Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Twelver Shia Islam
  • Favorite Subjects
    Allah, Qur'an, All things Religion/spirituality/mystical, philopsophy, Art, Poetry, music

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,330 profile views

HakimPtsid's Achievements

  1. I find it kinda funny how the fellow Ummah forget what Surah 22:17 says: "Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and those who associated with Allah - Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness." A "Magian" (majūsa) is another name for a Mazdaean, which is yet another name for the more well-known "Zoroastrian". The Prophet Zoroaster/Zarathustra himself is never directly mentioned anywhere (although there are allusions in many ahadith) but there is very little doubt in the historical Zoroaster being an important Prophet sent by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Alongside that, we gotta remember Dhul Qurnayn (Surah 18), who (if he was a historical person) was Cyrus the Great - who was a Zoroastrian ruler in Persia - later mentioned in Isaiah 45 in the Jewish Tanakh. Therefore solidifying the place of Zoroastrianism in the Abrahamic tradition, even if the two are never directly identified together for various reasons (afterall Zoroastrianism basically just has one Prophet and doesn't pay attention to others, it is slightly more selective than Judaism or it's precursor of Samaritanism). Aside from that, it's hard to miss the most significant pure-Monotheistic religion outside of the Abrahamic tradition.
  2. Ok smart-guy. Compare Paul's doctrines to what is written in The Didache. Red-flags? Christianity is the result of the competition of a very large amount of prolific separate traditions competing for the copyright of "Jesus" were cut down from the stalk, censored, refined and then sowed together with canonization and an established "Official" Doctrine (typified by the Nicene creed). Jesus was a monotheist, history teaches this, even the New Testament books themselves teach this. It doesn't take a scholar to notice (although there is much scholarship on the topic). As for "...yet you think Muhammad knew Christ better than Paul did?". Paul didn't know Jesus personally, neither did Muhammad know Jesus personally, neither did Jesus know Moses personally, neither did Moses know Abraham personally. If you accept the Prophetic tradition, then this fallacious argument completely falls under the weight of it's stupidity. Paul was not a Prophet nor a successor of Jesus. Even if we were to take the New Testament at it's word, there is no reason to consider Paul an authoritative source. The fact too that Christianity needed a 'second founder' to attempt gaining it's own identity is enough of a testament to how flawed early Christianity was. Ironically, to your dismay, the Qur'an describes what did happen in objective history, there is no getting away from the fact that: "But they cut off their religion among themselves into sects, each part rejoicing in that which is with them." - Surah 23:53 The Catholic Church, the Nicene Creed and other related issues were the 'official' answer to what happened in that above ayat. Ironically though, the 'reformation' against the Catholic Church itself created a few billion sub-sects (aka, Protestantism), which further outlines the subjective, relative nature of the mainstream Christian doctrine. The thing is that Christians are often so arrogant about their Bible canon (and often completely ignorant to what the canon itself actually is) but once you start dissecting objective history, the Christian narrative falls apart. From my own experience, it is because the Christian narrative is a socio-cultural meme bowtied by emotional attachment. I have no hard feelings but it must be explicitly stated or else I wouldn't be honest.
  3. To bring in a few psychological ideas here. Desire is the Anima looking for it's Animus. When we have a void in our heart (on the romantic level) and have a carnal satisfaction not being met (especially in the unmarried/single situation), we drift towards a kind of simulacrum to fill the void. Just as we seek Allah, of which completes a missing part of what it means to exist, so do we relate that on the level of relationships. We have an incomplete part of us which is expressed through a partner, that completion is found in the Union of an embrace which over time produces generation (progeny). A simulacrum of that desire (porn for instance) is like a shovel digging right into your physical heart or brain, pain increases further pain. The only way out of such a cycle is genuine, authentic union which is through the above. The problem again, is when we try to give ourselves quick-fixes instead of facing the source of an issue.
  4. Yeah, that's a misunderstanding of what Pantheism is. Pantheism is that the physical universe is God, it's materialism with different sentiments. The Universe doesn't arise from itself, nor can it define itself. Dualism affirms a Unity, therefore both Pantheism and Atheism can only be falsehoods. On the latter of your post, I hope you don't assume that anything has an existence that is not through Allah's. The whole point is already demonstrated in La Ilaha illa'llah. The best way to put it is that Allah is the only existence, the only reality, the only truth. Everything we know as the physical universe exists through both Tashbih and Tanzih. To understand Tawhid we have to recognize how there being nothing like Allah (Surah 42:11, 112:4, etc) relates to how nothing is self-sufficient, nothing has it's own self-defined existence except for Allah, which is the Unity that defines all of it's Creation. The thing here is that once you say otherwise (contradicting the Qur'an, Muhammad and Imams nonetheless) you admit another God, which is logically impossible. Peace and blessings
  5. As salaamu alaikum, Woah, I haven't been here in a while but it feels great to be back. Hope everyone's doing well. Subhanallah.
  6. Your response isn't to me but I need to point out that you don't understand pantheism if that's what you think @Logic1234 was stating. Pantheism itself is the complete contrary to what they stated. Pantheism defines the Ontological Absolute as the material world. Pantheism denies the transcendent. Pantheism, even with some kind of belief of a collective-soul (however that'd work in a materialist/naturalist framework, who knows...) turns the Absolute into just atoms and particles. The Ontological Absolute is not the material world, that is utter absurdity, that is not any better than Atheism and is a self-refuting worldview. Tawhid though (lest I go listing the various names of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)) necessitates that the manifest is entirely reliant on the unmanifest (Surah 96:6-7, et al). Everything in this, and every other Universe, is transitory and passes away like the night follows the day. All realities pass away but the reality of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), which is al-Haqq. As you may remember "all things perish except his face" (Surah 28:88). All cities are destroyed, all skies are torn, all universes implode, all things pass, everything comes from Allah and to Allah is the return!
  7. Actually I was about to quote Nahjul Balagha Sermon #1 myself and you beat me to it
  8. I think, aside from the contemplation of the nature of the cycles of manifest existence (or "the Universe") - which includes things that you in fact often do take completely for granted (like the day/night cycle, fractals in nature etc), the other part is to contemplate the nature of Dunya itself. We give too much credence to certain assumed expectations about this life/world/realm, but not much to it's actual nature. Sure we live and die, but even a skeptical materialist may begin to see a problem with that on a logical and ontological level. One oft-repeating Ayat in the Qur'an is "From Allah we come and to him is the Return". We tend to assume pre-birth and death to be qualities of "not-being" rather than states. Even on a materialist worldview the very idea of how nothing really goes anywhere, even if it appears to, is another part on a 'naturalistic' level of the issue you run into. You're always going to run into IT, however it conceptualizes in various philosophical systems but IT will inevitably show up. The biggest shot to the foot in modern science is the denial of (and often subtle concealing of) Metaphysics. Aside from this, the Universe is Duality (opposites and disctinctiveness), for these to even be Duality in the first place requires there to be a Unity that precedes and defines the essence of everything else. God is that Unity (Tawhid). Even if we take it in the most radically impersonal sense (such as how Buddhists try to conceptualize the ontological limits of known existence), it still remains a thing that is simultaneously present and different from everything else. There is also far more to discuss here as well.
  9. Question not directed to me but yes, it is implicit that God is Ultimate Reality in Islam. Afterall, al-Haqq IS one of the names of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Remember the Shahada (La ilaha illa'llah), "There is No God but God". Remember Surah Ikhlas? Remember the ayat (also in Ikhlas) that "There is nothing like God"? Remember names of Allah such as as-Samad, al-Ahad, az-Zahir, al-Batin, an-Nur, al-Baqi, al-Khaliq, al-Bari etc etc etc. Remember the many sayings of the Imams on the topic of Tawhid? (there's an incredible and massive section in al-Kafi, among others) Also contemplate the Tashbih and Tanzih. Peace and blessings, may you be successful and find your way
  10. Yes it is negative and it is rather a contradiction of it's premise too, so it's incoherent. The world was very diverse before the modern world, the fact of this is enough to show how wrong these kinds of movements are. Through imperialism and globalization, we are increasingly becoming less diverse and less free in general. It's the weaponization of language and creating buzzwords that mean the opposite of what they appear to imply. They say "diversity" but they mean "monoculture", which means that it's very subversive. That example is exclusivism. I'm not sure if it's "immoral" per se but it's unethical and comes across as a bit perverse. Aside from that it's an appeal to aesthetic or appearance, definitely a thing that should make any rational person frown in unease.
  11. I'll have to dig up some ahadith on this one but really the word "eternal" has to first be defined, alongside what your perceive Jahannam to be both from the Qur'an's descriptions and from the descriptions in ahadith. The thing is though, in a coherent theological understanding you must factor in the ontology of the subject or else you can be left with some rather strange and fanatical ideas (in the case of Catholicism, Protestantism/Evangelicals and Salafism for example)
  12. You know brother, this is very true. In general, through consumerist and capitalist system we have the majority of everything supplied (therefore reliant on corporations, industries and government) so we, ourselves, rather become tools of manipulation by the system. The only freedom there is, is freedom from materialism. Atheists (which Liberals heavily tend to fall into) have no solace in this regard - essentially living for two things: Self-pleasure and the Grave. Not too much 'freedom' on that front. Feminism itself serves the function of a form of tyranny itself, enslaving women to their Egos, enslaving men to attachment to women. No unity, nothing. Sad case. The thing people tend to not realize is that these things (like Feminism) are rooted in things even bigger than the sole topic alone, as it's very much an existential, ontological and moral-based issue that is there to sow discord between men and women. At some point you'd hope that the "West" realizes that there is more to life than amusement and pleasure. Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect is that these things are already very well known in ancient history (people didn't suddenly "learn to think" in the 20th century ) but we tend to falsely see time as a progression rather than a cycle, which is merely just a fallacy of the secular world. The truth to Feminism is that 'there is nothing new to see here'. My rise-and-repeat phrase is "there is nothing new under the sun" (from Ecclesiastes).
  13. With that, the suicide rates will rise. And no, we don't need any more technology please. In fact, we should chuck out half of the technology we already have at this point, and replace it with natural things.
  14. Of course I've read the Bible, who hasn't? I've read lots of apocrypha and non-canonical texts too. The early church pumped out some crazy stuff, as well as stuff like Marcionism, the Ebionites, the Gnostic sects, Nazarenes etc. I've also dug into Judaism and it's own unique texts of many kinds (including the Hekhalot literature). My favorite texts in the Bible (either OT or NT) tend to actually be the wisdom literature rather than the more core texts. Ecclesiastes, Job, Ezekiel and the 'Gospel' of John are probably my favorite texts in the Bible. The Apocalypse of john (also known as "The Book of Revelation") is also a fun read but is essentially a work of occultism tagged onto the end of the Bible. The Bible otherwise is little more than a cursory look for me as I don't see it to be valid scripture. Judaism and Christianity are still interesting but yeah.
  • Create New...