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 Members
  • Content Count

    419
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Follower of Ahlulbayt

  1. For clarity, I think we can split this discussion into two different categories: 1: Could an Imam who does not have authority at a specific time disagree when the Imam who does have authority gives a command (irshadi or mawlawi) 2: Given the same situation, the Imams do not have to do the same exact things as the others. I think if we accept point 1 (that an Imam is allowed to disagree with the command of another Imam), then obviously point two is also accepted. But if we accept point 2, that doesn't necessarily mean an Imam can disagree when a command is given by the Imam who has more authority. The reason I split it up like this is because the evidences for these two points can be different. What I am thinking, is that if we bring the evidence that the Imams and Prophet can make mistakes in matters of application of certain laws, then that at least proves point 2, since one Imam can make a mistake in the application of a certain law, and the later Imams learn from that mistake and not do the same things. Not only that, but it also proves that the same Imam, can do different things, given the same situation, since at one time he could make a mistake, and another he learns from his mistake and doesn't do it again. For example, lets for arguments sake say that Imam Hussain's (a) decision to go to Kufa was a mistake. Now lets say Allah gave the Imam a second chance and rewinded time back again when the Imam hadn't made the decision to leave for Kufa. Would the Imam (a) have made the same decision? I think that most of us will agree the Imam (a) would have done different things, learning from his mistake. Thoughts?
  2. Look, let me try and settle things down. We are unnecessarily being confrontational with each other. Its getting too toxic. First, I would like to apologise to brother @Urwatul Wuthqa for the insults. I shouldn't have reacted in that way, and should have just ignored the comments made against me. Brother @Sumerian, I don't know what else I can say, but that I swear on Allah that I am not Mr.. Tawheed. I would like to apologise for saying you don't care about the religion, maybe you think that the way I write or you have seen some of my threads and the topics I discuss, and from this you came to the conclusion that I am that person. Its silly of me to even care about this in the first place, as it doesn't matter who you think I am. It is a bit annoying though, since you are the third person on this forum that has said I am Mr.. tawheed or had some other account. Insha'Allah I hope you will change your opinion that I am Mr.. Tawheed. If not though and you still think from the evidence that you have that I am some other person, the no problem. Yes and with all due respect, I don't think you have been able to provide any concrete evidence. Insha'Allah please continue with your discussion with brother Ibn al-Hussain though, maybe you will provide good evidence and make both of us change our views. I would ask you on what your methodology is in establishing a historical event? If you think that we need reliable chains to an infallible to establish a historical event, then I would respectfully disagree with that. But you're right, one can't refute a concrete belief through historical events. If for example historical reports said that the Imams committed sins, we would have to reject those reports or we would have to reinterpret them. There is nothing wrong with that. But, the difference in this discussion is that the principle of the Imams doing the same thing given the same situation, I don't believe that there is any good evidence for this. Brother, calling the argument pathetic and this discussion being a waste of time etc.. I feel like is not needed. Some of the points you made, I looked up verses as well and you alhamdullilah did change two of your positions. But I didn't call your objections pathetic. This is what I wanted in the discussion. I wanted to see if I missed a verse or if there was a narration which I missed or if I missed something else. I wanted to see if the argument held any weight when put against scrutiny. You, masha'Allah, was able to show a verse which showed that this example was not suitable. The discussion wasn't a waste. We were able to come to a conclusion, by back and forth arguments. If we never went back and forth, we would have never have come to this conclusion that the argument was invalid. Insha'Allah if you feel like I am being an obstacle to this discussion, then this will be my last response to you. I do agree, we are not doing any good for this discussion by this beef. I hope after I have written all of this, we can squash the beef and not hold any grudges against each other. I am eagerly looking forward to your discussion with the respected brother. Wassalam
  3. This is getting petty now. Disguise myself? You still going on about me being Mr. tawheed? Some people have no shame. .. Yeah ok, what I said there was wrong and incorrect wording. What I should have said is that historically the Imams disagreed with each other. Whatever I said here, I clearly mentioned to you at the start that the question of "Did Imam Hussain (a) disagree with Imam Hasan (a) on the peace treaty with Muawiyah" is a historical question. You are claiming the principle that the Imams would do the same thing given the same situation, so the onus is on you to provide the evidence. don’t know basics I see. You are rejecting history based on preconceived assumptions you have. Yes the historical evidence does contradict the principle, and if you were to prove the principle is correct , then you have two options regarding the historical evidences. Reject them or misinterpret them. Again, lol I got you to change your views, twice, with a pathetic argument. You said that I was 'hanging' on to historical reports and that I needed to humble myself. Now, you contradict yourself here when you say the respected brother is presenting convincing evidences. Tell me, what evidence is the brother using to prove that the Imams disagreed in a mawlawi matter? Oh, the same evidences which you said that I needed to humble myself. So why don't you tell the respected brother to humble himself for relying on such reports that you believe are so baseless that one needs to humble himself for using them? And I included his statement (fairytale religion, ouch that must hurt you), to show how absurd you are for trying to tell me to humble myself. Again, why don't you ask the brother to humble himself. Oh and yes his statement (fairytale religion) may not be hujjah, but what he is actually saying and him completely refuting all your objections is. Lol yeah didn't think you would respond to that. I clearly exposed you as someone who couldn't care less about doing haram publicly and how you are a slandering liar and you think takfir is a joke.
  4. lol what a pathetic response... Maybe you have memory problems, I'll remind you no problem. I am not trying to build aqeeda from this. Again, I am discussing a historical question with regards to the peace treaty. You are the one that needs to prove this principle. And its not a historical report. Its historical reports (10 historians mentioning it). Again, never brought up the historical fact of Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing to prove anything. The onus is not on me to prove anything. I simply brought this up to show that accepting this principle would cause us to either out right reject history, or make us somehow (mis)interpret this historical event in a way that fits the principle. And btw, I did know aqeeda is proven through tawatur, you are assuming things again lol Pathetic? Took you 3 pages to respond to a pathetic argument? And on the way you changed your own views as well. lol its not just me who is 'hanging' on and accepting history as it is, the most knowledgable brother on this forum is also 'hanging' on to this incident. In fact, the brother also made the comment after he finished providing all the evidences, that may Allah protect us from a fairytale religion. So, humble yourself Again, very misleading. You've got a bad habit it seems. Mention what that particular user said to me first before I responded to him? Oh wait, what can I expect from someone who has the audacity to accuse others with no evidence. And no you didn't insult me, you just indirectly did takfir (which you sort of clarified) and then accused me of being someone I am not. So again, either prove to everyone here that you care a little about the religion and that you don't put your ego ahead of it, and apologise to me and say that your accusation against me was completely baseless.
  5. yeaaa ha no you didn't. First, I'm not a child like you who can't accept when he was wrong. But the whole principle of 'the Imams would do different things given the same situation' hasn't been disproven, and you hilariously denied the historical fact of Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing with Imam Hassan (a). Look, if you aren't very religious and you don't care much about publicly sinning, then thats fine. But if you do, u should apologise for making an accusation against someone with zero evidence.
  6. Why should I apologise? He implied I was protecting Abu Sufyan and copying Umar. I called him a few names like jahil, idiot and dajjal (a deceiver, ofc not referring to the anti-christ). Pretty sure calling him an idiot is not really comparable to him claiming I protected the worst creation ever. And anyways, are you his Mom or something? lol So, you aren't going to apologise for lying about me? No worries... The sin is on you buddy
  7. Yeah, well now its your turn... Apologise to me and say that you were wrong for publicly lying about me. I will say now, By Allah, I have no idea who Mr. Tawheed313 is. Or are you too stubborn and up yourself?
  8. No one is saying the Imams are not infallible (in the sense that they don’t intentionally commit sins). What we are saying is if they would have done different things, given they were in the same situation. Wassalam
  9. Yep....and its not Mr.. Tawheed313 like you accused me of. Maybe you should publicly apologise for accusing me of being a person I'm not? That would be the moral thing to do... Wasted? How is going through arguments a waste? You and I both learned things in the discussion. Its not a waste at all. What is a waste is now you have gotten personal, and have publicly lied and accused a believer of something with no evidence at all.
  10. This is quite deceitful and comedic. First, I was insulting that ONE individual because he implied I copied Umar and protected Abu Sufyan. Not saying what I did was right. but maybe give the context? And not just me, that particular user has been a constant obstacle to fruitful discussion for years on this forum. As for 'Mr...Tawheed313', I have no idea what you are on about Was this a user you had personal beef with? Look, assuming things is a sin buddy. Another user on this forum also accused me of having another account, and their proof was because I highlighted some words in red. You probably don't have anything better proof then that yeah? Odd people honestly Nice one, I was not aware of this verse. Looks like this example cannot be used as evidence that two infallibles can make different decisions in the same situation. But still, the disagreement between Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Hussain (a) regarding the peace treaty is there. Takfir isn't a joke.
  11. So would you agree then, lets say if Imam Hussain (a) was not present during the peace treaty and he was in China. He then comes back and sees Imam Hasan (a) didn't fight and instead did a peace treaty. Imam Hussain (a) then says to his brother "I disagree with this we should fight Mu'awiyah". Are you saying that Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing in this example is fine, since he wasn't there during the treaty and only came after and is therefore in a different context?
  12. There is no need to get so worked up because you couldn't answer the question. And Musa (a) did confront them...he literally burned the calf: "[Moses] said, "Then go. And indeed, it is [decreed] for you in [this] life to say, 'No contact.' And indeed, you have an appointment [in the Hereafter] you will not fail to keep. And look at your 'God' to which you remained devoted. We will surely burn it and blow it into the sea with a blast." (20:97) And also says afterwards: Your God is only Allah, except for whom there is no deity. He has encompassed all things in knowledge." (20:98) Also, Harun (a) didn't know what Musa's (a) reaction was going to be. He feared that Musa (a) would say you caused disunity etc... This is the apparent meaning of the Qur'an. So because Harun (a) feared how Musa might have responded, you are saying that is evidence that Musa (a) changed his opinion? Something completely not related, but I feel like you have been way too condescending. Even in your first reply to me, you said: Us Believers? What did you mean by that? Its as if you are indirectly doing takfir on me.
  13. This is an argument I heard. 1 + 1 = 2 is infinite. We did not invent this, rather we discovered it. But, in order for this to be infinite, since it is a abstract concept, it must exist in an eternal mind. That eternal mind, is the mind of God, the necessary being.
  14. Sigh. Looks like this discussion isn't going anywhere. I asked you a simple question, and with all due respect brother, you haven't been able to answer it. What Harun (a) did or what he didn't do or what his intention was or what it wasn't is completely irrelevant as to whether Musa (a) changed his opinion.
  15. How are their situations different? They were in the same positions— Prophets of God, dealing with the same people, dealing with the same person (Samiri) and trying to fix the same problem (people worshiping an idol). Again, this is not evidence. Harun's (a) reasoning as to how he thought Musa (a) would have reacted is not evidence Musa (a) changed his view.
  16. Why not? We can say an Imam did not understand a situation completely, and he disagreed with another Imam, just like here. There is no evidence that you have provided here at all which suggests Musa (a) changed his opinion. You have just showed Harun's (a) reasoning.
  17. Side point but... since you have agreed that there was disagreement before Harun (a) explained the matter, the onus is now on you to prove where Musa (a) changed his view regarding the decision of Harun (a)
  18. If this is what you meant, then I agree. Due to Musa (a) not fully understanding Harun's decision, he disagreed with it.
  19. Oh do you mean between Harun (a) and Musa (a) there was a misunderstanding?
  20. Ok, we have at least agreed on one point. So there was a disagreement between two infallibles. Only once Musa (a) learned of the situation, did they agree.
  21. Before Harun (a) explained why he didn't rise up, did Musa (a) agree or disagree with Harun's decision to not rise up?
  22. You're right I should have been more careful here, like I did in a previous post, I should have said there could have been other reasons. But, I do think that he (a) is doing istighfar for himself and his brother for a reason. If Harun (a) didn't do anything wrong and in fact he did the best possible action (which I don't necessarily disagree with), why would Musa (a) ask for his forgiveness?
  23. Ahsant! So you agree with me. Musa (a) did disagree with Harun (a) before it was explained to Musa (a) the reason why Harun (a) didn't rise up. Therefore, two infallibles can disagree with each other.
×
×
  • Create New...