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

KinAgn

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KinAgn

  1. Do you still have the link that you sent me some time ago-related to hell/paradise etc..... by mulla sadr (i think)?... n what about the question that i sent you did you break it? because i am struggling with it!.

    n sorry for the late reply....

  2. Taking the "Alcohol" example: If you told me to drink alcohol, surely I have to have a reason for drinking it. Therefore, making the decision mine. You were there yet you were not there. You were the way not the reason. Shaytan's arrogance was due to his knowledge. He decided. Meaning Shaytan had no one to blame at or even share his actions with. The matter was not to provide verses indicating shaytan's actions but the cause of shaytan and human's action. You were the one proving shaytan's eternal damnation in hell. So, what was the point of you posting that verse when it never indicated "temporary" nor " eternally"? Like i have said before , I want to know the reasons for his eternal punishment. So , do i have the right to say that your whole answer was based upon your one example- Alcohol? If so, can you provide a better example so that i can understand.
  3. ^ You still did not answer the question.
  4. You are NOT you. Becasue you don't have an answer for your question ^. When you have the answer, thn you are YOU.
  5. How about " No one should take others burden". and who misled shaytan? Where does it say eternal?
  6. condensed idea.... 1- The opposite of 'Iman' = Kufr 1.1 The opposite of 'Shukr' = Kufr Meaning-Ingratitude is the essence of Kufr. "Kafir literally means "one who conceals the truth". Know, how can they ^ emerge? My question is, how can a person conceal the truth, while knowing that He will be in loss for eternal? I doubt anyone can. Except a person who doesn't know what is the " truth". Therefore, making him not a kaffir. You cover when you know what to cover, but how can one cover when they don't know what to cover? Firstly, What is your definition of ' rational understanding'? Secondly, How can one lead others astray while knowing that he is leading himself to eternal damnation? Thridly, How can one not really accept the truth, if he knew that the truth existed?
  7. i doubt anyone would really hide the truth if they knew it. They would be a hypocrite infront of you but when they are alone they have no optiion but to accept it.
  8. Well it basically means that some will be judged on their day of judgement and offered paradise while there will still be some individuals who will be going through the test (this world). Because God’s knowledge is infinite. Do correct me.. God's knowledge confirms that the individuals will choose their actions. I doubt that would be a great answer while conversing with a non-believer.
  9. If the creation is merely a reflection of God's knowledge, then observing the creations indicates God's limits. Meaning, if God's knowledge is not limited, then surely He has to create all those creatures that are in His Knowledge otherwise it will be injustice. But it will be injustice. How? like this: If Firown and another person called Sifrown both deserve Hell, and creating one and not the other is injustice, because one has experienced the pleasure of this world. So, basically it means they both have to be created, and If God creates all those creatures that are in His mind which if it is unlimited will indicate that the day of judgement should not come. Some thoughts ^ do please correct me if said anything wrong.
  10. eThErEaL- How can one conceal the truth? How does it work?
  11. In my opinion, I believe the question goes back to “Does god have free will"? - Ok.... do correct me. But why have you already concluded that Good is "what ever submits to Him"? I think the matter here is how does god "decide" what is good or holy? (Yes it might sound blasphemes and childish) but does He select them arbitrarily, is there a reason behind it? Object A and B are there and God decides A to be holy, but on what reason? I might be wrong but if the case of justices were to be presented, wouldn't accepting one and rejecting the other be seen as an act of injustice even if the issue of free will was not present in the objects. I think the question of Socrates states that if there is a God than He is a bias One. Since, we are talking about before "Evil" was coined "Evil". In other words, before God considered actions like wanton killing, robbery, lying etc as evil. On what base did He label evil as evil? Or let me say holy as holy? And as you have said " Evil is the opposite of good"- I would like to know your opinion on this- Can Good be understood without evil?. Can you label something good without knowing that evil/bad exists?
  12. Peace be upon you all. In this thread i would be providing the summary of the dialogue of Socrates with Euthyphro. The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro turns on the question: Is what is holy holy just because the gods approve of it, or do the gods approve of what is holy because it is holy? The gist of Socrates' argument is that if the holy were holy simply on account of the gods approving of it, holiness would be an arbitrary matter. It would simply be up to the gods to decide. But then the gods would not really be able to love the holy. The gods must love the holy because it is holy and therefore worthy of being loved. If i amend this theory slightly and pose a similiar question as Socrates posed to Euthyphro. Is what is morally right right just because God wills or commands it, or does God will or command the morally right because it is right? What would be your answer? And if there is a flaw in the dialgoue than do please state it... ( Answer both if you wouldn't mind- Why is it holy? and Why is it right?)
  13. Thank you for you replies for i would be reading it deeply.... Hopefully after i am done i shall ask some questions. And Carlos let me confirm the basic meaning of "Tawator": By tawatur is meant the multiplicity of the sources of a certain report that leads to certitude in the listener that the report is indeed true. One's knowledge of the existence of distant countries and towns and such historical figures as Cyrus or Napolean may be said to be based on the tawatur of reports that one hears about them. So also is one's knowledge of the contemporary events not witnessed by him. do correct me!. ^
  14. Asalamu Alaikum brothers and sisters... (Sorry if this question has been asked before.) My question is regarding with the authenticity of the Quran and hadeeths. I believe this two are connected with each other.. Quran cannot be literally understood without hadeeth. And how can you confirm the authenticity of a "hadeeth" without reaching to conclusion that the cycle goes on till infinite. Basically my whole question is that how can you confirm a hadeeth?. let me elaborate it. Scenario (1) Hadeeth (1)- Is "Sahih" - Narrator is truthful. How do you know that? Because the historian confirms it. How do you know the historian is truthful? because Person C confirms that the historian is truthful. How do you know Person C is truthful? because ...................... you see the cycle goes on and where does it stop? you tell me where can the cycle stop?... Do please correct me if i said anything wrong. Another way of confirming a hadeeth if it is correct or not is that it has to match with the Quran. right? So basically Quran confirms it's authenticity. But how can the Quran confrim a hadeeths authenticity when Quran's whole authenticity is based upon a hadeeth? let me explain it in Scenario 2. Scenario (2) Quran was compiled. Who compiled it Imam Ali or Uthman it is still unknown.. basically there are scholars for it and against it in this subject. **** If Imam Ali compiled the Quran than the hadeeth stating Imam Ali compiled it has to be "sahih". And how can you know if it is sahih or not? .... you tell me since i have the question in Scenario (1) in my mind. ***** And if Uthman compiled it than the hadeeth that confirms that Imam Ali confirmed the Quran that Uthman compiled has to be "sahih". So both sides confirms that the Quran authenticity is based upon one hadeeth..... is that right? Should it happen that way or not? Like i have said before correct me if I said anything wrong.
  15. Person A misguided Person B...right?^ Person A should only get the weight of misguiding himself, not the weight of Person B because Person B decided his answer. There should not be any extra weight on Person A. For that would be being punished for the foolishness of someone else. I understand where you are coming from. But it is evil when it is misused, but for the sake of "majority" let us prohibit it. Doesn't make sense. After all the main danger that " Majority" of people will "accidentally" endanger others is this new technologies "Vehicles". Shouldn't that be banned as well. Innocents will suffer!. If you would not mind bro can you elaborate? Well in here your question it would be making up the prayers. But that is not my question. If one is told to catch up with what he missed the other should be told as well. At the end both of their reasons for not performing the actions is that they did not believe in the God that told them to perform actions in that "time" or "moment". Anyone can learn anything. I am talking about the "authenticity" of the Quran. If a hadeeth is told through one or two chains than it does not really leave us an option. Come on, because someone said so? that doesn't sound right. One one thing regarding with hadeeths i don't get it is that the "cycle" goes on till" infinity". Because how do we know that Hadeeth is right because the " Historian" confirmes his "truthfulness" ( narrator) . How do we know the historian is truthful because person C confrims the trustfulness of the "historian" and from there the cycle goes on. Can some one help me with that. ^ Yes but i don't get my religion from France, China etc.. if i believe in them or not IT will not determine my eternal after life. For them existing or not is not such a big deal. There is a lot of things that contradicts. Quran should confirm the authenticity of a hadeeth but it looks like the "hadeeths" are confirming the authenticity of the Quran. Which it shouldn't happen. If we can believe in a God that cannot be seen and have the belief that He is everywhere. Than why can't that God come in a human form and yet be everywhere? Well sorry but i do not see the discrepancy. I told you that Christianity is right and you followed me. Now i have to carry extra sin for that, for surely you followed your own free will....right? "I want to come in a human form yet not be limited and eat and yet not go to toilet etc..". Be and will it happen if Allah chooses so? That was not my question. What i said was, if a person leaves Islam based on his conclusion that Islam is not right, n through his conclusion he enters back Islam" n so on. Yes i understand that the proof of hadeeth is not only in the chain, but as a matter of fact it has to match with the Quran. But what if the whole Quran authenticity is based upon hadeeth? Sorry but Quran cannot be understood literally by itself. You know that too. Cheeeeez for you contribution Macisaac and Otowi
  16. Asalamu Alaikum everyone. There are some questions. Answer as many as you can. For I would like to see which angle do you approach to answer.. 1) Allah says in the Quran:” Whoever goes aright, for his own soul does he go aright; and whoever goes astray, to its detriment only does he go astray: nor can the bearer of a burden bear the burden of another, nor do We chastise until We raise a messenger.” 17:15 And yet Allah said in the previous chapter: “That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear.” 16:25 Why this contradiction? And still continuing with the above verses in the Quran. Why are there cases in Islam where something is forbidden for the sake of the majority? In other words why is something forbidden because there are “chances of majority of the people will misuse it”?? But… Why this concept? Isn’t that carrying the burden of others? 2) Everyone is born as a Muslim. Some are brought up in a non-Muslim environment (Non-Muslims) while others are brought up in a Muslim environment. (Muslims) So… If a Muslim person left Islam because of his reasoning and after 1 year comes back to Islam because of his reasoning again, all the good deeds that he performed are still recorded but all the prayers and fasting that he missed is due upon him. But… why? While compared to a Non- Muslim person who accepts Islam at the age of 30 has his all bad deeds forgiven and on top ( this is the main difference) No prayers or fasting is due on him. But… Why the differences? After all he was born as a Muslim too. Why feel sympathy for one and not for the other? Nevertheless if you are a non-believer in Allah it is because of you not because of your parents after you reach the age of puberty- (Baliqh)....right? So why blame the parents? 3) When stating a hadeeth you have to consider its “chain of narrations” in other words if it’s authentic or not. But when stating Quranic verses, where do you go? You go back to the compiling of the Quranic verse, where, how and who compiled the Quran…..right? So who really compiled the Quran? Correct me if I am wrong the 4th Khalifa Uthman and his group complied the Quran. And on the other hand Imam Ali compiled a Quran which it differed Uthmans collection of Quranic verses on the basis of “ the order of the Quran”. And as we all know Imam Ali confirmed Uthmans compiling of the Quran. Why and for what reason its self is a different topic. So my first question in question 3 is that, I would like to see the chain of narrations (hadeeths) stating that Imam Ali confirmed the Quran that Uthman compiled. And my second question in question 3 will be after I receive the “chain of narrations”.. 4) Simple question, can God come in a Human form?
  17. repent before it is too late. Indeed soccer is everything. Pregnant Woman: " darling, can you hear it he kicks". ( ref to the kid) Father: Obviously we will be a soccer player. and than what happens, people live the truth (Soccer) and follow the falsehood. We never heard a pregnant woman saying " he throws or he bats" Oh!. i think he will be a cricket player.
  18. Do you know where is this incident written in ? which book?
  19. When you choice Islam, it came with rules and regulations. And no.1 was pray salat on time. It was an obligatory action, not a mustahab action If they are low what can you do? The truth is they take Islam lightly know they will be judged so Would you. So what is coming in between your nafila prayers and your God? your fear of others? I don't know your position. But when they are learned people around you keep your mouth close unless they ask you or they say something wrong. pray you Nafila prays alone that would test you, because it will make you question yourself " Do I really pray to God or to show off?". but if they happen to open the door while you are praying to your God don't blame yourself blame the door.
  20. Since your post was on First April i thought you were tryin to fool me. To tell you the truth there was a Zilzaal in the heavens for a sec, you angered my hoor-el-3in ,seriously i didn't know jealousy existed in the heavens.
×
×
  • Create New...