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

Muhammed Ali

Veteran Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Muhammed Ali

  1. A flawed law is justified because another flawed law exists? Not all women are in your financial and social situation whereby it is desirable to do a long term mutah. For them a rectification in the original law is better. Humans are terrible at judging character. This can lead to them overreacting and accusing whole groups of people of possibly having the same negative traits that they found in certain people that they considered good. What is needed is a better approach in assessing character.
  2. Akhlaq should not be separate from fiqh. It's a rational error. Even knowledgeable scholars can make rudimentary rational errors. This means the fiqh is wrong. For those of you who believe that fiqh and akhlaq are separate things: Can you explain how to determine if a teaching of Ahlulbayt [a] falls under either category? When a hadith say something is bad, how do you know if it is haraam/makrooh or simply bad akhlaq?
  3. Even if I had no religion, I would then advise heterosexual people against doing things against their own nature. Doing so would cause disharmony in the mind. Deep down a person has certain inclinations, and to go against them puts the mind/soul & body in a state of disharmony. An inner conflict would exist. A problem with the secular narrative is that it even tells heterosexual people that there is nothing wrong with them going against that nature. Do not just think about the harms to the self, think also about societal harms. And there a number of things that could be said about this. Do not forget that there are verses of the Quran other than the ones related to this story which condemn such relationships. However to say that the story of Prophet Lut {a} has no condemnation of homosexuality is going against what is apparent in the story. You can argue that the divine punishment was because of "rape and domination and intimidation" and I would go further and argue that the punishment was because they rejected the criticisms of a prophet (not for any actions on their own). Regardless of the reasons for the punishment, you cannot say that homosexuality isn't being condemned because to do so would be to admit that "rape and domination and intimidation" of women is allowed. 7:81 "Most surely you come to males in lust besides females" - if this is about rape then does it mean raping women is allowed? Is the verse saying 'you rape men instead of women'? The punishment may be for rape or for whatever other reason, but that doesn't mean that homosexuality isn't being condemned.
  4. By 'others' I didn't mean those who he needs to be wary of. He can speak to his trusted friends to help them with issues that may confuse them. And on a larger scale he could promote the notion of Tawheed and other pertinent issues. It can be done online or at his local mosque etc. Some ideas naturally flow from others.
  5. It is often a reflection of who is running the institution. Pulling out a flag may cause more problems; educating other people about the truth will better.
  6. For those of you that are interested, some people think 666 refers to emperor Nero. I am not saying this is the correct view, but it does show that you can interpret things in different ways. And why do shia conspiracy theorists give so much credence to that number when it is not from the Tawrat or Injeel? The Book of Revelation is not considered a divine book that was corrupted. And why would Jews follow that book?
  7. Actually you could make the argument that the number is 786. There are 7 empty spaces within the star, 8 triangles (6 on the outside and the two overlapping ones) and 6 points on the outside of the star. Thus the star of David has 786 encoded within it. And to make matters worse it has 12 lines around it! It's a symbol of shi'ism. Of course it's a nonsensical argument. @zzaveri
  8. To be honest I haven't listened to even a second of your recordings. And that is not because I am trying to offend you or to belittle you. It's partially because I think I know what will be in those videos. You have given away how you think with posts on 666 and the Israeli flag, and the theory on the pole reversal. I find that type of thinking very flawed. It involves ignoring contrary evidence, applying principles selectively and being duped by ordinary randomness. All extreme conspiratorial thinkers have the same flaws and they have always been wrong. This is Harold Camping: He had followers who gave up their lives and their wealth to warn people about the rapture. Their strong beliefs and sacrifices didn't mean they were correct. Now perhaps it is right for me to look into some of your proofs. Give me one thing (or a few) that you consider to be a strong piece of evidence.
  9. Instead of admitting that you were wrong and your 'analysis' was deeply flawed, you will be arrogant or deluded enough to think that the analysis was correct but Allah delayed the coming? I think you should leave open the possibility that you simply got it wrong. Do you realise that this is exactly what most forecasters of the end of the world do? They try to rationalize their failings with explanations that do not put any blame on themselves. https://www.livescience.com/14262-doomsday-predictions-fail.html https://religiondispatches.org/a-year-after-the-non-apocalypse-where-are-they-now/
  10. The OP is using rationalistic arguments that can be analysed. I am ignorant of any claims of his in regards to 'seeing' beyond the five senses (in fact I am ignorant on most of his views). Regardless of what he may be able to see, we can only make judgments on what can be analysed by our own minds. Unless of course if he were to make predictions and discoveries that could be verified and thus give credence to what he 'sees'.
  11. At what point in your life did you start having these types of views? Was it a certain event that was a significant trigger or did it dawn upon you slowly? Disclaimer: I don't have anything like those views.
  12. How is your hypothesis testable? Are you going to make any relatively precise predictions?
  13. What does Nader think about these ideas?
  14. There might be upcoming solutions: https://hackernoon.com/blockchain-domains-what-are-they-and-how-are-they-implemented-hi2b30hu
  15. Here is a refutation of Malone's interview, by a molecular biologist: Malone also posted this absurd stat on twitter which he later removed. Wanting to kill people using a vaccine would be inefficient because it would miss the conspiracy theorists. Surely they would want to kill them most of all? Maybe the real conspiracy is to get all the sheep vaccinated and then set free a more potent virus to kill the theorists? Then the sheep will do the work of their masters. And there are obvious reasons why the rate of childbirth is falling.
  16. He is not anti-vaccine: https://en-gb.facebook.com/imamsonline/videos/shaykh-hamza-yusuf-on-vaccine-use-to-treat-diseases/315849962897836/ He even says that according to some scholars, it can in certain circumstances be allowed for rulers to mandate them if it is for the greater good. What I understood from your video was the need to verify things and not take the word of big pharma without scrutiny. Also, he seems to be against instances of unnecessary vaccination.
  17. I haven't watched it because it's rather long. Can you elaborate on his views? Does he say animals inherit the sins of a man? How does he differentiate between inflicting suffering on animals and suffering on humans. If the former is justified than why not the latter? I am not vegan or vegetarian at all but I do know of a few shia who refrain from animal products because of the suffering caused by industrial farming. Could they argue that the consumption of such products encourages animal suffering? We try to boycott goods procured from human suffering so what makes animal produce from different? Perhaps the least that we could do is speak out against it and not pretend that it isn't a problem. Here is a Muslim farmer who demonstrates how animals should be treated when being reared for food. In other videos he shows how he slaughters the animals and you can see how kind he is to them.
  18. You are supposed to make efforts to stop disease. That is what your creator wants. If you really think the vaccine is more dangerous than a man-made or natural virus, you need to find an alternative.
  19. What our conspiracy theorist friends may not know is that some viruses can change DNA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus Some scientists think that COVID-19 could change DNA too: https://www.science.org/content/article/further-evidence-offered-claim-genes-pandemic-coronavirus-can-integrate-human-dna For these conspiracy theorists there is no escape; either the man made vaccine will get them or the man made coronavirus.
  20. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556182.001.0001/acprof-9780199556182 https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/soul-hypothesis-9781441152244 And more than that.
  21. Did they really change or did circumstances reveal their true weaknesses and flaws? Perhaps it is our criteria for making judgments that needs to be worked on? And maybe we have negative bias. I.e. we are focusing on the few that did disappoint instead of the many that don't change? I have rarely had to change my mind about a person that I regarded highly - except when I was much younger. I realized that we should not simply think well of a person that is religious, intelligent, knowledgeable, working in charity, active in the community etc. Humans have innate desires for God and thus even the corrupt would be religious. Others would do it for tribal reasons etc. A corrupt person is usually a mixture of good and bad, and not just a monolith of bad traits. So if we see a person doing charity work, it shouldn't make us think well of them if we see some troubling traits too. These are what people call red flags. Often such bad traits are the tip of the iceberg. What you see in open is worse in private (the opposite is also true for very good people that hide their deeds). In my humble opinion the most important traits we could look for in determining character are: Akhlaq (this doesn't mean simply being a 'nice' or polite person - it is an assessment of the nature of the person), conscientiousness, wisdom, being apologetic and open to changing their mind on even their strongly held views. When judging religiousness we should focus on the spiritual elements more than the rituals. And Allah knows better. Sorry for the careless wording in the post.
  22. You rule out all possibility that an Imam {a} didn't narrate a 'sahih' hadith. How can you be sure that absolutely nothing went wrong in the transmission?
  23. You give too much credence to solitary narrations. It's like gambling. I.e. too much at risk with evidence isn't strong enough. Within your framework (the science of ahadith etc) something is 'sahih' but what if the framework has flaws? And what about noise from randomness (even if the framework was perfect)? I am not referring to that hadith in specific, but your general approach.
  24. This is why religions can be so dangerous. They make people do absurd things. Child sacrifice etc. I might be misunderstood.
  • Create New...