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 Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leibniz

  1. Abdullah ibn Ja'far used to sing songs in the court of Mua'via and use to take the notable vocalists of Arabia with him there. Perhaps to appease Mua'via so that he does not act against Banu Hashim
  2. I don't believe that a person known as Mahdi by the Shia and Sunnis was ever born or shall be born. Saudi monarchy is an evil and suppressive regime which has harmed the interests of Muslims for a long time. I don't see any pragmatic methodology to bring it down in near future. The strength of al Saud comes from four sources. First they have money and hence their money guarantees them internal stability and they use money as a foreign policy. The money is not going out anytime soon Secondly , they have a strong American backing which is why Saudia shall remain afloat in case of any conflict and I don't see the US support stopping anytime soon Thirdly , most of the Sunni majority countries and their populace backs Saudia. The Sunni countries either support Saudia for geopolitical reasons or for money and the populace supports Saudia due to the religious sanctity attached to Saudia. Fourthly , monarchies in our times are brought down by Democratic movements and I feel the Saudi society has no affinity for Democracy , even the liberal Saudis. So its a smooth sailing for aal Saud till any of the above changes. I theory I do believe that the Saudi regime should be brought down.
  3. PS : Lets focus on getting justice for the poor innocent boy rather than labeling his death as a sign of the arrival of Mahdi.
  4. Muhammad ibn Abdullah popularly known as "al-Nafs al-Zakiyya" was the grand grand son of Imam Hassan. He led an unsuccessful revolt against the Abbasid Caliph Al Mansur. Most of these revolts were rooted in eschatological claims and hence it was a popular myth those days that al-Nafs al-Zakiyya is the Mahdi. You can corelate his name to the name of Mahdi in Hadiths and see how these Hadiths originated or we're forged. Al-Nafs al-Zakiyya tried to imitate the Prophet while he was outnumbered and besieged with his supporters in Madina by the forces of Al Mansur , he claimed that this battle is going to be another "Battle of Ahzaab". So much so that he even made a trench around Madina digging around on the foundations of the trench of the battle of Ahzaab. He was deserted by his loyalists and he ended up getting killed , crucified. Before he got killed , he sold the Prophet's sword to a businessman for 400 coins. Similarly , the myth of " Mahdi's Army with black flags from Khurasan" originated from Abu Muslim Khurassani's army carrying black flags and marching on the Umayyad empire. All these eschatological claims were popularized for political purposes and later on they wormed into our theology and Hadiths. People in millions have perished waiting for a Mahdi , thousands of incidents and events in history have been interpreted as signs of his arrival and we have had in dozens claimants of Mahdi (in both Shia and Sunni realms) but no heavenly figure is going to descend and do all the miraculous stuff Shia and Sunnis claim that he would do
  5. Ws , I would like to see the source of the claim that Zainab AS had put the condition and Abdullah ibn Ja'far diorced her on her own will. I have heard it many times but could not find it in any primary sources of history. After the dead of Yazid , amid all the chaos in the ranks of Ummayads , even Marwan was considering giving oath of allegiance to Abdullah Ibn Zubayr. As far as Abdullah Ibn Ja'far's association with Ummayads , they are well established , so much so that he named a son of him Mua'viya
  6. The argument was that Abdullah Ibn Ja'far associated with Yazid even after Karbala. Given the fact that he was the ex Husband of Zainab , his post Karbala stance clearly indicates that he was pro Ummayads.
  7. Yazid wrote to Uthman Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abi Sufyan that Abdullah Ibn Zubayr , who had then shown some willingness to give oath of allegiance to Yazid , be sent to Damascus only in chains. Ibn Zubayr upon hearing this retracted from his stance of giving oath. Abdullah ibn Ja'far was persuading Yazid in Damascus to give up on the idea of chain but Yazid was adamant claiming that he had sworn to God that he would chain ibn Zubayr. Abdullah ibn Ja'far advised Yazid to make a chain of gold and silver so that ibn Zubayr won't feel humiliated but the idea did not work.
  8. I feel , the details are unwarranted and superfluous. Its like asking how does God exist and how is her seated on his thorn and how does he interact with the physical realm? Though the only relevant thing is that He exists. Secondly , the dichotomy of matter and spirit parts of human body is illusory when it comes to perception and cognitive faculties so it does not matter whether it was a physical journey or a spiritual one. The fact is that the Prophet ascended to heavens as described by the Qur'an and the details are unwarranted.
  9. This is just a political slogan. Lets start with the basics. The punishment for a married person committing adultery in Stoning to death in both Shia and Sunni Islam. The Qur'an explicitly states that the punishment for adultery is hundred lashes but Hadiths state that the punishment for a married one is Stoning to death. Surah Noor Verse #2 “The fornicatress and the fornicator, scourge you each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for them withhold you from enforcing the sentence of Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.” There are numerous Hadiths in Shia literature but here is one from Al-Kafi قال أبوعبدالله (عليه السلام): الرجم في القرآن قول الله عزوجل: إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة Do you reject this Hadith and the punishment of stoning for adultery as it is clearly in contradiction with Qur'an?
  10. I feel something is missing in all this evolution Vs creation / intelligent design debate. The stand points have not been properly understood rather this debate has evolved into Atheism Vs Theism debate which makes the whole scenario fogged by biases. I would personally approach it like this. Is the theory of evolution an established scientific fact? I would say No but it is the only naturalistic explanation to the origin of species , bio-diversification and certain properties of the living structures today. Am I a creationist or do I take intelligent design as a scientific fact? No , I am agnostic as to how life originated and how the species originated. The various verses in Qur'an point in both direction and we can not be very sure if Adam and Eve's story is a literal fact or a mere allegory. On the same token , intelligent design is not science but if weighed with the theory of evolution , both fall in the same category. Both lack the refinement and modeling one would expect from a scientific theory. Both have stochastic denominators , unquantifiable pretensions , non empirical claims , tautologies and the lack of predictive value. Both concepts if juxtaposed with Mathematical theorems or theorems of mathematical physics , would be dismissed as to be attempts in speculative natural philosophy rather than science.
  11. One way or the other , we all are "Hadith rejectors" of some sort. The Shias would reject most of the Sunni Hadiths and the Sunnis would reject the Shias Hadith. Then with in Shias and Sunnis , people would reject Hadiths based on their own subsectarian affiliations. The huge collections of Sunni and Shia hadiths have some extremely problematic Hadiths which defy Qur'an , logic , human rational and science. Pick up any book of Hadith , if you can read Arabic pick up Al-Kafi and start reading random hadiths , you shall find out that most of the Hadiths are bizarre and what we hear from the pulpits are either selective Hadiths or the watered down translations of Hadiths. I don't think so that most of the Muslim youth 50 years from now shall take Hadiths seriously , given the fact that most of the Hadith resources are available online. There are various types of "Hadith rejectors". Some are pure pure naturalists or Deists and other are a bit moderate in their approach. I myself place myself in the later category. I think we can take Hadiths as historical references and unless the Tawatur of a Hadith is not proven , we should not extract theology from it. Thats the common sense approach.
  12. With such analogies and extrapolations , you can even "prove" that Trump is a female negro. Go for that.
  13. Are you saying that God lost the Prophet and then found him? I mean really?
  14. There is a clear verse in Qur'an which shatters the belief of by birth Prophet. Duha 93 وَوَجَدَكَ ضَالًّا فَهَدَىٰ ( God found you lost and then guided you)
  15. There is no point in arguing it any further but let me give you a clear example of exclusion 1. Max and Hardy you should obey A , B and C 2. Max and Hardy if you dispute among yourselves refer it back to A and B (No C here ) 3 Definitely the dispute has to be among Max , Hardy and C thats why C is excluded from premise # 2 Can it be more clearer than this?
  16. The verse is clear. God is commanding people to obey God , his messenger and those in authority. The second part of the verse is clearly saying that if you have a dispute with those in authority then refer it to God and his messenger so this establishes that only they have the absolute authority. The contradiction is so much evident that we have a Hadith which States that the real verse had Ulil amr along with God and his messenger as absolute authority. عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ بُرَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالَ تَلَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ تَنَازُعاً فِي الْأَمْرِ فَأَرْجِعُوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَ إِلَى أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ كَيْفَ يَأْمُرُ بِطَاعَتِهِمْ وَ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُنَازَعَتِهِمْ إِنَّمَا قَالَ ذَلِكَ لِلْمَأْمُورِينَ الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ
  17. Though it does not derive from that verse but Imam Ali was "Ulil amr" for a brief period of time. I have already ceded that. But that's not the point.
  18. 4:59 dismisses the infallibility of "Ulil amr" and its so clear that even the early Shia scholars could see it. Hence in al kafi there is a Hadith which deals with this contradiction by ascribing it to Tehreeg in Qur'an. عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ بُرَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالَ تَلَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ تَنَازُعاً فِي الْأَمْرِ فَأَرْجِعُوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَ إِلَى أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ كَيْفَ يَأْمُرُ بِطَاعَتِهِمْ وَ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُنَازَعَتِهِمْ إِنَّمَا قَالَ ذَلِكَ لِلْمَأْمُورِينَ الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ Means that the second part of the verse "Once you differ with Ulil amr then refer it back to Allah and his messenger" was revealed as "Once you differ with the Ulil amr then refer it back to Allah , his messenger and the Ulil amr"
  19. PS : You have posted segments of verses to make a point but that does not serve the purpose. Its like cherry picking from Shakespeare plays to prove that he was a momin. Whatever God intends to say in the Qur'an , says it explicitly and if Imamah is an article of faith for Muslims , it would have been explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an.
  20. "Ulil amr" explicitly means people of authority and the Shia Imams never had any authority except for the brief period of Ali. The verse is clearly stating that you can differ with "Ulil amr" and in such a case the absolute authority rests with Allah and his messenger. I wonder why are you arguing over such a clear verse which is very clearly saying that "Ulil amr" is not infallible.
  21. The Shia Imams , other than Ali for a brief period , were never "Ulil Amr" (people of authority). Secondly the verse clearly indicates that "Ulil Amr" must be someone fallible as one can differ with him and the matter shall against be taken to Allah and Prophet who are infallible ones. This verse clearly refutes the saga of infallibility. Wilayah and Imamah are concepts alien to Islam and human rational. The second verse you have quoted has nothing to do with Imamah
  22. 4:59 annuls infallibility for anyone other than God and his Prophet so that's an argument against Imamah. 5:55 has nothing to do with Imamah. See, if there was anything in the Qur'an about Imamah it would not have been that hard for you to pull it off. My point was that God supposedly inserted these far fetched whimsical Jafr codes in Qur'an but did not mention Imamah explicitly in any verse to make it as straight of a matter as Tawheed , Nabuwaah or Aakhira etc
  23. Let me phrase my question again. The Shias claim that after the Prophet there had to be 12 (11 excluding Ali) Imams from his progeny. The Imams are infallible beings and its binding upon Muslims to follow them , so much so that Imamah is an article of faith. Can you provide any Quranic verse(s) which unequivocally substantiates this claim? You can refer to verses related to oneness of God , Prophethood of Muhammad and its finality , life hereafter , existence of angels to know what an unequivocal description is in Qur'an when it comes to articles of faith.
  • Create New...