Nightclaw

Do I disagree with it, that he was an ordinary person? Yes. Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman would also disagree. I don't know why you gave a personal opinion and showed it to me. We don't blind follow. What you showed me holds no bearing and is worthless to me. It's the correct opinion that he was not an ordinary person. Neither were the people who were above him in the first three caliphs. If you base everything on the Qur'an and the objective narrations, you wouldn't and couldn't be Shi'a.

Nobody is claiming he's ordinary. I don't know why I see a phobia of comprehension or listening from Shi'a with these topics. Musa wasn't an ordinary man, but Allah loves Muhammad the most. Does Allah loving Muhammad the most negate the spectacular Messenger of Allah Musa? No. Naught point and a strawman argument.

I stopped caring about the opinions and thoughts of others long ago when I realized that Allah cares more about me than any of them ever could, hence Who I try to please.

If you are here, Allah has a purpose for placing you here. You are no accident. Your time is going how Allah willed it to be. Relax. Whatever is coming is coming to you. You running towards it or running away from it will not stop you from reaching it. Take a deep breath and know that Allah has something for you and it will come sooner or later.

I figured that, but I don't understand the problem with it. A lot of people are brave warriors, stronger than Galut, when it comes to typing. I don't get why they can't use their voices to speak - I'm referring to the so-called men.

Qur'an verse is Surah Ibrahim, chapter 14, verse 7.

I meant talking. I don't like typing much recently.

Being a bully is prohibited in Islam. All in all, you're still advocating it by portraying how they are effected and what they go through - argumentum ad passiones. My sincere advice is don't do it. It's not worth compromising your faith for even slightly.

I wish I could have a talk with you or discussion somehow about this. Seems interesting enough and I have a lot to say.

If you read Sahih Bukhari, you'd see that: "We used to say Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and the Messenger remained silent (i.e. he agreed)." Read our books.

Ezio Auditore da Firenze is a character from Assassin's Creed.

The Messenger, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and 'Ali. In that order.

Omission when pronouncing ال happens during definite cases, not indefinite. الله لا اله الا هو الحي القيم If you read that as "huwa hayu qayyum" - that's wrong. You have to pronounce ال if you're referring to an indefinite article. Omission ruling of its pronunciation states that it needs to be definite, not indefinite. That's why Allah's names are pronounced with لْ unless the sentence is conjugated different. When calling upon him, using يا, you have to pronounce the ال. You don't say Yallah when reading يا الله. You don't say Yahayu when reading يا الحي. If you've been reading Qur'an like that, then you've been reading it wrong. Everything you said concerning this is wrong. You state he's an Arab linguistic, bring him or ask him concerning this. I want to see his reasoning or if you are misrepresenting him. If he's a linguist with regards to the Arabic language, he shouldn't be making these mistakes. Bring him or get his words, word for word. You're misunderstanding the Qur'an or you don't know it at all. Allah allows for intercession, but asks rhetorically. I'm not going to give an Arabic lesson here. Go do your research with regards to this.

The point was how the Holy Trinity of Niceae was introduced into Christianity. Up until Tertuliian, this was not prevalent. It was a subordination of Jesus and God, if that. You didn't mention the Didache, which mentions Jesus being a mere servant-son, a term used for David that's deducted from the Hebrew "Son of God", which in turn means "Servant of God", hence why they mentioned it. Nobody had equated him to God and made him divine except as a servant. Go and bring a Jew and try to explain the New Testament to him using Greek/Hebrew and you'll see why it doesn't make sense for Jesus to be God from this standpoint. John 1 is attributed to John but is anonymous, so I take it with a grain of salt. I didn't mention the New Testament specifically due to me having to go in great detail with the language. I'd be very specific with it and give grammar rules and cross references instead of my personal opinion. If you want me to deconstruct everything and do that, you'd have to wait a while. None of the disciples worshipped Jesus. If you argue they asked of him as an intermediary, then there's no problem with this because they did this when he was alive. No person disagrees with this. However, after he died, they didn't worship him. They never claimed him as God nor did he ever claim himself as God. The Romans crucified him because they thought he was blaspheming - not because he claimed to be God, but because he claimed to be a prophet and it did not fit their political and religious aspect concerning his prophethood. Nowhere is Jesus stated to be God in the earliest sources. Only after Paul did this divine nonsense take place and slowly begin to grow.

You are here to please Allah, not your teachers or peers. If they want you to portray a homosexual, of whom is cursed by Allah, then you've got every right to refuse. It doesn't matter who is hurt by it. Do not let people impose or impede on the belief of Allah for a project. Moreover, if it is ADVOCATING homosexuality, then you have to decline. I'd rather fail this project or get a failing grade alone and let the group pass without me rather than the opposite and gaining Allah's wrath. All in all, you ultimately have two options and one is a no brainer: pleasing Allah or pleasing people. Make the wise choice.