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
  • Content Count

    3,362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

SoRoUsH last won the day on February 20 2020

SoRoUsH had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About SoRoUsH

  • Rank
    Level 6 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shi'ism

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8,808 profile views
  1. This is just a common Sufi rhetoric and poetry, all fluff but no substance, not based in any teachings of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). I would welcome any acceptable narrations, with acceptable isnad, to support such rhetoric.
  2. All prophets and messengers have a holy spirit in them. روح القدس is a type of spirits, which is only in prophets and messengers. There are other types of spirits, too, such as روح الایمان and روح الشهوة and others. الروح or The Spirit may be one specific Ruh, one special creation; not a type. And there may be only one الروح, which is with our prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and the Imams (عليه السلام).
  3. سلام The guest poster said that the Ruh is the Imam, which is obviously not the case. I am not sure that God's Spirit, when He says من روحي is the same as The Spirit /الروح In 16:2 God states that He sends down The Spirit (الروح) to whoever He wills. 16:2 and 97:4 are in agreement with each other. However, I think, God's Spirit is not the same as الروح, since God's Spirit was blown into Adam and Isa, peace be upon them. "Being (directly) blown into" and "being sent down with angels" are two different methods, which makes me believe they're two different things/
  4. I haven't seen any acceptable narrations that state this Ruh from God is the Imam. If you have, post them here with their isnad. Thanks!
  5. This is false. The Spirit from Him is not the Imam. It's a special creation.
  6. سلام The following is a long Saheeh narration. I will post most of it here. And I will mention two interesting points that I observed in it. First, the initial interaction between Ibrahim (عليه السلام) and God indicates that he (عليه السلام) was committing an act that God wasn't quite pleased about. He (عليه السلام) was cursing sinners, and as a result of his curse, they would die. God asked him to stop doing so, saying, if He wanted them dead, He wouldn't create them in the first place. The questions that arise here are: 1) if God didn't want Ibrahim (عليه السلام) to cu
  7. سلام Here's a Saheeh narration, in which the ninth Imam (عليه السلام) confirms his own Wilaya as well as the Wilaya of the Imams (عليه السلام) before him. أَبُو عَلِيٍّ اَلْأَشْعَرِيُّ عَنِ اَلْحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ اَلْكُوفِيِّ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مَهْزِيَارَ عَنْ مُوسَى بْنِ اَلْقَاسِمِ قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِأَبِي جَعْفَرٍ اَلثَّانِي عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ قَدْ أَرَدْتُ أَنْ أَطُوفَ عَنْكَ وَ عَنْ أَبِيكَ فَقِيلَ لِي إِنَّ اَلْأَوْصِيَاءَ لاَ يُطَافُ عَنْهُمْ فَقَالَ لِي بَلْ طُفْ مَا أَمْكَنَكَ فَإِنَّهُ جَائِزٌ ثُمَّ قُلْتُ لَهُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ بِثَلاَثِ سِنِينَ إِنِّي كُنْتُ اِسْتَأْذَ
  8. سلام Read the following Saheeh narration, and then check the common translations for verses, 50:17-18 What you'd notice is that most translators due to their ignorance of this narration, which is one of many with this same content, have either mis-translated this verse or have misinterpreted it. Commonly the two recipients (ٱلۡمُتَلَقِّيَانِ) are translated as two angels; whereas the following narration and others like it, clearly, indicate that one of these two recipients on your heart is a shaytan. عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ اِبْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَن
  9. سلام What's the proper way to interpret and understand the following Hassan-like-Saheeh narration? Is it the case that a peacemaker wouldn't/ doesn't lie? Or is it that a peacemaker's lies aren't lies, if it's for the sake of peacemaking? عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ بْنِ اَلْمُغِيرَةِ عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ عَمَّارٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ قَالَ: اَلْمُصْلِحُ لَيْسَ بِكَاذِبٍ .
  10. I would, but it would take so long, since there are many narrations scattered in different chapters of different books. I don't have that time now. I've been researching and reading various related narrations for months, and that's how I formed my views. So, I have to pass on this request. I apologize. But I am confident that if you take on this journey, and focus on the acceptable narrations of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), you'll see what I see. Brother @layman, as I read your latest replies, I noticed that there are certain fundamental differences that we disagree on, and arguing a
  11. Based on all the narrations that I've read, I don't think this is the case. They are three distinct things. Interrelated, maybe; but not a spectrum or different stages of the same thing. The way I see it, again based on narrations, is that Qalb is indeed in between the two worlds, material and spiritual; however, it is not stage, rather it translates the light from the spiritual world into the physical world. It acts as a gate between the two world, with Ruh on one side and the body on the other. They were ordered to prostrate to Adam, when he was complete, Ruh and body; not ju
  12. But how do you explain the fact that this nafs leaves the body during sleep and re-enters when it's time to wake up? Your individual identity isn't something that leaves and returns. Your ego doesn't leave and return. But your consciousness does. You "lose" consciousness when you're sleeping, and it returns to you, when you wake up. Surah Az-Zumar, Verse 42: اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَىٰ عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَىٰ إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَ
  13. No. It's qalb as qalb. As I mentioned earlier, it is only within the past 4-5 centuries that modern science has defined the heart as a mechanical pump. Before that, for example in the writings of Aristotle and Ibn Rushd, the heart was the seat of the Spirit or the Intellect. It was a sensorium, and the main perceiver of the world. The Qur'an was revealed centuries before the Qalb was re-interpreted as a mechanical pump. This an extremely important fact. We should not assume that Islam views our physical hearts as a mere pump. There's a direct connection between Aql and
  14. Ruh should be translated as "spirit", definitely not "soul." "Ego", as we think and talk about it, isn't a good translation for nafs. Because, for example, we don't think of who as leaving the body when we are sleeping, but nafs does leave the body. So, I think, a better translation for nafs would be "consciousness."
  15. Not completely. First, there are different types of ruh. Are you saying all different types of ruh are light, implying different types of light? Second, there's a narration that mention God sent a ruh to the prophet and then made it into light to function as a guide. Therefore, ruh, itself, isn't light, but it can be made into light, if God wills. This doesn't make sense, since Ruh is a power/ability/capacity of some sort. Ruh doesn't make decisions. It can't do bad not because it chooses to never do that but because it literally cannot do bad. No. Ruh, nafs
×
×
  • Create New...