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

SoRoUsH

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    3,620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

SoRoUsH last won the day on July 28

SoRoUsH had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shi'ism

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12,036 profile views

SoRoUsH's Achievements

  1. Whether we are talking about the Far Right or the Anti-Shia sentiments the mechanism of radicalization is similar. For the same reason that Peterson is dangerous, so are these "Chad" Muslim YouTubers. Alt-right pipeline: Individual journeys to extremism online
  2. سلام I read this narration today, and I think there's a valuable lesson here. مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ اَلْحَجَّالِ عَنْ ثَعْلَبَةَ عَنْ مَعْمَرِ بْنِ يَحْيَى قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ عَمَّا يَرْوِي اَلنَّاسُ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ فِي أَشْيَاءَ مِنَ اَلْفُرُوجِ لَمْ يَكُنْ يَأْمُرُ بِهَا وَ لاَ يَنْهَى عَنْهَا إِلاَّ أَنَّهُ يَنْهَى عَنْهَا نَفْسَهُ وَ وُلْدَهُ فَقُلْتُ وَ كَيْفَ يَكُونُ ذَلِكَ قَالَ قَدْ أَحَلَّتْهَا آيَةٌ وَ حَرَّمَتْهَا آيَةٌ أُخْرَى قُلْتُ فَهَلْ يَصِيرُ إِلاَّ أَنْ تَكُونَ إِحْدَاهُمَا قَدْ نَسَخَتِ اَلْأُخْرَى أَوْ هُمَا مُحْكَمَتَانِ جَمِيعاً أَوْ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يُعْمَلَ بِهِمَا فَقَالَ قَدْ بَيَّنَ لَكُمْ إِذْ نَهَى نَفْسَهُ وَ وُلْدَهُ قُلْتُ مَا مَنَعَهُ أَنْ يُبَيِّنَ ذَلِكَ لِلنَّاسِ فَقَالَ خَشِيَ أَنْ لاَ يُطَاعَ وَ لَوْ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ ثَبَتَتْ لَهُ قَدَمَاهُ أَقَامَ كِتَابَ اَللَّهِ وَ اَلْحَقَّ كُلَّهُ . الکافي ج ۵، ص ۵۵۶ There were times, when our Imams, remained silent regarding an issue or an action, neither enjoining people to do it nor forbidding them from doing it. However, they would forbid themselves and their offspring from doing it. These issues were not clear for people through reading the Qur'an. There are verses that allow and forbid the same action. The reason given for why the Imam(s) were not explicit in giving a ruling is that the Imam(s) were afraid people would not follow or obey their ruling(s). These were issues for which a clear ruling had not been established and the Imam(s) chose to remain verbally silent about them and demonstrate the correct course through their own actions. An important lesson here is that even if you have full authority over a subject, it's best to remain silent on (some) controversial issues, if you worry about a bigger harm occuring or brewing as a result of your speech. Let your actions, and not your tongue, do the speaking for you. Generally, and I think this is important, for our Imams, keeping the peace amongst people was extremely important. They did not want to boldly and explicitly cause a controversy. Don't be controversial. Lay low and blend in. Inshallah, when Mahdi (عليه السلام) re-appears, you'll have your shot at being courageous and apart from the masses.
  3. To be honest, I'm not sure which one of items in this list is new or specific to the young generation. I'm not young anymore, and I can remember porn was easily accessible to my father's generation, even in a muslim-majority society. People who wanted to watch could easily access it. The only difference between now and then is that back then people were a bit more hush hush about it, whereas now, because of the internet, porn and other time-wasting material are more proliferated and people openly talk and/or boast about it. The point is, you may think many of the challenges our youths are facing is new to them, but it's not. Our parents faced them too; but through a different medium, such as VHS and Cable TV versus internet. This is a good and important point. I think most parents and older people think that just because they're older they must know better, which is definitely not the case. Combine this false sense of confidence with pride (to admit ignorance), and you get a generational divide.
  4. سلام Just a quick thought. As we get older, we always seem to complain about the younger generations. We also seem to assume that the world is rapidly degenerating into a dystopia of some sort. This isn't new. The same complaints can be seen in Plato's writings, too, for example. Much of all the crying and panicking about the youth is usually just old Conservatives, lacking imagination and fearing the future unknowns. It's important to note that it only took approximately 50 years from Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) bringing Islam to "Muslims" murdering Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), the Prophet's grandson. And this was approximately 1400 years ago. It only took 50 years to go from the best of times to the worst of times, 1400 years ago. This notion that the past was always better is a myth. The time it took to go from Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) to Hussain (عليه السلام) is one clear evidence for it. Just read what Hussain (عليه السلام) had to remind his opponents about. I think we need to realize that each era has its own specific challenges, and we need to rid ourselves of this mythical magical past that we refer to whenever we want to express our outrage about the youth today. Our youth are doing great! They're challenging the status quo loudly and explicitly. They're seeking and fighting for equality and diversity and equity. And most importantly, like us old people, they're learning as they're moving forward, as they're going through experiences day after day. We have Hussain (عليه السلام) as our greatest example of someone who stood against the status quo and challenged people's comfortable conformity. Challenging the status quo should always be our top priority, regardless of where/when we are, until Mahdi (عليه السلام) takes over and governs by the will of Allah.
  5. I love how pro-Peterson people are showing their true colours in this thread. Not surprising at all!
  6. Good question. I'm not sure. From this narration, we can see that (many of) Imam Ali's men must have expected the division of war booty amongst them. So, it must not have been obvious that it is not permissible. Imam Ali (عليه السلام), however, silenced them, and gave back most of the booty to their original owners. So, either Imam's Ali's men didn't consider their enemies as Muslims or they didn't know the correct ruling or, due to the circumstances, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) determined that most of the booty must be returned to their owners. I don't know.
  7. أَبِي رَحِمَهُ اَللَّهُ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا سَعْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ عَنْ مَسْعَدَةَ بْنِ زِيَادٍ عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ قَالَ: قَالَ مَرْوَانُ بْنُ اَلْحَكَمِ لَمَّا هَزَمَنَا عَلِيٌّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ بِالْبَصْرَةِ رَدَّ عَلَى اَلنَّاسِ أَمْوَالَهُمْ مَنْ أَقَامَ بَيِّنَةً أَعْطَاهُ وَ مَنْ لَمْ يُقِمْ بَيِّنَةً حَلَّفَهُ قَالَ فَقَالَ لَهُ قَائِلٌ يَا أَمِيرَ اَلْمُؤْمِنِينَ اِقْسِمِ اَلْفَيْءَ بَيْنَنَا وَ اَلسَّبْيَ قَالَ فَلَمَّا أَكْثَرُوا عَلَيْهِ قَالَ أَيُّكُمْ يَأْخُذُ أُمَّ اَلْمُؤْمِنِينَ فِي سَهْمِهِ فَكَفُّوا علل الشرایع ج ۲، ص ۶۰۳ Here's Saheeh narration, where Imam Ali (عليه السلام) refers to Aisha as أم المومنین. The same narration with a weak sanad exists in تهذیب الاحکام. The term أم المومنین, Mother of Believers, in this context, and probably many other contexts, should be understood in terms of practical rulings regarding one's mother. For example, after the Battle of Jamal, as a war booty, was it permissible to own Aisha? No. Was it permissible to have intercourse with Aisha, as a war booty, or slave? No Her position was like a mother for all believers. You can never own your mother, as a slave or otherwise, or have intercourse with your mother, even if your mother was divorced and single. That's how I see it.
  8. سلام I am not the right person. I am neither an expert in Ilm ul-Rijal or in Arabic. My focus has always been on The Four Books, and a few other books by Sheikh Tusi. Matters of Tarikh (history) are evaluated differently from matters of narrations (أحادیث). The latter are a guide to how we ought to behave and act in this world (normative), whereas the former is about what happened in the past (descriptive). Yes, there can be overlaps, however, the intention behind these domain may be different. I have not ventured out of أحادیث into the the realm of Tarikh/history, and even within the domain of narrations, I keep my focus on only a few books. With that in mind, I can say that I looked into the Khabar/خبر from Tarikh e Damishq, and I didn't find anything like it in The Four Books and the other books by Tusi. The narrators seem to be majhool. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. If you find any narrations in our Hadith books (not history books), I may be able to be more helpful. Lastly, to repeat myself, I am neither an expert in Arabic nor Ilm ul-rijal.
  9. Let's leave it there. Good discussion brother. God bless.
  10. I haven't seen any. Sorry. If something shows up, I'll post it here.
  11. @Ibn-e-Muhammad This discussion can go on for ever. How do you suggest we wrap this up?
  12. Nature, as you said, is a creation of God. God is in no way bound and limited by His creations. Yes, all of God's creations are magnificent. However, Naturalism goes beyond that simple claim. Even an ant is enough to fill us with awe. That's not the issue here. Is it? We're not talking about how magnificent nature is, because we agree that it is. What we're taking about is whether God's will and actions are limited to be performed within and according to laws of nature. I say, we have no reason to think that and, in fact, that is incorrect to think or say so. Do you include the presence and activities of angels and spirits in your natural laws? If not, you should. In Islam, spirits and angels have functions and are active in our world with various tasks. If you do include them, then your natural laws, aren't so natural anymore. They're supernatural, unless you claim that angels and spirits are natural entities bound and limited by our natural laws, too. Are spirits and angels physical beings, in your view? Where do you fit them in your Naturalism? The study of science, and our formulations of laws, is, as you said, human attempt. This implies that they are limited due to human limitations. Our artefacts, our technologies, they were created by us, based on our current knowledge of reality. They are limited in their scope, too. So, we, limited beings, are using limited tools to study the world. And some of us are confident (or arrogant) enough to say that God must be bound to what we think are our natural laws, and God must act according to what our human sciences have shown to be true. Some of us don't agree, as it is very clear, how our being and our tools are so limited at every point in time, and yet God is not limited in any way, at any time. I don't know what you mean when you say, "nature holds the utmost importance in the Qur'an." What does this mean? Where did you get this idea from? Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)? Where do angels and spirits fall in this picture? Where does God ability to bring something out of nothing fit in this picture? I think you're misusing the term "box" here. "Boxing" is to limit something. Naturalism "boxes" God within nature and natural law. To claim that God isn't limited in such a way isn't "boxing" God in "unnatural mysteries." It is to say that God can act according to unnatural and supernatural laws, how ever He wants to. I think the only conveyed dogma, so far, has been the notion of Naturalism, that God is somehow limited to act within and according to our natural laws. I say nay, that is not the case. It is irrational to think so. Naturalism is unreasonable and irrational. It is also illogical. It implicitly claims God is limited, while explicitly pretends God is unlimited. Why do you think this? Is this a teaching of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)? Can He choose not to? And if He can, then why do think He chooses to? Where does this idea or teaching come from? As far as I can tell, it has no basis in the teachings of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). As I said above, you're implicitly boxing God by saying He chooses to be boxed, but explicitly claiming He's doesn't have to be boxed. Do you see the inconsistency in your view? If God can choose to not act according to natural laws, as you claim He can, then how would you even know whether He is acting according to natural laws or not? If He was not, would you know? If there's anything beyond natural laws, then we have no means of knowing them through sciences or empirical physical tests. So, He may be doing all sorts of activities beyond natural laws that you/we don't even have the means to know or understand or even perceive. Yet, in your naturalistic dogma, you have to believe that He can but He won't. You have no way of knowing whether He will or won't; whether He has or hasn't. Beyond Naturalism, we can readily claim that miracles fall outside of natural laws, and God can do whatever He wants. Again, you keep boxing God within your/human understanding of "uniformity" or "synchronization" or "order." It is perfectly in order and harmony for God to act within the natural or the supernatural. For God, supernatural miracles are not beyond order. His order is not the same as our order. What may seem like chaos or chaotic to us, wouldn't be so to Him, since He is beyond time and space, and we are within time and space. He knows everything about everything and wills and acts according to such knowledge, yet we are here for only a speck of time, occupying a speck of space. Under His supervision everything is and has always been in order. Miracles have always been miracles relative to people. I don't understand your argument here. Miracles aren't miracles to angels or spirits, since they are part of making miracles happen for/to humans. Miracles are incomprehensible to humans, now and until the end of our time, our human time in this world. I don't understand when you and others claim, "it's only a matter of time." Where does this idea come from? Why do you think this? How can we through natural means and laws understand supernatural events and miracles, beyond natural laws. Miracles are incomprehensible because we do not have and will not the means to comprehend them. You're doing some weak reasoning here: You're assuming that miracles must be natural events, according to natural laws. (This premise is a naturalistic dogma.) Based on this (weak or false) premise, you then continue to believe that since we are learning more and more about our natural world and laws, one day, we will know how God brought forth His miracles. Your initial premise has neither been shown or proven to be correct. In fact, it appears quite false. Nonetheless, based on that false premise you proceed to reach a conclusion. You're saying, 1. If A, then B 2. A 3. Therefore, B. And I'm saying Not-A. Your second premise is false. We can't comprehend miracles, because miracles are supernatural events. What I am saying is that miracles aren't sufficient to prove one's divinity or prophethood. Think about all of the examples of miracles in the Quran. Is there ever any example of people believing the message, once they witnessed a miracle? The pagans kept making excuses to explain away the miracle of the Quran. Did the Egyptians believe in Moses after seeing the plagues or the miracles? Did the Romans believe in Jesus after seeing his miracles? Did Noah's son and wife believe him, even when the rain was pouring? We see examples of miracles, only to show that disbelievers weren't going to believe anyways, even after witnessing miracles they didn't believe. Do you know of any example, in the Quran, where/when disbelievers suddenly believed after seeing a miracle? Not really though, as demonstrated above. You say God is not limited but chooses to be limited. This doesn't make sense. So, practically, God is limited because He wants to be so. This doesn't make sense. You are indeed limiting God to natural laws. God can but won't. How would you even know this? This is such a huge claim. This is very clear in Islam. Mary's own reaction, people's reaction to Mary's pregnancy. Mary's action to leave town while pregnant. And of course, authentic narrations confirming Mary's virginity. There's zero doubt or question in Islam regarding Mary's virginity. You're only doubting it because your naturalistic dogma is contradicting explicit and clear teachings of the Quran and Islam, and you have given priority to your dogma over Islam. Where do you even learn about Joseph in Islamic/Shia texts? I haven't read even one authentic narration that mentions Joseph. I strongly doubt the Christian story regarding Joseph and his involvement with Mary. There's no mention of Joseph in the Quran. There's no mention of Joseph in authentic narrations. If you have seen or encountered any authentic narration about Joseph the Carpenter, please post them here. There's no doubt that Mary was a virgin when she was gifted Jesus through God's Spirit. They were shocked, and they did accuse Mary. That's precisely when another miracle occurred and Jesus spoke to them as an infant. Right, another evidence that miracles do not convince the disbelievers. They crossed the sea, and on the other side worshipped a golden statue. They saw Jesus speak, as an infant, and didn't accept his extraordinary status. It appears that you rely heavily on non-Islamic texts to support your naturalistic ideology at the cost of dismissing or rejecting what is very clear and undoubtable in Islam. It appears that you know what God does and would will. How do you know so? Humans laws are for humans, and miracles are supernatural events, outside of human or natural laws, that intervene or interfere in our natural affairs. Musa's staff miracle has always been interpreted literally. And yes it does take away from the ultimate message. How? It leads exactly to what you have been doing, cherry-picking between the literal and the metaphorical in order to support a specific ideology, Naturalism. We take everything in the Quran literally, unless, we have been given direction by our Imams (عليه السلام) to view them metaphorically. It is not up to us to determine what should be interpreted literally and what shouldn't. Only God, His messengers, and His imams are aware of the Ta'wil of each verse. We are only faced with its Tanzil. No. The "how" of the miracles is incomprehensible. God was showing an event that humans couldn't attribute to natural laws and events. They could see it and be amazed by it, but they couldn't comprehend how it was done or how it was possible. You probably misunderstood. Look above. I can't name you a single one but Isa (عليه السلام), precisely because what happened to Isa (عليه السلام) was a supernatural miraculous event. That's the whole point. How would it be a miracle, if it was one of many? By the same argument, do you not believe that Moses split the sea? That Abraham didn't burn in fire? I don't see the relevance.
  13. Why do you think this? How do you define natural? Naturalism views our world (universe and all included) as a closed system, where the established laws cannot be affected from a realm beyond what is enclosed. If you agree or align with this view, do you place God within our natural world, too? Or is God beyond and outside of our natural world and laws? If facts are logical, then they are consistent. I don't know what "logically healthy" means. If four facts are not consistent with one another, then it's likely that one or some of them are not logical. Averroes would say, "Truth cannot contradict Truth." Maryam and Isa (Peace be upon them both) belong to our world. They did not and could not have done such miracles with their own powers, following natural laws. God, who does not belong to our world, willed and allowed for such supernatural miracles to occur. God is not limited by our world or our natural laws. Miracles do happen in our world, but they are not of our world. The source and origin of miracles is not our world. The source and origin is God, and He is not limited by our world or its laws. The thought process behind it is reaching and understanding the essence of Tawheed: There's no other God than Allah. There's only Allah. There is no Shiva. There is no other gods. So, anything and everything about other gods is false. Anything and everything attributed to other gods is false. Why? Because there are no other gods. The pagans used to claim that their gods did this and that, too. Arriving at Tawheed, and properly understanding it, is the thought process behind rejecting all so-called miracles that are attributed to other gods. I think you may have the process understood in reverse. One doesn't believe in a religion or a god, through miracles. One believes the miracles through their religion. I believe only in the miracles that have been conveyed to us through our book and our Imams, because I only believe in the truth of our book and our Imams. Believing in a religion or a god precedes (and must precede) believing in the miracles of that religion or god. First you have to learn what can be done, then you can study what has been done. Ultimately, it comes down to sincerely and thoroughly believing in your book and religion. If you do, and if your religion says that a god like Shiva can't exist, and no other miracles other than the ones by Allah can happen, then you can dismiss any and all other gods and miracles. This reading works, too, if you accept that God is not limited to natural laws for that are established for humans. He's reminding them of the rule that He created for them. And this is precisely what makes Isa's birth a miracle. Why? Because it is beyond the natural laws that humans are bound to and limited by. This is false. Maryam was never touched by or had coitus with a man. This is very clear in our book and narrations. Why would she and others be shocked about her pregnancy? They didn't. That's why they were surprised at God's claim about giving them children. They didn't know and couldn't understand how it would be done naturally. However, they knew God is not limited to natural means. They didn't doubt God or His promise to them. You would be limiting God's means and actions to be within what is possible in our world. You're taking away God's supernatural means from Him and putting Him in a natural box. This view would be more in line with pantheism or panentheism and not monotheism. In our view, God is neither "in" our world nor "of" our world. He is beyond (or outside of) our world. If you accept that God is outside of our natural world, then you implicitly accept the existence of the supernatural (beyond/above natural). If you accept the existence of the supernatural, but claim that God must act within the limitation of what is natural, then what you're saying is that God is outside of box but is limited to act within our box. Not only that but our box as we understand it. In other words, God has to act naturally, as we understand what "naturally" and "natural" mean. So, I think, this is where you've allowed your currently beliefs to interfere with the interpretation of the story. In other words, because the literal interpretation won't fit your opinion and approach, you've decided that the literal interpretation can't be true and it must be understood metaphorically. Has this view been sanctioned by our Imams (عليه السلام)? As far as I know, both our book and our narrations point to a literal interpretation. Musa's staff did in fact turn into a living creature, and that is the miracle. Whereas the magicians performed a convincing illusion, Musa performed a miracle through God's will and might. He transformed a non-living object into a living creature. This is the miracle: the clear distinction between non-living objects and a living creature. This is what frightened the illusionists and pushed them to believe. They knew of the physical impossibility of what Musa did. They could not comprehend it. Miracles are by definition incomprehensible. As far as I know, it's been observed in some species; rare but possible. Hence, a miracle, a supernatural event, willed by Allah. Because that would be a logical impossibility. You cannot believe God is Truthful and not-Truthful, simultaneously. إِنَّ ٱلدِّينَ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلْإِسْلَـٰمُ ۗ (3:19)
  14. If you believe that the events in the Quran actually occurred, then you have very good reasons to believe that Musa's miracle with his staff actually occurred, since it is mentioned in the Quran and supported by narrations. This is a very good point. However, here's a question: Don't facts need to be logical? And by logical, I mean, not breaking any rules/laws of logic. Do you know of any illogical facts? If a fact is illogical, then it probably isn't a fact. They are logically consistent but physically false in our world. What this means is that it may be possible that in another possible world there's a horse with 8 legs and a floating teapot. A statement can be false in our world, but true in some other possible worlds. However, logical impossibilities are false in all worlds. There is no reason to believe that I can commit what is physically impossible in my/our world. But I have absolutely no reason to believe that God can't do what is impossible for me. You're going back and forth, between logical and physical, with your usage of possibilities. what is reasonable to believe about me and my world is not the same as what is reasonable to believe about God and all possible worlds. You've made a huge leap here. To believe in Shiva's miracles, first and foremost, we have to believe in the very existence of a god like Shiva. If we believe that Shiva can't exist, then it follows that neither can any of Shiva's so-called miracles. Shiva's miracles are untrue, because the very existence of god Shiva is untrue, and not because there's something different or specifically untrue about the so-called miracles. بَدِيعُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَىْءٍۢ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيمٌۭ These statements highlight God's omniscience and omnipotence; implying that He doesn't need a son or a consort. قَالَتْ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِى غُلَـٰمٌۭ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِى بَشَرٌۭ وَلَمْ أَكُ بَغِيًّۭا قَالَ كَذَٰلِكِ قَالَ رَبُّكِ هُوَ عَلَىَّ هَيِّنٌۭ ۖ وَلِنَجْعَلَهُۥٓ ءَايَةًۭ لِّلنَّاسِ وَرَحْمَةًۭ مِّنَّا ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرًۭا (19:20-21) قَالَ رَبِّ اَنّٰى يَكُوۡنُ لِىۡ غُلٰمٌ وَّقَدۡ بَلَغَنِىَ الۡكِبَرُ وَامۡرَاَتِىۡ عَاقِرٌ‌ؕ قَالَ كَذٰلِكَ اللّٰهُ يَفۡعَلُ مَا يَشَآءُ (3:40) قَالَتۡ رَبِّ اَنّٰى يَكُوۡنُ لِىۡ وَلَدٌ وَّلَمۡ يَمۡسَسۡنِىۡ بَشَرٌ ‌ؕ قَالَ كَذٰلِكِ اللّٰهُ يَخۡلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ‌ ؕ اِذَا قَضٰٓى اَمۡرًا فَاِنَّمَا يَقُوۡلُ لَهٗ كُنۡ فَيَكُوۡنُ (3:47) The above verses, and others like it, show that God can do whatever that He desires. It is easy for Him. What is impossible for us is easy for Him to do. This is the first point. The second point below is, perhaps, more technical; but it may address your concerns better. مَا الۡمَسِيۡحُ ابۡنُ مَرۡيَمَ اِلَّا رَسُوۡلٌ‌ ۚ قَدۡ خَلَتۡ مِنۡ قَبۡلِهِ الرُّسُلُؕ وَاُمُّهٗ صِدِّيۡقَةٌ‌  ؕ كَانَا يَاۡكُلٰنِ الطَّعَامَ‌ؕ اُنْظُرۡ كَيۡفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الۡاٰيٰتِ ثُمَّ انْظُرۡ انّٰى يُؤۡفَكُوۡنَ (5:75) The words "کیف" and "أنی", both, translate to "How". But, as you can see I'm the verse above, the latter form is used rhetorically. The word کیف is related to the mechanism of a process, whereas the word أنی is used to bring attention to a point. In 6:95, 9:30, 10:32, 10:34, 23:89, 36:66, and some other verses we can readily see the same rhetorical use of أنی again and again. On the same note, neither Mary nor Zakaria actually asked about the mechanism of child-birth without a partner or at an old barren age. They knew, as pious people, that God can do whatever He wants. Your analogy is inaccurate. You're comparing what may be unreasonable from our perspective to what is reasonable and very possible from God's perspective. You're either asking: "Why would God do this?" Or "How would God do this?" The answer to both may, very correctly, be, we don't know now and may never know. God doesn't need to justify His actions or decisions for us. He does what He desires and what is the best. Miracles, by definition, are incomprehensible. You are trying to comprehend what is, by its nature, incomprehensible. Can you think of a miracle that people couldn't comprehend in the past, but now, we, due to our advanced science, can? Wasn't it though? A Spirit brought the gift of life to Mary, gave it in her, and began the process. You're making a huge assumption here, and it is that we know all of the laws that Allah has created. Not only that but also that we know them well and accurately. In other words, you're saying, not only we only of all of the laws God has created it, we know them perfectly. No exceptions. No overarching or overruling circumstances. They must work according to how we think they work. So, in this sense, you have indeed limited God's actions to your own (or to human) understanding of the laws governing our world. What you may think as "breaking of the law," may just be another layer of the law, followed under specific circumstances. Have you ever read our fiqh books? Big "if". Not true. To assume that God would violate His laws, is to assume you know all of God's laws, inside and outside, and perfectly. Because God is perfect. Would a perfect God do that?
×
×
  • Create New...