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

Abu Hadi

Forum Administrators
  • Content Count

    6,009
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Abu Hadi last won the day on March 16

Abu Hadi had the most liked content!

About Abu Hadi

  • Rank
    Level 7 Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Dearborn, Michigan, United States
  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12,786 profile views
  1. Your last statement in your post reminds me of an incident that happened to me a few years ago. I had a work colleague at that company (I don't work there anymore) and we were working on the same project so we used to talk. As with most people, our conversations revolved around work and I would ask him where he worked before he came to that company. He was vague for a while and then after a few months of working with him, he confided in me that he used to work for the CIA in PsyOps (The Psychological Operations unit of the CIA). He was vague about this and didn't tell me for a while, because despite what many people outside the United State think, even within the US the CIA has a very bad reputation for being an immoral and shady organization and most people who work for them will never admit it. I'm surprised he did. Anyway, I asked him, because he worked in Psyops and I had read about past CIA operations within the US like 'MKUltra' and I asked him if they had ever been successful in inventing a 'brainwashing machine'. He nodded his head, very casually and said they did, and pointed to the T.V. that was mounted in the corner. I kind of laughed and didn't really think about his statement for a few years and then started thinking about all the proliferation of media that has happened in the last few years and the fact that most people are looking at a screen (either a phone, tv, computer) for the majority of their waking hours. Then I started to think about who produces the vast majority of the content they are looking at and what types of effects it must have, the repetition of looking at things over and over again that people instinctively will reject (like graphic violence and strong sexual content) but then after a while it becomes 'normal'. This is exactly the kind of brainwashing I think this guy was talking about. I honestly don't know what the solution is except to say that if some content is against your morals as a Muslim, to not watch it, period. It is sometimes hard to avoid but we need to try to do that. Most people don't, unfortunately.
  2. This is a very interesting discuasion. My opinion on this, and this isnt just my opinion but I have spoke to several prominent Shia ulema who are baser in the US. The opinion us that on a State or National level, you would probably have to compromise too many of the teachings of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) for it to be feasible as mentioned by the OP. However on a city or county ( ie a local level) I think it is possible. This constituancy could then be used as a stepping stone for State or National office at some point in the future
  3. The 'Book' was what ? Again, which version are you talking about. There were many Bibles that existed 300 years after Jesus Here is a partial list The Latin Vulgate As the Latin language changed, though, the many Old Latin manuscripts (of which just more than 50 MSS survive today) became diverse from one another, prompting Jerome (IV century) to comment that there were nearly as many different translations as manuscripts! Because of this diversity and because fo the changing language, it was deemed important to provide a "common" (vulgate) standard text of the Bible in Latin which everyone could read. Jeromecompared and revised Old Latin translations of the NT, completing his Latin text by 383 CE. He translated most of the Old Testament himself, translating directly from Hebrew. [It was at this time that he discovered that certain books were not found in Hebrew in his day--the books that became known as the Deuterocanonical OT books or "Apocrypha".] The Latin Vulgate, as it became known, was revised several times, and many (8000+ !) manuscripts of the Vulgate are extant today. Eventually it became a necessity to follow only the standard Vulgate text, and by the 14th century the Old Latin had disappeared. The oldest surviving complete Latin Bible is a Vulgate manuscript (called "A", from the VIII century). The Latin Vulgate rapidly became the official Bible of the Catholic Church, and indeed translations made into other languages (including English) would be made from Latin rather than Hebrew or Greek! More about that when we get to English. Syriac Versions The first Christian works translated into the language of Syria was not the Bible itself, but a harmony of the gospels called the Diatessaron made by a man named Tatian sometime late in the II (second!) century. The Diatessaron may have been done in Greek or in Syriac originally; this is not known. What is known is that the harmony became extremely popular in his region and circulated widely in Syriac in the centuries to come. In addition to Diatessaron manuscripts, we also possess a few Old Syriac MSS. In fact, the Old Syriac survives in just two incomplete manuscripts of the gospels. Perhaps, the first Syriac gospel translations were done c. 300 AD. The two manuscripts date toward the end of the IV century. No manuscripts survive of any of the rest of the NT in Old Syriac, although Paul's letters and Acts were certainly translated. Pe[Edited Out]ta Syriac Traditionally, a new "simple" translation into Syriac was made in the 2nd quarter of the V century. By the middle of the century, the text appears to have reached its final form, which became recognized by both sectors of the splitting Syrian church. The term "pe[Edited Out]ta" (or "pe[Edited Out]to") roughly means "simple" and is a contrast to one of the more difficult to read forms, the Harklean Syriac. Other Syriac Versions The next to develop was translated c. 507 AD. This Philoxeniana was made and circulated for doctrinal reasons. Thomas of Harkel revised this text in 616 by comparing it to various Greek manuscripts. His rendition is known today as Harklean. His rendering of the Greek was much more careful and more direct than the Pe[Edited Out]ta, but this made it more difficult to read. Harkel's text was translated almost exclusively from what we will call a Byzantine Greek text. Coptic Versions Coptic is almost unique among written languages, because it employs Greek characters (with additions) in writing an Egyptian language. In fact, Coptic has been called "colloquial Egyptian." By the end of the III century, a tradition of the New Testament in Coptic was fairly widespread. Coptic manuscripts exist in seven different dialects, although two of these dialects Sahidic and Bohairic are considered "major" dialects for the purpose of NT study. Sahidic Coptic is an older dialect and is often referred to as "classical" Coptic; Bohairic Coptic was more widespread in the Coptic Church and was the language of the Upper Nile delta. The Duke Papyrus Archive has photographs of quite a few manuscripts in Coptic. Select this link to go there and view one of them. Not surprisingly (since Alexandria is in Egypt), the Coptic manuscripts often preserve an Alexandrian text type in translation from Greek. Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic Versions The Armenian version is probably translated from Syriac rather than from Greek (late IV century). Georgian translations developed over the years as Georgia was evangelized through Armenia. Therefore, the Georgian version is also based on Syriac, although a revision was made later making reference to then-current Greek texts. The Ethiopic Church, which also accepted 1 Enoch (you may recall), translated their gospels from either Greek or Syriac--it is not known. Acts and the universal letters were translated directly from Greek. The source language for Revelation is unknown. This creates somewhat of a controversy surrounding the Ethiopic version. Traditionally, a full Bible in Ethiopic was complete by 678 AD. https://www.friktech.com/rel/canon/versions.htm I've never met a Jew yet who said Moses wrote the Taurah. According to Jews, the Taurah was revelation from God, I.e. it was given by God to Moses. Maybe Moses did the mechanical process of putting the words to paper, but he did not write it in the sense that it came from his own mind, according to Jews. Yusuf Ali didn't misinterpret the Qur'an. He did his best with the tools that he had, I.e. the English Language. I'm not sure if you are multilingual yourself, but if you are you know that there are many phrases and concepts that cannot be translated from language to language. They must be understood in the context of the language they were written in. There are not translations that are 100% accurate. That is impossible, since language is connected with culture, which is not translatable. About the Injeel being a book (and also the Taurah) وَيُعَلِّمُهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَالتَّوْرَاةَ وَالإِنجِيلَ 3:48 And he will teach him (Jesus) The Book, and wisdom, and the Torah, and the Injeel وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَى آثَارِهِم بِعَيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ 5:46 And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those [earlier Prophets], confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We vouchsafed unto him the Injeel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious. 3:40 Mentions a book in the context of the Injeel. 5:46 say (translation) 'confirming what remained of the Torah', meaning it was a book. How could something other than a book confirm a book. Also, everyone agrees the Taurah was a book, so logically you cannot say something confirmed the Torah unless it was also a book. وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ أَقَامُواْ التَّوْرَاةَ وَالإِنجِيلَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيهِم مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ لأكَلُواْ مِن فَوْقِهِمْ وَمِن تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِهِم مِّنْهُمْ أُمَّةٌ مُّقْتَصِدَةٌ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنْهُمْ سَاء مَا يَعْمَلُونَ 5:66 and if they would but truly observe the Torah and the Injeel and all [the revelation] that has been bestowed from on high upon them by their Sustainer, they would indeed partake of all the blessings of heaven and Earth. Some of them do pursue a right course; but as for most of them -vile indeed is what they do! [84] This puts the Injeel as the same category as the Torah and the other revelation (I.e. the Qur'an). These are all books. Therefore the Injeel is also a book. I think this is enough to make the point As for your last point regarding the Hafs and Warsh versions of the Qur'an, not counting dots. I'm not sure why you said this. I really thought you weren't into using tired old tropes of Christian Missionaries. In case you don't already known the answer to this, and in case there are maybe a few here who haven't already heard this trope and the answer to it. Hafs and Warsh are not different 'versions' of the Qur'an. These are differences in Arabic pronunciation, I.e. spoken dialects of Arabic that existed prior to the revelation of the Qur'an. The Arabs used to write without the 'dots' as you call them (the accent marks for pronunciation, some are not dots, btw). Most Arabic that is written today (like news articles, textbooks, etc) is written without the accent marks. These accent marks didn't change the meanings of the words, only the pronunciation (Like how Americans say 'about' and Canadians say 'aboot', which mean the same thing and are written the same way) . In order to standardize the pronunciation of the Qur'an, the text was standardized (approx 20 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) to include all the 'dots' and other pronunciation marks so that there was no difference in pronunciation. There was never any difference in the text, I.e. words and word order, number of words, number of verses, chapters, etc. I have challenged many Christian missionaries (there have been many) that came on this site and made this claim that there was or is multiple 'versions' of the Qur'an. However, none of them brought any evidence, aside from this tired old trope, designed to deceive Christians and some illiterate Muslims, which isn't evidence. If you have any further evidence of multiple 'versions' of the Qur'an, please post and we can discuss. Maybe there is something I haven't already heard before. BTW, I have been to Masjids (mosques) in Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Toronto, London, Paris, Detroit, Beirut, Dubai, Cairo, Mecca, Medina, etc. Every time I go in, I pick up a random copy of the Qur'an and begin reciting it. Because I can read Arabic, I can read the Qur'an. I have never seen any variation at all, ever, in the Arabic text. That is enough evidence for me.
  4. They are called 'People of the Book' because 1. They claim to follow a Prophet that was in fact a Prophet sent by God. In the case of Jews, it is Prophet Moses, in the case of Christians, it is Prophet Jesus (may peace be upon them both) 2. Both of those Prophets had a book that was sent to them by God. In the case of Moses, it was the Taurat, in the case of Jesus, it was the Injeel. But, the 'Book' in 'People of the Book' does not refer to the modern day book which Christians follow, which is not the same as the Injeel. The Injeel was a single book, with a single corpus of written text which was given, and then didn't change. If you want to draw a parallel between the 'Injeel' and the Bible, you must first establish which 'Bible' you are talking about. As you know, there are hundreds of different versions of the Bible, most contain many textural differences between them and some (in the case of the Catholic and Protestant Bibles) have many chapters that are contained in one and not in the other. Also, which language are you talking about. The original words of Jesus were in Aramaic, which is the dialect of spoken Hebrew that was the 'lingua franca' at the time Jesus lived (approx 2000 years ago) and the place he lived (modern day Palestine). Jesus didn't speak Greek and he was not from Greece, so to say the original Bible was in Greek is not accurate. Even the Codex Vaticanus (which is what many Christians call the 'original Bible') is Greek. This is not the original Bible, at the very best and most optimistic, it is a translation (from Aramaic to Greek) of some of the words of Jesus. So even this that is called the 'Bible' is not the Injeel, because it is at best a translation. To draw a parallel here to clarify, when Muslims say the 'Qur'an', they are talking about the book that was given to Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h). This book was given in the Arabic language, since that was the language spoken by Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) as well as the people in the region where he gave his message. When non Arabic speakers read a translation of the Qur'an, such as the one by Yusuf Ali, which is the most common one I have seen, Christians might call the 'The Qur'an', but a Muslim will never call this 'The Qur'an'. It is a translation of the Qur'an. That is why to be considered 'educated' as a Muslim, you must know Arabic, not the spoken dialects of Arabic (there are many of those) but the formal Arabic, referred to as 'Fusha' which is the Arabic of the Qur'an. So the Injeel was a book, a single corpus whose text hasn't changed, dates to the time Jesus lived and the place where he lived, and the language of that book was the language that Jesus(p.b.u.h) spoke. Is there a book like that which exists ? If you can find one, then we can draw parallels between the 'Bible' and the Injeel.
  5. Not exactly. The Qur'an states that the concept of trinity is false but never refers to the 'Bible' as it is commonly known to Christians today. That is because the Bible in its present form didn't exist at the time the Qur'an was revealed. The Qur'an never uses the word 'Bible' or any equivalent term. The word Injeel is used to refer to the Book given to Jesus, but this is not the 'Bible' (don't want to belabor this point). The 'words of Jesus' are also referred to in the Qur'an but this is also not the same as 'Bible'
  6. I agree with your comments about the term 'African American'. I use this term mostly because this is how most refer to themselves. I don't use the term 'Black' people because it is not accurate. 'Black' people are not actually black, they are some shade of brown, as are most people in general. So I don't like terms which differentiate people based on skin color, because skin color tells you absolutely nothing about the person. About the Africans paying reparations, if this should happen, it should be taken up within the African legal system. Since this will never happen, and since there is not one 'Africa' but it is a collection of different countries which probably would not agree on this, this is a mute point, even if it is valid, to an extent. Also, the form of government in Africa in the 1860 and before was not a 'Nation State' type of government as we know it today. It was a tribal system, which doesn't exist anymore, at least not in the legal sense. The US Government is different. It is one government, and it is the same government, the same system that was around during the time of slavery. So this is a legal entity which can be held liable because it is the same legal entity that existed when the injustice was committed. Also, there are vast amounts of written records regarding who owned slaves, how many they had, who bought them, for how much, where they were, what type of work they did, etc. Most of this is from US Census data, which was required by the government to be collected, and it is fairly accurate, since slavery was legal and widely practiced when the census was taken.
  7. As most of you know, I live in the US and this is a big topic amoung certain Presidential candidates and this issue comes up in the public from time to time. I have been thinking about this for a while. I am not African American and my ancestors came to this country from Ireland and Germany more than 100 years ago. So my family were never slaves and never owned any slaves (because they came after slavery was already outlawed) and they came from a place where slavery was never legal (at least in the recent past) . So I don't really have a personal stake in this issue, but I think it is important for the country that this issue is resolved and those who were affected by slavery get justice for the harm that their family suffered. As a Muslim, I believe that Haqq(justice) has no statute of limitations and that an injustice will always exist until it is resolved in a fair and satisfactory way. Although slavery was made illegal in the US more than 150 years ago, the huge amount of injustice that was done under the watch and consent, and many times the active participation of the US Government, both to the African Americans and also the Native Americans has gone uncompensated and the wounds of this period of history have not healed and continue to have many negative lingering effects. Justice is still on hold and I'm not sure how to adequately compensate the descendants of these individuals for the injustices that were done to their ancestors. Is there an Islamic definition of compensation for this, and how do we quantify it ? If anyone knows. Also, say for example it could be proven that a certain person's great, great, great grandfather owned many slaves. Is the person liable to pay compensation to the descendants of these slaves. ? I think in the Islamic definition they are not responsible since we are only responsible for what we do, not what our ancestors did. So if compensation is to be paid, I think it must be done by the society as a whole, and liability should not fall on particular individuals,
  8. Bismillah Ta'la فَاذْكُرُونِي أَذْكُرْكُمْ وَاشْكُرُواْ لِي وَلاَ تَكْفُرُونِ Remember Me, and I will remember you and be grateful to Me and do not deny Me. Holy Qur'an 2:152 So on this site, you are seeing the result of not taking the advice (above) from the Holy Qur'an. When people attempt to construct their own moral system based on their limited knowledge, what their parents told them, what they saw on a tv show, what is in 'fashion' at the time, etc, the result is that they are left to their own devices. This is the root cause of lack of morals.
  9. Respectfully, Muslims don't believe Jesus(peace be upon him) 'paid' for the sins of the world. In the view of Islam, God is Just, so He(s.w.a) would not penalize someone for something they did not do, even if the person chose to do this voluntarily, this is something that is against the concept of Justice, which we all believe in, and this requires no further proof. We believe that Jesus(peace be upon him) was sent by God to guide humanity to the Truth of God and away from sin. This was the mission of all the Prophets. The unique things about Jesus were 1) He spoke about the fact that he was a Prophet and sent by God while he was still in the cradle 2) He was born of a virgin women(Mary, may peace be upon her) , without having a father 3) He was one of only 5 Prophets who had a book (called the Injil) that was the direct Word of God. 4) He will return to Earth before the Day of Judgement and will pray with Imam Al Asr(the Imam of the Age)(may Allah hasten his return)
  10. Here is the direct link https://www.Sistani.org/english/book/48/
  11. That's why I said there is some overlap between the two. There are some disorders that are caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, some by anatomical malformations in the brain, some by whispering of Shaitain, some by a combination of all of these. You need to be a highly trained specialist who ALSO believes in the unseen to make a proper diagnosis. I am not a specialist trained in the area, that is why I did not attempt to give a diagnosis for the OP. I merely stated that the issue brought up by the OP goes beyond merely 'OCD' diagnosis as diagnosed by a Western Psychologist. If you want to know about Islamic Psychology, I.e. Psychology that is practiced as part of the religion of Islam, rather than Psychology divorced from religion, listen to the speeches of Br. Khalil Jaafer. He goes into this in depth. He is also one of my favorite speakers / lecturers.
  12. Salam, I would be careful in picking up and using psychology terms like 'OCD' (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). The reason why is because modern psychology is based on the premise that all disorders of the mind are rooted in the anatomy of the brain. In other words, they reject the idea of a soul, the unseen, etc, I.e. things which are part of the religion of Islam. Modern Western Psychology teaches that it is a problem with the neuro chemistry and anatomical structures of the brain (such as synaptic connections, etc) that causes these disorders and that certain outward (dhahir) behaviors will increase the problem by further throwing off this chemical balance and these anatomical structures. While Islam also teaches that these things have an influence on 'disorders' (we don't dismiss Western Psychology entirely and there is some overlap), the main factor in these disorders is the whispering of the Shaitan, and this effect on the soul (two unseen entities which Western Psychology does not consider). Also, this problem of 'OCD' when it comes to religious people is not something that is limited to a certain group. I think most people, from time to time experience these things. For example, when you are doing Salat and right in the middle of it a thought comes into your mind 'Did I wipe the top of my foot all the way to the tip of the toes, or did I stop at the beginning of the toes, thus invalidating my wudu ? ', 'Did I go all the way down in ruku or should I have gone further ? '. In Islam, we have a way to deal with these issues. All Marjaa' have clear rulings on these (Doubts concerning prayer, doubts concerning wudu, etc) and how to deal with these doubts. Although there are slight differences for each marjaa', there is some basic things these rulings have in common. For example, doubts concerning wudu are to be ignored while you are in Salat, unless you are sure that you didn't do wudu at all before you did your Salat. So you do an act of Ibada, the best way you know how and with concentration (such as wudu). Then once that act is finished, you move to the next act and don't let your doubts regarding a previous act of Ibada affect your concentration on your current act of Ibada. This is because the goal of the Shaitan is to invalidate all your acts of Ibada by distracting your thoughts to other than Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) while you are in the midst of doing the act of Ibada. The types of thoughts he will use to distract the person depends on the individual. Some he will bring thoughts of work and the work assignments they may have overlooked, some he will bring fantasy thoughts, others he will bring doubts about wudu, etc. The goal of Shaitan is to keep your mind focused on the past (things you missed, doubts, etc) or the future (fantasy thoughts) and not on the present act of Worship. The more you give into these thoughts, the stronger and more distracting they will become. The way to overcome this is to simply ignore those thoughts and bring back your concentration to the act of Ibada and focus on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). The more you do this, the less those thoughts will come into your head, and when they do the weaker they will be until you can fully focus.
  13. I agree that looking at actions is more convincing, but more convincing is than that is looking at hadith recorded in books that our Sunni brothers consider credible. We can talk about these because we are talking about hadith. Although the cases of the other three (Umar, Abu Bakr, Uthman) plus Aisha were whitewashed in certain books which our Brothers consider credible, because they were in charge of the government at the time these books were compiled, the case of Muawiya(la) and Yazid(la) is different. Although Muawiya(la) was very crafty and cleaver so he was able to hide much of his deeds, at least from some recorders of history, the case of Yazid(la) is different and many of our Sunni brothers consider him fasiq and fajir and this is recorded in their books. So the case is like this, we cannot curse any of the three plus Aisha publically, that is clear. Also, our Imams((عليه السلام)) had a different attitude toward these personalities as opposed to the latter two (Muawiya and Yazid). This is because they were Sahaba, early reverts to Islam, had contact with Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) over many years, and Aisha was the wife of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). Also, they at least made an effort to maintain the outward appearance of following the Sunnah of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) as it was popularly understood at the time. Although they may have done this to maintain their power, the effect of this was that there was, at least somewhat, unity and cohesion of society at the time of the their Caliphate. This unity and social cohesion, plus the maintaining of the Islamic identity (at least on the surface level) amoung the general population is so extremely important for the continuity of the society and the religion, that the Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) was willing to forgo their rights, at least on a societal level, in order to maintain this. They did this so that the Salat and Salat Al Jumma' was done, that Hajj was undertaken, that Sadaqat continued to be given, that the fasting continued during the Holy Month of Ramadan, that the Holy Qur'an continued to be recited morning and evening, that the Althan was heard from many places, that the masjids were multiplied, that Tauhid was maintained as the founding principle of Islam, that the name of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) continued to be honored and dignified, that family and lineage continued, and that the Muslim countries were protected from the evil plans of the Kuffar. As long as this is maintained, there is a hope that the Ummah will someday come to recognize the rights of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). If they were willing to do this in order to maintain this unity and social cohesion, we as their followers should do the same, In my humble opinion. I believe this is why our Marjaa' don't allow the cursing of those personalities. At the same time, the bida' that was introduced into Al Islam by these personalities has led to the situation we have today, which is non stop fitna within the Ummah which has had wide ranging negative effects in the past up till the present day. We don't have unity in the Ummah of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) today precisely because of these bidah' and I don't see us having it any time soon, and the responsibility for this lies squarely on the shoulders of these personalities. That is still a fact, and the cursing or not cursing of them doesn't change these facts at all.
  14. The truth is the truth and whether we acknowledge it or do not acknowledge it, that doesn't change the fact. But the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) adjusted some of their outward behaviours according to the circumstances of their time. Imam Hassan((عليه السلام).) signed a treaty with Muawiya. Do you think he did that because he thought Muawiya was an honest person and would fulfill the treaty ? If you think about it logically you could only conclude no. He did this because he had no other way, at that point, other than the treaty to try to protect the lives and property of his Shia. So we should not curse the Sahaba, at least publically, not because some of them don't deserve to be cursed, but because the cursing of them is used by terrorist groups to justify killing of our Shia brothers and sisters in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other places. Anyone who doesn't consider this before they say a word has no compassion and feeling for our brothers and sisters. This is why our marjaa' have issued fatwas against cursing. to protect our brothers and sisters.
  15. The religion of Islam is much more flexible and accomodating than it is commonly known to be. Most Muslims follow 'cultural Islam' meaning Islam as defined their particular culture and community. So this is what the youth are rebelling against, because it is a system which usually contains many contradictions. Most of them have no idea what the real Islam is. That is the problem. The solution is to educate themselves. Learn Arabic, learn to read Qur'an and Hadith in Arabic, Study the philosophical context of the religion, at least the basic parts. Most parents force their children to do the parts of the religion, like prayer and fasting, that if they didn't do them it would embarrass them. So the end result of their effort is so they won't be embarrassed, not so their children will understand the religion. Understanding the philosophy behind Salat and Fasting, and their context within the religion should be explained before the parents force their children to do the act. One example, there are many. Also environments should be set up, by the community, in real life, not just online, where youth can ask questions and explore issues in an atmosphere free of judgement. There should also be spiritual mentoring groups set up, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...