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
  • Content Count

  • Joined

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    Take a wild guess
  • Religion
    Sunni Islam
  • Mood
    Lockdown sucks
  • Favorite Subjects
    Politics, History, Religion, Astronomy, Evolutionary Biology

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem, Summary So I am interested in the average IQ of brothers and sisters on here, so I've devised an anonymous poll. To be clear, I'm not looking for your individual scores, I am just interested in how we do as a forum overall. In the future I might run this poll on a different forum to compare. You can use this website to test your IQ: https://iqtest.com/ Unlike other IQ tests, this one is more verbal. (I just picked the first result on DuckDuckGo.) Who should not take this poll? Non-Muslims. What are the requirements for taking the IQ test? Spe
  2. I apologise for not making this clear enough. Line one means "There exists X which is Rationally Possible". Line two means "There being something rationally possible logically implies there is something rationally necessary". Line three means "There exists H which is rationally necessary". I sometimes write these things in shorthand assuming people understand what I mean, so I do apologise for not thoroughly making the terminology of the above clear, as I did for the main proof. Perfection is for Allah who is Al-Salam alone.
  3. Interesting. Please walk me through how you derived that. If you were stating that something you call "Existence" is the undetermined determiner which determines all including a limited contingent being you call "God", then haven't you made "Existence" God? This thing you call "God" would be subject to it and so is not "God" in the first place... Nevertheless, I am unsure how you derived what you have said from what I said. One way I can think of would be if you thought the following: "Exists possible" you thought means "Existance is possible" "Possible implies Ne
  4. I added this before adding my note in the end, whoops. May Allah who is al-Ghaffar forgive me.
  5. Interesting, I like you deny natural causation. In the below proof I do not use causality. Some questions for you: First can you prove to me that you yourself exist? Secondly, do you agree with me that someone who does not want to believe something will always find a way to justify not believing in it? Let us assume Pharoah's case is true (I and other Muslims on here would agree it is). Did Pharoah accept Musa Alayhis Salam's claim when he was brought evidence of the religion in front of his eyes or did he find ways of justifying it? I am sure you agree with me that "Denialism"
  6. Check the arabic meanings of the wording of the hadith. The words say "Invade" meaning to actually succeed in conquer. Moreover the Sahaba are told they are not one of them. Interesting fact: Abu Ayyub al-Ansari Radiyallahu An died trying to conquer constantinople. The significance? Imam al-Maturidi was the descendent of Abu Ayyub Radiyallahu An and the Ottomans who conquered constantinople are generally of his school in Aqeedah. After the conquest they built a tomb for him. Regarding the word 'obscure', I meant you are making the Khilafah proverbially hard to find in history - limit
  7. This seems to me to be quite a defensive revisionism carried out by someone who wants to defend their faith as a peace-loving religion in front of others. I know because I was like you, I used to do such a thing. The truth is not that we love peace. Or that we love war. Why you judge a religion by pre-conceived notions of right and wrong worries me. You are aware of the position of the Asha'irah and the Maturidiyyah that there is no objective moral right and wrong except what Allah commands? He can command anything and it would be morally right. He could even command you kill your ow
  8. None of the Sufis were Pacist. Pacifism means you believe in peace no matter what - i.e. that you always believe in peace. We are people of Justice and we are fundementally conquerers. For if you have a just political system as ours (where we allow the Kuffar their own legal systems), you will want to spread it. Even the US understands this with their batil system. If you disagree with that then you have never read the Seerah and have never understood the Khilafah of the Rashidun. They engaged in Jihad - and it was offensive jihad. As the Hadith is written in Jami as-Saghir:
  9. Your reply bought a smile to my face. I remember when I used to think exactly like you. Insha'Allah, as you continue to think things through you will arrive at the conclusions I did. To help you on that journey, I will bring some hadith for you to contemplate on this issue: (I do not advocate the website Islamweb theologically.) One might wonder what Al-Madinah, "The city," is referring to here. We know from other hadith that when the Khilafah enters into a land and leaves it, it does not return to it (meaning its capital will never be that capital again). There a
  10. Your belief in Pacifism is quite interesting as it contradicts our Maddhab and the belief of Ahlus Sunnah generally. Yes you are not allowed to rebel against the ruler, unless you know you can win and if the ruler is a tyrant (advocating kufr) etc. Examples are that our Imam-al-Azam supported the rebellion of Zayd ibn Ali etc. Also I'm sure you accept that we Muslims spread our political hegemony through conquest. This is in the Seerah of the Prophet Alayhis Salam too. Now revolt against the current crop of rulers won't get anywhere as they are far too strong and we are far too weak
  11. As-Salamu Alaykum, Fellow Hanafi Sunni here. When you say you reject all those movements, do you agree with concept of Khilafah in general e.g. Ottoman Empire, Abbasid with Seljuk etc.?
  12. Sorry, I should clarify - regarding Ibn Taymiyyah: his views of Tawassul and Istigatha alone would not take him out of Ahlus Sunnah in our eyes, as there are respectable Ulama who hold similar positions. But his prohibition on visiting graves etc. was very innovatory. It was the Prophet Alayhis Salam who permitted this after all. But all in all he had some very valid criticisms of the extremeness of some Sufis in his time. Ibn Abdul Wahhab however made takfir on those issues and went to further extremes. May Allah forgive both.
  13. Sunni of the Ashari/Maturidi/Hanbali persuasion here. Ibn Taymiyyah was a Hanbali who slowly adopted the heretical views of the Mu'tazilites, Falsafa and the Karramiyya. He claimed to be upon the true school of Imam Ahmad Rahimullah Alay. The scholars of all four schools refuted him for his anthropomorphic positions and other heretical views, including his views which split him from the Jama'ah. He has a profound influence on "Athari"s today, though the later scholars of the Hanbali school did not take his Aqeedah - later scholars like Imam as-Saffarini Rahimullah Alay referred back to al
  14. That wouldn't disprove OP's point as it is being alleged the the Mufti does taqiyyah, so he could outwardly hold anti-shi'i views, whilst inwardly holding different views. Why defend him in this anyway? Who cares if he's doing taqiyyah or not - I think we in Ahlus Sunnah are in agreement that he is a deviant nonetheless. Hani from the Sunni defence made the point that he might be an Ismaili but Allahu Alam, the guys a mubtadi, who cares what type.
  • Create New...