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

Everything posted by HakimPtsid

  1. The first sentence itself creates question marks. Ok Janah Jordan, tell us what is in the Bible
  2. Oh boy!! Don't get me started on that one and how deeply contradictory that interpretation is of the nature of Tawhid
  3. There are aspects of validity in the sense of critical consideration to what constitutes valid and authoritative but the thing that Qur'anists fail to understand is how fallacious they end up being through the new self-contradictory dogmas they employ. Some things they bring up are useful but also require a wider and deeper exploration of Hadith collections to really actually determine the validity of their position. Basically the Qur'anist generally determines the conclusion before reaching it, than going through a process to determine the conclusion. Also they seem to fall for a false-comparison when it comes to things like Karaite Judasim and Solar Scriptora (in Christianity). The nature of the Judeo-Christian Bible in relation to the Talmud and Catholic Church is categorically not an applicable comparison (which they usually work under the impression of) by the very nature of the text of the Bible itself in comparison to the Qur'an. One (Qur'an) is a received revelation (even if non-Muslims deny that it is) that in the first context is speaking to Muhammad himself, the other (Bible) is a compilation of linear narratives that claim to be a historical account and also include hymns and letters. There is also another fallacy I see them pulling, which is the assertion that the nature of Hadith itself is there to mislead or distort the Qur'an by nature and that reading the Qur'an alone as it is somehow equates to the only true (or an objective) understanding of the Qur'an and the theology, metaphysics, morals/ethics and philosophy/ontology it reveals. This view can manifest within some people as the dogma of "Those who accept Hadith are going to Jahannam", it's entirely illogical by the Qur'an's own standards which asserts a deeper understanding of the afterlife and what this life's purpose is. It's as if these people think that the Islamic position (whether Sunni or Shi'ite) is that all Hadith are infallible and non-debatable and that Hadith are more central to our Faith than the Qur'an, both of which are wrong and absurd views.
  4. I really love your post, it hits directly at what I would consider the most important primary concerns for Muslims, period. And yes yes yes to Nahlul Balagha, those sermons and letters are a treasure trove of wisdom, understanding, introspection, leadership and of course Qur'an exegesis. Whist the Qur'an itself is the Revelation, the foundation and the well that never runs dry (and that's putting it very simply). The Nahjul Balagha is figuratively Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) unraveling the philosophical and ethical layers of what it means to be a Muslim but not only that, it is very unabashedly cultivating the inherent necessity of the intellect in one's spirituality. But as with one of your other points, focusing and feeding the Iman, leaving aside worldly distractions and strengthening one's Taqwa in the process is something utterly incomparable. Subhanallah.
  5. You're right but I meant it more in terms of an Atheist's relationship to the three Abrahamic religions. A conspiracy theory like the one cited wouldn't make much sense for an Atheist to push, however they often do (rightfully so) consider the Vatican to be evil. But yeah, Atheists are more concerned with archaeological and anthropological aspects of the Bible itself. Outside of that it's just the infinite circular mindgames of asserting that Theists are wrong and illogical, same old same old. But yeah, Islam has a difference status among the three Abrahamic religions for several reasons (I could write a book on that point alone, lol) and require a completely different polemical strategy to wage argument or attempted refutation from the Atheist-side, in comparison to their more immediate archaeological and anthropological concerns that place the other two Abrahamic religions in odd argument and apologetic situations - aside from obvious theological issues.
  6. One of my favorite absolute absurdities (which also ironically undermines the authority of the Christians that usually spout it) is the conspiracy theory that Islam was created by the Vatican or that Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was a Christian who started his own religion. Seriously, some people do actually take that seriously on the whim that either it sounds like an appealing idea or that they hate Islam. But really, comments such as that boarder on Poe's Law. Either trying to intentionally be absurd or just legitimately spouting illogical ideas with malice. Either way it both undermines Christianity (and to the ironic use of Qur'anic arguments against the Judeo-Christian Bible itself) and the Christians that propagate that myth - and it puts fully on displace the insecurities that some have with their own religions. And of course I don't see many Atheists spreading it because it (the theory) doesn't work in their favor, either way. (btw, I shouldn't have to say that I'm not talking about all Christians but I'm not)
  7. I missed this before but those kinds of comments are hilarious
  8. For some reason this thread brought to mind the bizarre Judeo-Christian tale/myth of Samson in the Bible (Old Testament)
  9. Actually yes I think, it challenges Muslims to get back into being intellectually fit and stronger in one's knowledge. It also teaches us to understand fallacies, rhetoric and conjecture - all of which are the only thing fools like Apostate Prophet have to go from (aside from free promotion through youtube). When it comes to youtube and polemics, we also have to be fully aware that "there is nothing new under the sun". Don't be intimidated, Islam has been around for 1400 years, these people are not innovative or groundbreaking, they're just getting big audiences with people who have severely limited knowledge of Islam, theology, philosophy, history and Fiqh etc. But channels like his obviously appeal to exmuslims who need self-validation, Atheists and Christians (of the evangelical type usually), it doesn't however leave a single scratch on Islamic intellectual and scientific tradition whatsoever. He's practically a child in a playhouse. Channels like his should actually motivate the exact opposite of what it promotes, which is: stronger knowledge of Islam by Muslims, stronger understanding of debating strategies (and how fallacies, rhetoric and conjecture work), Hadith analysis, theology, philosophy, anthropology, socio-economic-politics, terrorism, etc how it all works and the context of applying what Islamic intellectualism has already known for hundreds and hundreds of years, towards the postmodern world of social media and clickbait polemics. Really brothers and sisters, as Muslims we should be owning it, there is nothing worse than a Muslim who doesn't understand their own Din.
  10. Great book, I've got that myself, definitely worth the read, both for Muslims and Buddhists to benefit from.
  11. What I mean by "from a secular view" is that secular academia is obviously more willing to entertain Zoroaster as the first Prophet of Monotheism, than Prophet Adam ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), due to clear historicity and archaeological evidence (as well as the dating of many ancient Zoroastrian texts). My emphasis is on that he is a historically important Prophet, that's all. Zoroastrianism itself is inherently Monotheisic, I've studied it, I have great respect for our Mazdean brothers and sisters, I believe they're within the fold of Ahl al-Kitab (as your link also states). Thing is, just like Jews and Christians, their original Revelations (in the manner of the Qur'an) haven't survived and what Zoroastrianism has remaining are more Hymns and Rituals. The Hymns in particular are in the manner of the Psalms of David (from the Bible) and Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya of our Imam Zayn al-Abidin ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).
  12. Zoroaster was a Prophet that taught Pure Monotheism, 100%, however their religion obviously deviated in some smaller areas. As the first historically recognized Prophet of Monotheism (in secular history) it'd be silly to disregard him. Mani is more complicated based on surviving texts, as I mentioned above he is more speculative (perhaps ironically, considering he came way after Zoroaster). I've no thought towards Mahavira. Laozi? well there is a case you could make for it, the whole philosophy of Taoism doesn't have much that contradicts Islam at all.
  13. This is heartwarming to say the least. Peace and blessings of Allah to you and on your growth in the Islam of the Ahlbayt. I usually hear about ex-Salafis becoming either Atheists (very angry one's) or Quranists, so this is refreshing to hear. Welcome to Shiachat too
  14. Well yeah it does. I've already explained this extensively in Noor's other thread I think it's important to evaluate each religion through the way it thinks of itself, foremost. Just imagine evaluating Islam through the lens of Atheism The Hindu concepts of Brahman (NOT Brahma) and Parabrahman are useful and have a direct correlation with Monotheism, they extend far beyond Hinduism's lower Shirk-based practices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para_Brahman https://www.britannica.com/topic/brahman-Hindu-concept Ontologically, I think Hinduism might be one of the most strongly Monotheistic religions even though it reaches it's conclusions about the Oneness of God through the means of Shirk (which no Muslim condones, it's against our basic principles). However I'm not going to repeat myself from all of the long posts I've written recently on this thread and the linked thread to convey the understanding.
  15. "He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers" - Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), Nahjul Balagha Sermon 186 "He who describes Him limits Him. He who limits Him numbers Him. He who numbers Him rejects His eternity. He who said "how" sought a description for Him. He who said "where" bounded him. He is the Knower even though there be nothing to be known. He is the Sustainer even though there be nothing to be sustained. He is the Powerful even though there be nothing to be overpowered." - Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), Nahjul Balagha Sermon 152
  16. Qalb, Taqwa, Din, Ihsan and their effect on one's Soul (Ruh) is really the most decisive factor on the Day of Judgement. Even in the very opening of the Qur'an there is 2:8. The notion of "People of the Book" (Ahl al-Kitab) itself does make it obvious that people from other religions, most closely the other two Abrahamics, have the potentiality of getting to Jannah. But as with 2:8, we have be mindful that it truly does start with the Heart (Qalb) firstly, not one's Ego-self (Nafs), procaiming oneself as a Muslim and all of the formalities of Islam do not guarantee anything in themselves, one cannot fool Allah if they are not genuine and seeking for truth. And we all know the Bismillah, Allah is most Beneficent and most Merciful. We have to be mindful but not fanatical about that.
  17. I'm kinda running in and out right now so I've gotta be quick. Now Surah al-Ikhlas is the most profound, concise summary you can find. However philosophically we have to understand it foremost via Ontology to get a grasp of what it really means for us to profess Tawhid. Reality itself is a collective whole, the totality of what we experience in this life is limited to our relative or subjective perceptions but there is an inevitable Absolute that is ever-present regardless of any random person's own views or perceptions of said reality, the Absolute is something that will never disappear from philosophy. God is the Source of "all-that-is" and the Material Universe is that which we are conditioned to know via physical feeling and visual perception. Tawhid posits that the Ultimate Source of all-that-is, is of Perfect essence and Transcendent Unicity, it creates (as in constantly) and pervades it's creation likewise and is itself an embodiment of the highest Unity. Polytheism and anthropomorphism both fail to grapple with greater existence (of which Tawhid tackles with full force) as they limit the understanding of the Ultimate Reality to compartmentalized psychological images and characterizations that reflect only on Human-based conditions (like Dualism of Male/Female or the Life/Death cycle). I think your reference there speaks about Polytheistic ideas about Deities being very fallible and causing of logical error. Polytheistic conceptions of Deity exalt archetypal facets of human nature as congeneric to the Human condition (which brings politics and social structure into the metaphysical realm) which is to be blunt; an immature form of spirituality and ontology. The early Christian Gnostics also fell for this trap too, politicizing the role of God to man as a kind of tyranny, where a perfect, more real God is at the top of a cosmology. Of course in Islamic theology and philosophy we posit the coherent answer that makes all the more profound sense that there is God (Allah) which transcends everything but also sustains it, then below God is the intermediaries (Angels) and spirits (Jinn) and that we are below them but more important than them. For God to be God, it requires there to be nothing like it. Like someone mentioned above, God isn't "owned" by anyone, cause God created all - but we do firmly believe that the Qur'an is a Revelation from God. Islamic theology and philosophy can get extremely deep (hey, the Qur'an itself is, so it's expected) but hopefully you understand what I've explained. Peace and blessings
  18. Well I did liken it to that in your other thread on this topic, so yes. However it does cross into the "associating partners with Allah" territory Islamically speaking. One of the ways that Hindus describe their pantheon is that all the Devas are branches on a tree, and the tree in it's totality is Brahman (God/Allah). The philosophical schools of Vedanta breakdown the traditional forms of Hinduism by taking it to the extent of saying that the Devas are merely psychological tools for connecting to Brahman (God/Allah). When it comes to Islamic beliefs about God and what is revealed in the Holy Qur'an, I think we have the advantage - in that we start from the point (via revelation) where God is above all attributes and qualities (such as the male/female dichotomy that Deva traditions are stuck in - being father/mother creator personifications of the Brahman). We don't attach ourselves to images, symbols etc, we have a direct path (hence the whole idea of "The Straight Path") within our devotion to Allah as we are taught the folly and error in taking image and idol for intermediary between us and the Source of all that is. When it comes to Vaishnavism, things can get more complicated as they themselves have the notion of 'avatars of Vishnu' and they have eschatological narratives, which make them historically the most controversial within Hindu pluralism. However with Hinduism in the big picture, it's hard to not say that they are a heavily Monotheistic religion that expresses itself through polytheistic understanding of that One Absolute (Brahman - God/Allah). I also think that Hinduism demonstrates an inevitability of Monotheism, that even the most superstitious idolaters eventually will come around to Monotheism given enough time.
  19. Salaam brother, it's ok. Well their religion starts off in the period where the Rigveda is "inspired", of course the Rigveda is not a scripture in the form of the Qur'an or even the Bible (except for the book of Psalms). The Rigveda was the first of four "vedas" which contain hymns and rituals etc to a lot of Devas. Keep in mind that they also emerged around the same period that Prophet Zoroaster taught clear Monotheism. Now, the Vedic tribes had a massive confluence of folk paganism, so much so that the Vedas themselves started veering towards a form of Monotheism. One of the most famous of these, is the mantra "AUM" (or "Om") ॐ which vaguely resembles the Arabic word of "Allah" interestingly. Now after the period of the Atharvaveda (the fourth Veda), a large tradition of philosophical texts known as "Upanishads" were written that where commentaries on the Vedas. The Upanishads themselves expounded on the mystical and philosophical aspects that emerged from the Vedas and introduced the concept of Brahman that explains both the unification brought about within the Vedas and an Ontological Monotheism. The Upanishads formed the backbone of Hinduism as we know it today, often referred to as the "Fifth Veda". From there many traditions (Saivism, Shakta and Vaishnavism) as well as schools of philosophical though (Vedanta) have emerged within Hinduism and there are endless variations of ideas. However they all seem to agree over Brahman and related concepts like Parabrahman (which matches the Qur'anic notion of Allah actively sustaining the entire universe every second of it's existence). In their Deva-based traditions, they usually treat the Devas as characterizations of Brahman. To Hindus, Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, Indra etc are all the same transcendent God (Brahman) but are just different faces they put to it. So they are practicing Shirk but acknowledging the falseness of their deities (Devas) - if you get what I'm saying. Although some traditions of Vaishnavism definitely do believe in Vishnu very literally, which is an exception. Within schools of Vedanta (which is philosophy) they often don't even use idols or symbols and can even get a bit spiteful towards traditions that do devote to Devas. Hindu traditions and their 'sacred texts' largely vary and they aren't a scriptural religion as I've mentioned. There are many genres of texts, from Upanishads to Amgas to Puranas to Sutras (etc) which are more likely to be the genre of text that the average Hindu reads and practices from, rather than the Vedas. However many Mantras (kind of like Dhikr) from the Vedas are still actively practiced today. It's that the Vedas themselves are so divorced from modern Hinduism that it doesn't have relevance towards a Hindu's general practice. In your quoted post, you mentioned the Gita (Bhagavad Gita). Well, the Gita is actually a small portion of the Hindu epic known as the "Mahabharata", which is thousands of pages long. The Gita however is perhaps the most popular Hindu 'sacred text' there is and for that reason, it'd be more relevant to read than the Vedas if you are trying to understand Hinduism. There's a very famous chapter in the Gita (I think it's the 11th) where Krishna describes himself in all splendor to Arjuna in a grand cosmic scope, it's interesting because in that chapter Krishna speaks for Shiva, showing how they are one and the same - that being that they are characterization for a more-real Universal God of Brahman (Ultimate Reality/al-Haqq - which we call Allah). My own theories about Hinduism is that around the time of before the Rigveda, there was a Monotheistic Revelation given to a Prophet from Allah that was distorted by confluence of culture and that echoes of it remained in the Rigveda. From there it was an inevitability for the early Hindus to elevate the Monotheistic remains to a higher status, realizing the major logical contradictions that came from idolatrous and semi-polytheistic practices.
  20. He's a Wahhabi too, which puts his credibility very very low.
  21. Yes hopefully he will continue this discussion so that he will increase his Din in Islam. It is weird to have a user with few posts come in asking something like that, and yeah, the Vedas themselves are nothing like the Qur'an - in spite of all the explanations I've attempted here of their own theology.
  • Create New...