Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Ibn Tayyar

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ibn Tayyar last won the day on September 29

Ibn Tayyar had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Religion

Recent Profile Visitors

173 profile views

Ibn Tayyar's Achievements

  1. Wilayah Al-Takwiniyya can be understood as a person's supernatural abilities granted to them and permitted to them by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). The miracles of the Prophets (عليه السلام) in the Holy Qur'an are all examples of Wilayah Al-Takwiniyya. Some creation, such as our Prophet (saww), has more of this ability and knowledge than anyone else. This is an example of this: And to Solomon ˹We subjected˺ the wind: its morning stride was a month’s journey and so was its evening stride. And We caused a stream of molten copper to flow for him, and ˹We subjected˺ some of the jinn to work under him by his Lord’s Will. And whoever of them deviated from Our command, We made them taste the torment of the blaze. [34:10] If someone understand from Wilayah Al-Takwiniyya as the Imams running the affairs of the Universe as a gift from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or that they are the creators and the granters of sustenance than that is shirk and ghulu and kufr, and the Imams (عليه السلام) made takfir of those who believed in such nonsense.
  2. I think some brothers misread or misinterpreted the question. I never asked whether the Injeel (Gospel) had been corrupted or not, the question was did Isa (عليه السلام) have a physical book revealed to him like Musa (عليه السلام) and our Prophet (saww). And if he did have a physical book, is it completely lost? Because it is certainly not the "Gospels" of the New Testament.
  3. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/26/cuba-overwhelmingly-approves-same-sex-marriage-in-referendum Just goes to show that although some brothers may admire the Cuban regime for perhaps a couple good stances on the geopolitical scene, its population has also embraced progressive ideals. Note*: This is actually in complete contrast to how Fidel Castro actually used to view homosexual people. I think the lesson that can be learnt from this is that we should not be quick to heap praise on a person or an entity, as the Imams (عليه السلام) taught us to judge a person wholistically, not based on one or two good traits, and we should apply this standard to world leaders and Governments in my opinion. At the end of the day these States such as Cuba, DPRK and Venezuela do promote a kufri anti-Islamic ideology, so be wary. May Allah unite the believers and keep them strong.
  4. This article addresses this, and in fact our more reliable narrations say the opposite: https://purifiedhousehold.com/are-our-stomachs-graves-for-animals/ You can eat seafood that is halal, such as fish with scales and shrimps, even if that food is from the hand of the non-Muslim. Most scholars do not allow the eating of meat that is slaughtered by a non-Muslim. At the end of the day, eating meat isn't wajib although it is a very beautiful thing, so if the choice is between vegetarian food and non-halal meat, you have to choose vegetarian food. But once again, I do recommend you look into seafood, as the rulings regarding it are more laxed than land animals which require slaughter by the hand of a Muslim. *NOTE - this advice only applies if you are Shi'i Twelver.
  5. I just feel like the liberals of each generation are the social conservatives of the next generation, so it doesn't really matter. 15-20 years ago conservatives rejected homosexual marriage in the US only for today's conservatives to accept it. Social conservatism is not rigid in the West, as the natural evolution of Western society is progressive socially. You are associating with a moving target.
  6. I think it is misguided for a Muslim to believe that just because a certain political grouping has similar social values as Muslims, that this means Muslims should establish a relationship with them or even worse, an alliance. My opinion is that in a decade or two, some liberals of today will be seen as social conservatives, as the progressive goalposts keep moving more and more. I believe that transgenderism will eventually be accepted by the right-wing the same way homosexual rights has been accepted, and so who knows what the hot topic will be about in the future. Just my 2 cents.
  7. There is no question that modern Western society would agree that amputating someone for stealing would be looked at as a vile act, and people would certainly feel sorry for the thief and would see him as a victim of a medieval punishment, regardless of his criminality. I also understand your point about connecting disability to crime, but I don't believe the point of the Hadd is to amputate people so that they can be identified. What I didn't find strong is that the stigma would make it hard to incorporate a thief back into society in this day and era, as opposed to the early Islamic age, considering the fact that having a working hand in those days was more necessary in the old societies for occupational purposes. Nope, imprisonment in and of itself was a hadd, not a ta'zir. The first time someone steals, you cut off the fingers of their right hand. But what if they repeat it again and again? Well, another hadd exists for that. قال: إذا أُخذ السارق قطعت يده من وسط الكفّ، فإن عاد قطعت رجله من وسط القدم، فإن عاد استودع السجن، فإن سرق في السجن قتل This is a reliable hadith, among more, which explains the process. And the process in the hadith is as Sayyed Al-Khoei mentions here: 2805. If a person who is adult and sane steals 3 3/5 grains of coined gold or anything of equivalent value, and he satisfies the conditions prescribed for it in law, four fingers of his right hand should be cut from their root on his first offence, and the palm of his hand and the thumb should be allowed to remain in tact. If he repeats the offence his left foot should be cut off from the middle and if he steals for the third time, he should be imprisoned for life and his expenses should be paid from the public treasury (Bait ul Maal) and in case he commits theft for the fourth time, whether in the prison or outside it, he should be killed. https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui-sayyid-abu-al-qasim-al-khoei/punishment-prescribed-certain 1) It is true that the situation of imprisonment of those captured in war would usually resolve, most likely in slavery or ransom. 2) It is however not true that imprisonment was not used in early Islamic Arabia, as it was used apparently used by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in the case of those who do not pay back their debt, although it is disputed by the fuqaha on whether he (عليه السلام) used it to investigate someone's status (whether they have the ability to pay) or whether it was a punishment to force them to pay knowing they have the ability to. 3) And also as I mentioned, it was mentioned as a hadd for a repeated offense in stealing. I'm asking; if deterrence is the end goal of punishments, why was lashing not used as a punishment for stealing? Why was a more severe punishment in amputation necessary? Would lashing only deter a potential fornicator, as opposed to a thief who would somehow require a more severe punishment in order to achieve deterrence from stealing in society? Even if we did not know the reason for it, which we don't for hundreds of ahkam, it would still be categorised as makruh simply because the narration says so. This is not to say that the ahkam do not have a reason behind them as they very well may have one, but that we do not need to know the reason, and in the event that we do then that is a plus, but not a necessity. Most Muslims, for example, when they go to Hajj, do not know the reasons behind most of the rites that are performed, but they do it anyway with the intention of nearness and obedience. There was no necessity for them to "make sense" of why they are engaging in actions that non-Muslims would see as absurd. Those hadiths were understood to be ma'soom specific and I have seen some Shi'a use them as proof that the hudood should only be performed by a ma'soom, which is actually a belief that was held by some fuqaha both past and present, although it was not the mashoor view. The idea is that only the ma'soom who is granted knowledge which we do not have, will know if certain exceptions can be made. (this can be an argument that hudood should only be performed by a ma'soom). In that hadith you have cited, the Imam (عليه السلام) for example mentions that the Angels have wept for the man in question, so Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) had accepted his repentance, something which we obviously would not know of, and so therefore we can only implement what we have been given, which is to rule by what is apparent to us (witnesses, confessions etc.) So I would say the reconciliation is that this would be the exception to the rule, which would concern the ma'soom alone. I don't know if some fuqaha see it as wajib to enforce the hudood or simply permissible, as that would be an interesting thing to research about. I'm sure they all see it as a futile attempt in a non-accepting society anyway, seeing as the ulama in Najaf have not even tried to implement this in Iraq since 2003. Iraq obviously has much more urgent things to worry about. Finally I would like to say that I have enjoyed this discussion with you brother, but I believe this thread should be more concerned about the topic in question which is the current situation in Iran and any potential updates with the protest situation. I will await and read your response to this insha Allah, but I won't respond to back. I will say that I have already learned and opened my mind to a few things that you have said, and for that I am grateful. Thank you and stay blessed brother.
  8. It may be specific to the children of the non-believers, as one hadith mentions. I don't think any of the opinions necessarily contradict the Verses.
  9. I mean I would imagine that amputees in early Arabia probably had it worse than amputees today, in terms of both reputation (as a known thief now), add to that I would say good luck to the amputee in finding an occupation at a time where most men would work in a manual labour field in an already resource-scare society as you mentioned, so I don't believe the stigma argument is strong in and of itself. Secondly as I mentioned, Muslims were in fact jailed if they did repeat the offense of stealing, and prison was a already a punishment pre-Islam and during Islam. Perhaps the "deterrence" argument you mentioned is stronger, which I will address later. I don't really see how prisons would significantly increase the burden on the Islamic Governments of the time, prisons back weren't as expensive as today and in a society where prisoners of war (captives) were already being taken care of in mass numbers, I don't think it would be something out of the norm. Even if I accept your argument that prisons were too expensive, which I don't believe would be true as prisons would be much simpler back then without the added costs of today's prisons, would it be reasonable to ask why lashing wasn't seen an an appropriate deterrence method for the thief? It apparently worked in deterring the fornicators. Even if you were to say that stealing is more severe and therefore requires a more severe punishment, one might still respond and say: severity of punishment shouldn't matter if the outcome is the same, that lashings work in both situations, and therefore deterrence has been achieved. Unless one would now say that lashings simply wouldn't work at in deterring a thief, and they are a different type of criminal, and require a different punishment altogether that would work on them. I mean I don't necessarily even believe this is the case with just Islamic punishments, but any and every law, even for a simple case of mustahab and makruh, there is no reason to ask "why". For example, why is cutting bread with a knife makruh? Well, we don't need to know the reasons, we just need the proof that declares it makruh. Our ahkam are ta'abudiyya (we worship and obey Allah through them) and we don't need the logic behind it, and the traditionalists often rely on the following Verse when the topic of reasonings is brought forth. It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allāh and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allāh and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. [33:36] The Muslims were told to not let pity get in our way of enforcing the punishment on the fornicators: The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion [i.e., law] of Allāh, if you should believe in Allāh and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment. [24:2] And so therefore, in traditionalist worldview, the job is to obey once we figure out the meaning of a Verse or a hadith which we can be confident has come from an authoritative source, irrespective of emotional reactions or societal reactions. And I believe this may be the most interesting argument, which I believe is the gist of your viewpoint, which is that deterrence was the end goal of the punishments and therefore as society and cultures change and move, then so should the punishments. The traditionalist argument will be that we don't know if the end goal of these punishments is even deterrence, or if it may just be one goal among many goals, I believe the Sunnis have an authentic hadith they have narrated which implies that one of the uses of the punishments is that they can actually be an atonement for the sinner, so that the punished will not be judged in the Afterlife for this sin. We also have such hadiths in our books, therefore in the traditionalist worldview deterrence has not proven to be the only goal of the punishments, and therefore they are to stay in their rigid format till the end of time, even if other similarly effective or more effective methods of punishment are available, due to things such as modern science and what not.
  10. The job of the Prophets (عليه السلام) and Imams (عليه السلام) is to guide people, but that does not mean their followers did not disagree amongst themselves. Even in the Prophet's time the Ummah was divided and right after his death the disputes began to be even more apparent. An example can be taken from the stories in the Holy Qur'an, for example in the story of Harun (عليه السلام) when he was left in charge of the Israelites after Musa (عليه السلام) had left them, only for the Israelities to disobey him and follow the Samiri (la). Can one here blame Harun (عليه السلام) despite being powerless to stop them? A similar situation arose during the times of our Imams (عليه السلام), where many of their followers lived in different parts of the Islamic Caliphate and had to rely on narrations from the Imams (عليه السلام) from certain narrators whom they trusted so that they can be guided and practice their religion. And ofcourse as we know, in the midst of this mass hadith transmission, liars and deviants would arise and also narrate from the Imams (عليه السلام), or certain narrations would be misnarrated, and therefore disputes would naturally arise. What made this even more difficult was that we believed most of our Imams (عليه السلام) lived in taqiyya, and they feared for their life as their own death would be catastrophic for the Shi'a. Which brings us to the Mahdi (عليه السلام), whose situation is not very different from his fathers (عليه السلام), in that he also fears his death; I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام say: Verily the Qa’im will be occulted prior to his rising; he will be afraid – and he pointed with his hand to his stomach – meaning, [afraid of] being killed. (al-Kafi) http://www.imamiyya.com/hadith/qiyam/the-occultation-of-the-imam This is similar to the fear of Musa (عليه السلام) when he left his people and that of the Prophet (saww) in his earlier years when the Revelation was in secret, it is a fear for the sake of the Deen. And finally we have the hadiths from them which are enough for us to be guided in this time, as the Imams (عليه السلام) always told us to follow the transmitters of the hadiths and that is sufficient for us, insha Allah, whether they are present or we can't get to them (such as the case is today). They themselves told us that they are the hujjah upon us, and it is commonly understood that "transmitters of hadiths" meant the fuqaha.
  11. Some hadiths seem to indicate that these "wildaan" or "ghilmaan" in Jannah are the children who died before buloogh, and therefore became servants in Jannah. Some, however, are of the opinion that they are exclusively made for Jannah to serve the believers.
  12. I would also like to make the point that you will find in many of our hadiths which concern the rewards in Jannah there is a "amount" given. So for example, we have a hadith which mentions one of the rewards for a mu'min in Jannah being 800 virgins. These numbers may simply mean "a lot" like sister @Hameedehmentioned. So I do not believe there is much importance to be given to the "72" number as a point against Sunnism.
  13. There was differences among even the companions of the Imams (عليه السلام) when they were present, just as there was differences among companions of Prophets and such.
  14. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint brother. So then the question I guess I would ask is this; since everyone agrees that theft is a timeless sin and deserves a punishment, why would implementing the punishment in the Qur'an be "wrong"? The early Muslims could have easily imprisoned thieves as modern society does. What would chopping a Muslim's hand achieve that a prison sentence couldn't in 700AD? I make this point because the traditionalist orthodox opinion is that knowing the "reasoning" - unless it is explicitly mentioned in texts - behind Islamic Laws (including punishments) is not necessary, even if they do not make "sense" to us. Side note: Life imprisonment for stealing is actually - in the hadiths - a punishment for getting caught stealing for the third time. So since the context was to protect or build the nuclear family unit, if a modern Islamic country were to suffer from high fornication and adultery rates and the nuclear family was under threat, would a ruler be within their rights to declare "we will return to the capital punishment of the old days to get this under control"? Or would you say it is a matter of "what worked in the past may not work anymore"? I ask this because although I personally disagree with nearly everything you and other brothers who believe in this "contextual" approach to Islamic Law, I do find it interesting on a personal level. You are correct in that calling a set of laws a "nidhaam" would be incorrect. Shi'a traditionalist clergy disagreed among themselves who on should be the executive and what their role should be. A faqih? A group of fuqaha? A King that is restricted by the fuqaha? Should a parliament exist?
  • Create New...