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

AmirioTheMuzzy

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    1,017
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

AmirioTheMuzzy last won the day on March 31

AmirioTheMuzzy had the most liked content!

5 Followers

About AmirioTheMuzzy

  • Rank
    Level 4 Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Religion
    Shia Jafari
  • Mood
    Feeling Better.. Insha'Allah
  • Favorite Subjects
    Politics, History, Philosophy

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,856 profile views
  1. Guys & Gals... he is from Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. Probably al-Qatif or something. He likely speaks Arabic only/mostly. Please try to cite Arabic sources.
  2. @randomly curious Why Tafsir HubeAli?
  3. Walaikum Salam, Importantly, these are exemplary individuals who act like real people. In this way, the teaching/learning process likely needs to be shown to the people (to show the human relatable side of Muhammad saws and the Aimma). In addition, the people need to know that they too can attain the truth, and that seeking knowledge is an important skill to acquire. This is my best guess at least, in addition to what @layman said. WikiShia is not always the most reliable source, but I will post this regardless. I hope more knowledgeable members can correct me if anything is wrong: http://en.wikishia.net/view/Ilm_al-ghayb#Imam.27s_Ways_of_Access_to_Knowledge_of_the_Unseen ... Excellent question! I think the following could help answer your question, though it's not fully relevant: http://en.wikishia.net/view/Ilm_al-ghayb#Problems_Concerning_Knowledge_of_the_Unseen Also to note, Unrelated to your post, but I stumbled across this while searching, and it's interesting. I hope you find the time to enjoy it: https://www.iqraonline.net/biʿthat-and-guidance/ http://en.wikishia.net/view/Revelation#Ways [42:51] Wasalam,
  4. I don't know Arabic. But, what I meant is which opinion are you lot more inclined to believe: (Note: I don't think it would be appropriate to open a new topic/thread for this) Italics indicates that this is from me, not in the videos posted. - Nami Farhat: the Qur'an does say "strike/hit your wife" in such an instance, but it does not necessitate that this be a command for all times and places nor was it ever obligatory. It was appropriate [and perhaps needed] advice in the past [I.e. for that socio-cultural context], but it is no longer applicable. There have been modern attempts to justify this verse using the "miswak", which is evidently ridiculous... Hitting with a miswak would not accomplish anything in a big fight*. Nowadays, we don't chop the fingers, we imprison people. *a rebuttal would be that this is exactly the intent, to say "don't beat your wife" in an indirect way, or else the people wouldn't take heed to the message. Again though, this is ridiculous and seems like modern conjecture. Also, why should we suppose that God would indirectly teach His message? This is extremely problematic for numerous reasons, the specifics of which we don't need to expound upon here, but basically it goes against any proper understanding of Wahy (revelation), and should therefore be swiftly rejected. Moreover, if it meant "don't beat your wife" the succession wouldn't follow a logical order, as it is increasing in intensity: As for those [wives] whose misconduct you fear, [first] advise them, and [if ineffective] keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them. - Haydari (ha): the Qur'an does not say "strike/hit your wife" in such an instance, rather it was the Scholarly mind** that presupposed this meaning onto the Qur'an. What the Qur'an means is to "take a strike", I.e. leave (distance yourself from) the house. This is shown by other verses like [4:101], in conjunction with Classical Arabic dictionaries that "daraba" is the matter of separation, of distancing. **he says the scholarly mentality was a mentality of narrations, so a couple of narrations that say beat her lightly, along with preconceived societal notions***, brought the meaning of "darb" entirely as "beating" in the scholarly mind. It is totally incompatible with the logic of the Qur'an, meaning all our religious sciences. Ask "what meaning does beating have at all?". Even if you go to the narrations, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would not allow people to hit animals, or hit the face of others, or sit on horses in excess (get off your horse if you want to converse with someone). So why would the Qur'an then say to beat your wife? These are two different logics. They are not compatible with one another. ***a patriarchal society "mentality of manliness", note that this isn't inherently bad per se. Some in modern times have oddly even went so far to say that women felt respected if their husbands beat them in pre-Islamic society, and he would beat his wife to show her importance to him. They argue this way as a means of fixing this issue. If this is the case, then why do they also talk about the supposed conduct of beating with leaves (leaf). The narrations say that the beating should not leave redness or bruises. Well then what effect does this beating have? Nothing! Remember, this is the same religion which says that you must pay financial compensations if you bruise a child. Restated, leaving a bad situation is in complete concordance with Islamic teachings, and is demonstrated many times by Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and other revered figures (by this I mean in other non-marital situations, not 4:34), or at least in his teachings. Whereas hitting your wife is in complete contradiction to the teachings of the divine Sharia, Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and Ahlul-Bayt (عليه السلام). Rasulullah (s) never hit a woman, and more generally, hitting the face is Haram altogether. Also to note is that apparently Classical Islamic courts gave financial compensations and granted immediate divorce to women who came with bruises and redness, though her testimony alone was sufficient. Dr.. Jonathan Brown has a book which mentions it, "Misquoting Muhammad". Also to note is that apparently Hussaini Qazwini said that the correct meaning or translation in this verse is to "ignore" and not "beat" (same opinion as Kamal al-Haydari). I wrote all this to say that I am still inclined to believe Nami Farhat. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the scholars have always misinterpreted this verse due to their mindset of narrations. All this serves to do is for non-Muslims to come say "see they couldn't even get their religion right up until modern times!". Our religion doesn't necessitate beating your wife as the third course of action towards her misconduct. It also doesn't necessitate slavery, but that doesn't mean there is something inherently immoral with slavery. Similarly, we no longer follow Hudud laws & Apostasy laws (although this a totally different argument of it being due to the 'absence' of the current Imam (ajtf), but let's ignore this here). Why? They have been deemed as un-essential... as specific constructs that made sense in that particular socio-cultural context. The biggest difference being the major shift from empires/civilizations to nation-states. Importantly we also don't need to return to those times. That being said, there are things in jurisprudence that will always be absolutely forbidden, such as homosexuality and any sexual relations outside of marriage (including Zina with yourself, and Zina of the eyes). And of course it goes without saying that the wajibat, like the 5 Salat, is absolutely wajib and always will be. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- al-Qur'an.info/#4:34 [4:34] الرِّجالُ قَوّامونَ عَلَى النِّساءِ بِما فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعضَهُم عَلىٰ بَعضٍ وَبِما أَنفَقوا مِن أَموالِهِم ۚ فَالصّالِحاتُ قانِتاتٌ حافِظاتٌ لِلغَيبِ بِما حَفِظَ اللَّهُ ۚ وَاللّاتي تَخافونَ نُشوزَهُنَّ فَعِظوهُنَّ وَاهجُروهُنَّ فِي المَضاجِعِ وَاضرِبوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِن أَطَعنَكُم فَلا تَبغوا عَلَيهِنَّ سَبيلًا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كانَ عَلِيًّا كَبيرًا Ali QULI QARAI Men are the managers of women, because of the advantage Allah has granted some of them over others, and by virtue of their spending out of their wealth. So righteous women are obedient, care-taking in the absence [of their husbands] of what Allah has enjoined [them] to guard. As for those [wives] whose misconduct you fear, [first] advise them, and [if ineffective] keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them. Then if they obey you, do not seek any course [of action] against them. Indeed Allah is all-exalted, all-great. (4:34:29) wa-iḍ'ribūhunna and [finally] strike them. CONJ – prefixed conjunction wa (and) V – 2nd person masculine plural imperative verb PRON – subject pronoun PRON – 3rd person feminine plural object pronoun الواو عاطفة فعل أمر والواو ضمير متصل في محل رفع فاعل و«هن» ضمير http://corpus.Qur'an.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=4&verse=34#(4:34:29) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Context of the Surah:
  5. I feel as though the early Muslims had a better, more intuitive, grasp of what the Soul is, and what Barzakh is... a knowledge that has decreased among laypeople over time, as we become more separate and distant from our Islamic traditions.
  6. I implore you all to read Tafsir Noor al-Thaqalayn: https://www.iqraonline.net/translations/tafsir-noor-thaqalayn/
  7. http://en.wikishia.net/view/Tawassul#Wahhabi.27s_Questions Edit: please read the parts that I bolded.
  8. More accurately, intercession wasn't even a contentious belief prior to Wahabbi influence.
  9. If we don't know the (historical) context or authenticity we should verify it somehow... Yet you conflate this with: [not paying attention to the words of the Imam]
  10. By this logic, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) doesn't even have to give advice to Imam Hasan (عليه السلام), since Imam Hasan is masoom. Edit: If we assume that the argument isn't truthful My point is that saying the Masum don't do Tawassul (of themselves, lol), does not logically assume that 'we sinners' have a guard between us and Allah. You see how there is no relation there? Being able to do Tawassul of the Masum doesn't imply/infer that we are unable to ask Allah without Tawassul.
  11. I suppose we should follow this instead (from your ShiaChat signature): What's weirder is you taking Imam Ali's (a) last will to be perfectly preserved and accurate.
  12. Technically, none of what you mentioned is an academic source. Regardless, I'm surprised nobody has left you any suggestions yet.
×
×
  • Create New...