Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

khizarr

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    195
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

khizarr last won the day on October 15

khizarr had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York City, United States
  • Religion
    Shia Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

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

khizarr's Achievements

  1. There you go. You just answered it yourself.
  2. I know this has little to do with the post, but this is a bad example. The question of being able to love, marry, or have sex with a person of the opposite gender or a person of the same gender are both identical and symmetrical as far as the idea of "consenting relationship between two adults that doesn't affect other people" goes. Once you add on a dynamic, like a father and his daughter, or a teacher and their student, you are changing the entire question and there is an obvious and uneven power structure - so these examples therefore cannot be used as an argument against homosexuality. It's like comparing two different classes of society. You can, right now, imagine all of the things that a heterosexual couple does and even if you flipped one of the genders, you can still imagine them doing all of the same things. You can't possibly conjure up the same imagination if you flipped "normal couple" to "doctor and patient" or "father and daughter" or "policeman and victim" because one side has a clear authority over the other. Speaking of a doctor and patient, if a male doctor were to sexually approach his male patient, the issue would lie in his advancement on his patient whilst he held the moral authority as a doctor. The problem isn't in them having the same sex. This is why this is not a good comparison to make. At all.
  3. I don't think one's spouse is predestined; at least there is nothing in Islam that suggests so. Now there are some things that are predestined, some that are done out of free will (where you are 'writing your own destiny'), and some that may be changed with du'a. All three of these rest on the knowledge and majesty of Allah. None of them entail sitting around idle and waiting for things to happen. Yeah, it's a difficult question sometimes. But, at the same time, I do understand that a lot of these things are outcomes of human shortcomings. Poverty and childhood abuse are two classic examples; where human evil is exhibited out of free will, since evil does not come from God. But again, it is a tough question about life and I don't know if I've come to terms with it completely myself.
  4. What does this even mean? Women are actually much less rebellious, and much more agreeable and conforming than men. This has been maintained by major psychologists. It explains why women don't do as well as men in business. So what exactly are you "policing"?
  5. Go ahead and name me one single, credible, non-partisan scientist that has held the "opposing perspective". What do you mean by "work"? Pfizer and Moderna do work, in the sense of reducing harm. It's quite simple to understand; the vaccine encodes a specific protein, which instructs our cells to produce the same spike protein that would target the virus - if it were introduced in the body. This has been studied extensively since 2011. The reason we have to keep getting those boosters is (1) because mRNA degrades quickly and (2) the virus undergoes mutation and thus our body is unable to recognize its new "face". Such as? I hope you understand that that's not how vaccines work. The flu vaccine doesn't work that way either. You are not magically eliminating all harm by getting an injection. Please go read what virologists have been studying and stop being fed by whatsapp news.
  6. What are you basing this on? Because this is most definitely not the essence of postmodernism.
  7. @AbdusSibtaynI agree with you. I don't find many of his interpretations too convincing either.
  8. Yeah, he doesn't accept what Muslims have generally understood as supernatural occurences in the Prophets' lives (i.e. miracles), like the virgin birth or the staff turning into a snake in the court of the pharoah - amongst others. He explains the stories very differently. I think he's smart enough to know that there is no logical inconsistency in any of these miracle stories, but he argues more from the 'reason based in observation' pov, in that nature has never and will never work against Allah's sunnah (which are the laws of the universe that are finalized in place by Allah). It's not a bad argument to make by any measure, but I think he has to do a good amount of textual acrobatics here and there to make a worthy case. Enlightening, nonetheless.
  9. What do you think of the understanding that covering one's head was more of a cultural undertaking and served as a form of ID, rather than an eternal religious mandate? Women in hotter climates almost always covered their heads when going out; Arab women wrapped turbans, Indian women covered with the part of the sari, etc. Muslim women also dressed differently than slave women/non-Muslims in order to be distinguished. Women of the Prophet's family covered up even more due to their status, think of it as royal protocol. Since Islam was revealed to an Arab society, it had to lend some acceptance to what was already being practiced. Would you not agree with this? For clothing, I don't think Islam is too concerned with micromanaging your attire. What may be modest in Europe is not appropriate in Peshawar. There is a general rule for both men and women to observe overall modesty (don't look funny, don't go nude, dress appropriately to the setting in which you are in), and then the rest is really just left up to the culture and society in which the Muslim resides. Is this something that is problematic for you?
  10. I don't know if you listened to the rest of the podcast, but Rogan hammered him on that part later on. Matt tried his hardest not to make a religious/moral argument, but Rogan eventually picked up on it and asked him a valid question, "is this all just a religious thing for you?" - and Matt immediately started fence sitting for a bit and then went on to admit that he chalks up his views to Christianity. Namely heterosexual monogamy. Fortunately enough though, we do not make laws off of Leviticus in this country. In all honesty, from what I gathered, I think the guy is apprehensive about the social position of marriage in American society. While most Americans do place value on marriage and acknowledge its benefits, marriage rates have fallen and a significant amount of marriages are ending up in divorce anyway. He's worried about this. He wants it to be protected. And as a result, he excludes polygamy and homosexual relations, since they do not fit his religious worldview. He could just say this without bringing up all the additional arguments that he does. There are limits. Marriages between immediate family members are outlawed, for very good reasons. A student-teacher or a boss-employee relationship is out of bounds too, even if consensual.
  11. @kadhimYeah, I think that's what Rogan was trying to get at as well. It's profoundly argued. With Matt, I almost got the feeling that if I had to boil his argument down, it would pretty much be "mommy told me that's what marriage is, so that's what it is!". There's practically no case from him as to how gay marriage destroys the institution of marriage, apart from appeal to tradition. Ironically, traditionally and historically, marriage was also quite transactional and used to be a way to weigh how much "property" a man had, yet Matt only ever appeals to the very Evangelical-American "procreative, monogamous, picket fence" tradition and makes it out to be as the objectively right thing. It's not. And gay marriage doesn't actually harm Matt, nor does it affect his freedom, or society's wellbeing; it only makes him feel uncomfortable. It's why he keeps backtracking every time Rogan brings up an intelligent point. He doesn't have any real argument against it.
  12. For the same reason that the United States jumps in to help every time Pakistan treads on the brink of default. They don't want a country as polarized as Pakistan to go berserk. And promoting secularism will do just that. Promoting secularism is not viable or safe in a country that has a heavily funded military, nuclear warheads, countless different ethnicities and ideological currents, and where mullahs often get in bed with the establishment due to their sheer power to sway people and impact societal affairs. It is far more easier to promote secularism in a homogeneous society. I think that the secularist seedling is present in Pakistan, but is yet to sprout. Pakistan is commonly considered to have been created out of a religious need for a Muslim homeland, it is one of the few self described Islamic Republics, and is therefore a de facto non-secular state. I also don't think the United States is particularly interested in spreading secularism in the Muslim world.
  13. I'm not sure I'd place things like 5-MeO under the 'intoxicants' category. Just going off of its chemical makeup, I think the use and effects of psychedelics are starkingly different than what is traditionally understood of khamr/muskir in Islamic fiqh.
  14. Wonderful clip, worth watching in your free time. Calm conversation throughout. Joe had Matt cornered and articulated a multitude of arguments against him, but kudos to both for maintaining the thoughtfulness. This video further breaks down the anti-gay marriage narrative.
  15. What do you mean by this? mRNA vaccines are very well known to be effective and they degrade pretty quickly as well. No harm done to our DNA in the process.
×
×
  • Create New...