Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Ibn-e-Muhammad

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Ibn-e-Muhammad last won the day on June 6

Ibn-e-Muhammad had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Location
    United States
  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Ibn-e-Muhammad's Achievements

  1. You're over-complicating it, really. To destroy himself would imply that he has dominated or overpowered himself. God destroying himself would also imply that God has knowledge of how to destroy himself. No such knowledge exists, because God himself is eternal and cannot cease to exist. This is how the knowledge and power attributes do connect to each other. All-Powerful, All-Seeing, All-Hearing are all distinguished insofar as their meanings are concerned at the level of multiplicity; they do not stand distinct at the innermost level of objective reality (i.e. divine nature). The sages described it more beautifully than I could.
  2. Pacifism is the belief that all wars and violence are unjustifiable and every dispute should be settled by peaceful means. I don't think I have ever advocated for anything like that.
  3. Sure. What must be done: 1. Stop trying to kill people. It makes us seem like we have got something to hide and that we're insecure. 2. Pursue a dignified response. And this should be the job of the 'ulema, not governments. Not kingdoms. Not dictatorships. Not pseudo-democracies. We need 'ulema who can cultivate such a response so that when a Christian or a Hindu looks at us, they are able to realize that we have it in us to tolerate a book and provide clarifications.
  4. Yes, this pimp pyramid scammer is known to raise interesting points, isn't he? The Catholic Church didn't fail to draw the lines. It still stands by the same lines it drew a long time ago. The substantive content of Christianity hasn't been lost. What did change is that Christianity lost its cultural relevancy; it has nothing to offer to the secular world. There is no pressure to associate or self-identify with Christianity anymore. Why homosexuality became acceptable and Christian-born Western women became more promiscuous (much to Tate's annoyance) is not because the Catholic Church failed to draw out the lines for its populace. It's because the Church lost its power in face of a new philosophy. Yes, I have. I've lived across Southeastern Europe for a good chunk of time. Oh, yes, how could I forget the Hindutva cow vigilantes. I should have mentioned the 50 odd Muslims that have died at the hands of Hindu cow mobs since 2015. If only they were a little sensible and tolerant, man. Violence is bad. Violence in the name of religion is even more bad.
  5. Yes, I will not like it. The difference is that my father is not the founder of my religion, the Prophet (s) is. If I "strike" anyone in the name of the Prophet (s), I will be giving both myself and the Prophet (s) a bad rep. You think you're standing up for the honor of the Prophet (s) by stabbing and issuing violent fatwas against people? You're not. When you resort to violence, it looks like you're hiding something. It looks like you can't get your community to give a stronger verbal response, so you need to start putting people to the gallows. It is silly. Right, go ahead and show me where in that verse does it give you the permission to be violently "tough and harsh" (which isn't even the correct translation, by the way) and issue fatwas to kill disbelievers. A better translation (and you can find this across all of the translations with a quick search) is that you stand "proud" and "stern" and "firm" and "dignified" in face of the disbelievers. Stop giving your own meaning to the verses of the Qur'an. It could be the Rajputs or the Gujjars or the Jatts, I couldn't care less. All of them have historically been part and parcel of Hinduism or Hindu society at large. There were many reasons why Padmavat got the hate, and one of them was the fact that it even managed to show a Muslim Khilji pursuing a Rajput Hindu woman. Just this idea alone bothered a group of Hindus. You can call it irrelevant, it doesn't change the fact that you blatantly evaded my question at the end. Yeah, I think printing and publishing certain narrations is a global level campaign that knowingly or unknowingly causes fitna and misinformation and "masking of Islam". Muslims the Intolerant don't seem to be too keen on dealing with that. Muslims the Intolerant will go and stab people and then come back home to insult the Prophet (s) all over again. Fix your house before you go raid someone else's.
  6. Ws. No, it is not. I think what you're trying to convey is that being firm and unswaying in your own beliefs is a good thing, and with that I do agree. You shouldn't be easily manipulated or influenced in matters of belief. Yes, let's ignore centuries of secularization of Western societies where the church and state have been more or less divorced from each other, and blame everything on tolerance. Look, Andrew Tate is the kind of person who seems to believe that Christian-born women who party on Saturdays and go to church on Sundays aren't really Christians. His reasoning is always, for some reason, fixated on girls and their sexual habits. Wear an insulting shirt about the Prophet (s) in Albania. You'll come out without a blemish. Try wearing an insulting shirt about Jesus in rural Texas. You can tell me how that goes, bud. I mean, you might get chased down the alley in Varanasi if you said something off the mark about their god(s). Or they might create a fuss over a movie - like they did with Padmavat. But what are these values that Hindus are taking up arms for? And who is opposing them anyway? Where do you draw the line? I think any page of any book that says the Prophet (s) displayed no control over himself and performed sex with his menstruating wife is insulting. I think that any person who celebrates or defends the Prophet's (s) alleged marriage to a 6-year old is causing fitna. I think all of these allegations are dishonest and dangerous. Should we raise an army that will carry out attacks against some of our own people? I genuinely want to know what you will gain out of violence. And where exactly do you draw the line.
  7. Islam: be tolerant of others because it is a good thing. Muslims: we want to be intolerant cry babies, even though intolerance is a bad thing. Andrew Tate: Muslims are intolerant and that's a good thing.
  8. They can be interpreted in both ways. That is why we have years of scholarship that have tried to decode his (a) journey and its purpose, but have arrived at various conclusions. Me personally, I like to see it spiritually, because I have experienced that heightened spirituality is one of the outcomes of learning about Karbala. If I had to judge it politically, well, it wasn't a success. At all.
  9. Well, to be fair, there are and always have been bigger factors at play when it comes to the Sunni-Shi'a dispute. But I must agree with you on that the tragedy of Karbala only seems to benefit those who know about it. The Islam that was saved with the sacrifices at Karbala was a different Islam, not the Islam of the vast majority of the Ummah today. Those who say Islam would have died and monotheism would have been forgotten if Hussain b. Ali (a) did not sacrifice himself make a very emotionally loaded argument. And it cannot be farther from the truth. Islam survived at the hands of 'Umar b. al-Khattab and other pagan-to-Muslims as well. Islam survived at the hands of the Ummayads, the Abbasids, the Mughals, the Ottomans, the Seljuks, etc. And you best believe, that is the Islam that the better part of two billion Muslims follow today. I think my question is also related to the plight of the Shi'i. This tragedy helped the Shi'a become more attached to the Ahl al-Bayt (a), their values, and we mourn for them, but other than that, what else have we gained out of Karbala? Some may say "well, the Ahl al-Bayt should be enough. You shouldn't need to gain anything else out of it." I can agree, but then this really shrinks down the sacrifice of Hussain b. Ali (a) and makes it sound like it was almost exclusively done for us - not other Muslims and certainly not for humanity.
  10. Smh. Yes, comrade. Yes, I have. If only his sermons filled in all of the gaps and spaces in my mind. If only my mind was immaculate in acquiring ma'rifa of the Imam, I wouldn't have had to be here on ShiaChat regretting the fact that I ever asked anything.
  11. Yes, because what you seem to be thinking is that I'm questioning the Imam's judgement, when in reality, I am simply trying to understand it. This was never a question about right decision vs. wrong decision. You can read my original post. We all agree that the Imam made the correct decision. What I'm trying to understand is why he chose to go towards Iraq when there were other options at his disposal, because I genuinely feel this would add to my understanding of Karbala. Just like I questioned why he chose Muslim b. Aqil as his messenger and not someone else from Bani Hashim. It's a matter of understanding the Imam's judgment, not raising fingers at it. His 72 companions seemed to have already been at the level of understanding, so your comparison is a little nonsensical there. Good day.
  12. This was not my argument. I said that, on the Roman front, and I should have specified that with regards to Anatolia, the Ummayads were halted for over the better part of three decades. This was a spark of failure, and once you have internal strife with a ruler employing weak fiscal policies, you’ve cooked yourself up a nice recipe for decline. You simply cannot ignore the red light at Anatolia. There you go. This was what I was emphasizing when I said “mainly internal strife”. This strife was then used by the Shi'i, under the pretext of equality. Okay, let’s roll with this here. Did the tragedy of Karbala, in light of this information, change the direction of the Muslim community? How did the shift of power from Banu Ummayah to Banu Abbas actually bring about any benefit in the long run - as you claimed it did? The only change I see, at least with regards to the Shi'a, is that the rest of the Imams, after Hussain b. Ali, became virtually apolitical, to the point that we have no information on some of them apart from how they would send agents to Shi’a communities for khums collections. What long-term ripples did the tragedy of Karbala send down in the Ummah? But these revolts were military wings of different Shi’i thoughts and doctrines that were going around at the time. It’s difficult to overlook the fact that these revolts did cause further divisions. There absolutely is. Mukhtar and his organization's followers were some of the first to bring the doctrine of the “Mahdi” to prominence, since he seemed to have believed that al-Hanafiyyah was the Mahdi. Now whether his belief in the Mahdi was eschatological or not is a separate discussion, but it’s good to note that the Shi’i sects that later emerge were deeply enshrined in this doctrine of the Mahdi who would remove oppression and establish justice in the public order at the end of times. In fact, almost all of these sects deviated from the Imami line because they would look up to someone else for a political rising (al-qaim), since the Ali-Fatimid line of Imams kept on disappointing them by not participating in the political sphere. After Zayd’s revolt, we plunge into more major sectarianism, but as I said, these sects did not emerge just because they felt like it. Their existence was linked to the initial Mahdi doctrine that was really discharged into Shi'ism by the Kaysaniyya (and others), the former of which had ties with Mukhtar. Yes, I am aware of the amount of mental gymnastics that have been carried out in trying to prove that there was a secret scheme between al-Hanafiyyah and Ali b. Hussain allegedly backing and being involved with Mukhtar, but despite that, it has not been made clear that Mukhtar had any backing from Ali b. Hussain. So I wouldn’t call this a debunk, but rather an attempt to debunk. The smiles on Ali b. Hussain and his family’s faces are not deemed as authentic pieces of information. Nor is the conversation between Hakam b. Mukhtar and Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir. Al-Khu’i’s grading is not entirely accurate, to be fair. I remember reading into this and found the hadith, “Mukhtar used to lie about Ali b. Hussain” was graded dha’eef by al-Khu’i (which itself was contradictory according to al-Khu’i’s standards), but many others have graded this hadith as hasan. You go back to someone as old as Nawbakhti or modern scholars such as Madelung or Kohlberg, and all of them have proposed that the Kaysaniyya had ties with Mukhtar and his followers. This is just tarikh 101 here. The Kaysaniyya did not take up after Mukhtar’s death and declare al-Hanafiyyah as the Imam and Mahdi. They took up after Mukhtar during the latter’s life, who himself was the militant organizer of the infant Kaysanite doctrine. What did occur after Mukhtar’s death were the divisions and dissolutions within the Kaysaniyya. Maybe that’s where the confusion is at. What do you mean by political non-entities? Obviously, the Abbasids knew that the Imams had some support from their followers, hence they were a living threat to them - because of the mere fact that they could challenge the legitimacy of the khilaafat. But other than that, history shows that the Imams simply stayed out of this business. Killing the Imams was no special investment or feat for the Abbasids. We do make it sound like this was a holy one on one battle between the Imams and the Caliphs, and that the Caliphs were especially passionate about getting rid of the Shi’i Imams, but this is simply not true. The Imams, for them, were just little specks in their grand kingdom who they felt could amass a steady following. So they simply got rid of them before an Imam even considered it.
  13. Because it is Allah's sunnah to guide humanity at all times. He wants to guide humans, with a guidance that is pristine. And since he is al-Hadi, and he has taken it upon himself to provide such a guidance for mankind. For all of time to come. The operations of nubuwwah and risalah have ended, God surely has decided to not keep sending down any more scripture, nor does he magically appear on Earth to bring us towards Islam. So there must be another way to do the job.
  14. Well then.. why not a desolate place somewhere in Yemen? Was he not aware that Yemen harbored more loyal followers than Kufa? Was going towards Kufa a miscalculation on his part? This has become such a dilemma for me. The more I read on it, the more I scratch my head.
  15. Then it's not so much of a sacrifice, is it? If he already knew that he would survive the night and meet with the Prophet (s) again, how is it a sacrifice anymore?
×
×
  • Create New...