answer, when you admit that you think God's hearing is receptive i.e. God receives the sound. I didn't ask if God was personal, I asked if God's hearing requires that a creature first makes a sound and then God hears the sound that the creature made. No back peddling, just you misunderstanding. Again. My position from the start has been: God's attributes are identical to God, but they are not synonymous.
  4. His words are not hujjah, nor are representative of Twelver creed. I can bring you 50 other scholars who say the opposite. As I already mentioned, Shyakh al-Mufid literally says that there is no consensus on the extent of the Imams knowledge besides knowledge of Islamic rulings. Don't make me laugh more, you are really embarrassing yourself now. A weak hadith means it is part of Twelver dogma. How comedic is that. A weak hadith is not even consider in fiqh, let alone aqeedah.
  5. Yep nothing surprising there from Cherub. Whatever he says about Twelver creed should automatically be checked first.
  6. Who said the chapter headings of al Kafi represent Twelver creed? The Imams? Is this a consensus and necessary belief that all Twelver scholars have said that the chapter headings of al Kafi represent the necessary beliefs of Twelver creed? The chapter headings simply summarize the general topic that the ahadith in the chapter will pertain to. Those ahadith could be weak or inauthentic. If the chapter only contains narrations which are weak and narrated by ghulat, how can the chapter heading be considered creed? Yep, weak hadith.
  7. It seems like this guy has nothing better to do than to constantly misrepresent Twelver creed. Refer to this thread, where brother @Ibn al-Hussain who is well versed in Twelver theology as he has been studying in the seminaries in Qum for many years now, explains that the belief that "the Imams know everything" is not what Shi'as believe: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235063650-were-the-prophets-marriages-to-aisha-hafsa-a-colossal-mistake/?do=findComment&comment=3238340 See here as well: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235063650-were-the-prophets-marriages-
  8. In the narrations of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (a) and from reason, which you lack. I previously presented one to you before. In us, they are distinct. But just because they are distinct in us, where did you get the belief that in God they must also be distinct? You don't understand what the univocal use of language is. Your position is univocal. That because the attributes are distinct in us, they must be distinct in God. My position is just because they are distinct in us, does not follow that they are distinct in God.
  9. You said I believe the "terms" are identical. I do not believe the terms are identical. I believe the terms have different meanings. The attributes are identical. Additionally, you clearly were implying in the post that you think that the terms have different meanings, while I do not. Everyone can see how deceitful you were.
  10. No where in scripture does it say that, in God, His power is distinct from his knowledge. The asl is not that these attributes are distinct in God. This is only the case for those who believe God has attributes exactly like how we have attributes (those who hold to univocal use of language.) But why should we go with univocal use? God tells us He is not like creation, and we should expect that He is different to us in many ways as He is uncaused, and we are caused. So again, where did you get the belief that in God, His knowledge and power are distinct things which inhere in H
  11. Yes, you are a deceiver, because you made it seem like I believed that these attributes are synonymous. The attributes are identical to each other, in God, but they are not synonymous. You did not say this in your post. Instead, you said that I think these "terms" are identical, which implies that I think these terms have no difference in meaning. Which is false, again, they have different meanings. But in God, they are the same. So yes, you are a deceiver. I am not back peddling at all. You did not catch me in anything.
  12. Is your explanation that God received sound waves or that in order for God to hear, the person must first make a sound? So creation affects God and God hears in a receptive way? If God simply said “I know what she said”, the meaning is changed according to my view, because again, the terms 'hears', 'knows' and 'sees' are not synonymous. This is your problem. You think that when I say "A man hears" and "God hears", the term hears is being used univocally, in the same sense. Therefore when scripture mentions God hears, that must mean God has a distinct attribute called hearing, wh
  13. So when you look up at the sky, is God above it? A number of problems with your response: You misunderstood my position. My position is not that these terms are identical. Did you not read the part where I explicitly explained why these terms are not synonymous? You probably read it, but because you are a deceiver, you still want to misrepresent my position and act like I think they just mean the same things. Yes, power and knowledge are distinct in us and thus our conception of these terms are different. But that was not my question. My question was: Where did you get the be
  14. Do you believe God is above us, such that if I look towards the sky, God will be there if I keep going up? Also, in a previous discussion you said God's power and knowledge are distinct. Where did you get this from? Th Qur'an or Sunnah? The salaf? Ibn Taymiyyah?
  15. Even the philosophers, the ones who prove that God's attributes are all identical to God, had to list out attributes separately (for example if you read Ed Feser's five proofs, he mentions in one premise that God is omnipotent, but in another premise he mentions God is fully good, and in another premise he mentions another attribute etc.). The reason this is done is because these terms are not synonymous. Now you might ask, how do these terms have different meanings, yet are all identical in God? We have to go a couple steps back to a few points: our knowledge of God is through creatures
×
×
  • Create New...