Jump to content

SoRoUsH

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    2,645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About SoRoUsH

  • Rank
    Level 5 Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,192 profile views
  1. Any opinions about question #2? How would a woman come to know of this event, when she's at home? And not the men? Do women have better extrasensory perceptions?
  2. Salam, حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن سعيد، قال: حدثنا علي بن الحسن التيملي، عن علي بن مهزيار، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن الحسين بن المختار، عن أبى بصير، قال: " قلت لابى عبدالله (عليه السلام) قول الله عزوجل " عذاب الخزي في الحيوة الدنيا وفي الآخرة " ما هو عذاب خزي الدنيا؟ فقال: وأي خزي أخزى يا أبا بصير من أن يكون الرجل في بيته وحجاله وعلى إخوانه وسط عياله إذ شق أهله الجيوب عليه وصرخوا، فيقول الناس: ما هذا؟ فيقال " مسخ فلان الساعة، فقلت: قبل قيام القائم(عليه السلام) أو بعده؟ قال: لا، بل قبله “. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Sa`eed narrated. He said: `Ali b. al-Hasan at-Taymali3 narrated from `Ali b. Mehzayar from Hamad b. `Isa from al-Husayn b. al-Mukhtar from Abu Baseer. He said: I said to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام the saying of Allah عزوجل, “The degrading punishment in the life of this world, and in the Hereafter…” (5:33) – what is the degrading punishment of this world? So he said: What disgrace is more degrading, O Abu Baseer, than a man who is in his house and his surrounding, with his brethren and in between his children, when his woman rips her clothes and screams [out of shock] in front of him? Then the people will say, “What is this?” and they are answered, “Fulan has been metamorphosed (or transfigured) at this hour”. So I said: Before the rise of the Qa’im عليه السلام or after it? He said: No, indeed, before it. (Nu`mani’s Ghayba) (muwathaq) (موثق) Questions: Who is fulan? Dajjal? How would this random woman know this? What does it mean for Dajjal or he referent to be transfigured? He was one thing and then turned into another? Physically? Thank you!
  3. You're right sister. I should've been clear. My post was referring to the reviewer's comment that brother Qa'im posted.
  4. The complaints about the cost are unjustified and unreasonable. The value of a book has nothing to do with its length. It has everything to do with its content. A book like this is invaluable; highly researched material, excellent translation, and a significant topic.
  5. SoRoUsH

    Why Shirk?

    سلام، Shirk is dangerous because it shifts the framework within which one operates, every day, every hour, every minute. Allah is الحق، The Truth. Tawheed is the framework that is founded upon this truth. Shirk, on the other hand, is founded upon the notion of the multiplicity of truths. In this framework there not one الحق، there are two, few, or many. Consequently, any action within the framework of shirk is fueled and imbued with the wrong intention and for the sake of other than الحق. And since each action is evaluated based on the intention behind it, every action outside of the framework of Tawheed is unacceptable by Allah, since it's done for other than Allah, or for not Allah alone. If an action is not done for the sake of Allah alone, then it's not accepted by Allah. A philanthropist in the framework of shirk is building a house of dirt on a rock that can easily be blown away by wind. On the other hand, a murderer, who acknowledges the oneness of God, following repentance and atonement, either in this world or the next, can be forgiven. This is how I understand it.
  6. I think we need to operate with the following knowledge in our minds: Knowledge is a light, and this light is gifted to our Ahlul Bayt (as). In other words, the source of true knowledge is the Ahlul Bayt (as). How can we reconcile this fact with one that many religious scholars or scholars of religion do not use the narrations of Ahlul Bayt as their source? When we read books, whose source of knowledge isn't authentic narrations of Ahlulbayt, are we really learning any true knowledge?
  7. I agree. What is not clear to me is how id they learn it? How is eating from the tree causally linked to learning about the shame of being naked? Yes, of course. However, I cannot imagine a food that causes the knowledge of shame. Foods certainly have different physiological effects. Howver, are you implying that they also have epistemological effects? You're implying that certain foods give us knowledge. Is this your proposition? That the food of the tree in the Garden gave Adam and Eve a knowledge that they did not have previously? It caused an additional piece of (epistemological) knowledge about a moral precept? If so, one wonders, why would Allah prevent eating from this tree, if it has such positive moral and epistemological implications? Yes, it is. (Of course, some people would argue it comes with our fitra. And if Adam and Eve shared our fitra, then they already knew about shame of nakedness.) One wonders, why didn't God teach Adam, when He taught him all names, about the shame of nakedness? I'm talking about the essence of humanity, the Fitra. I'm imagining the scene of Adam's creation. Angels bowing to a naked Adam. God teaching naked Adam all the names. Naked Adam and Eve walking around in the Garden, carelessly. It's not easy to imagine this to be true.
  8. They didn't have the knowledge that they ought to cover their private parts? Or they didn't have the knowledge to that they're walking around nude? Or they didn't have the knowledge that being naked in shameful? It seems you're inclined towards the latter. If that's the case, then how did eating from the tree make them aware that it's shameful? Did they learn something new? Or did they remember something they already knew but had forgotten? If they had forgotten that it's shameful, and were continuously disobeying God by walking nude in the Garden, why didn't God reprimand them for that? If they didn't know that it's shameful, then why did they react as they did and quickly covered their private parts? Whichever of the above options you believe, you also ought to believe, then, that Adam and Eve were not like modern, "normal" conscious adults. Whether they didn't know they're walking around naked, or they didn't know it's shameful to do so, it's safe to say they weren't like us. Can you imagine a healthy conscious adult, follower of God, walking around nude, shamelessly?
  9. If Adam and Eve became in any way more complete, after eating from the tree, that means before they ate from the tree, they were incomplete. If you're saying they became aware of their nakedness, this implies that they were unaware of being naked. And it brings to question, how can adult conscious individuals be unaware that they're walking nude in a garden? How could they not have been aware that they were naked?
  10. Same problem. Why was Allah "testing" a child-like human? When children make mistakes, their punishment isn't usually as severe as kicking them out of paradise, because, precisely, we realize they are children. We don't treat them like adults.
  11. 1) They covered themselves, implying they were uncovered or naked. Other verses suggest they covered their private parts, implying their private parts were exposed or uncovered. If they were already covered, why did they cover themselves again with leaves? What exactly did they cover with leaves, if they were already covered? 2) But why did they cover themselves? Their private parts? Were they boastful before, walking nude in The Garden? And once they disobeyed Allah, they were humiliated and didn't want to be naked anymore? 3) No.
  12. SoRoUsH

    "Get Down"

    See. Now, you're jumping to even greater conjectures with bigger implications. This is a bold, unjustified, proposition to say "there was no difference between the slave and the Lord, between the created and the creator. Another big conjecture. Not to be rude, but you can't just make up stuff. You need to properly justify your position through the narrations of Ahlul Bayt (as). Understanding the Quran isn't a guessing game, and it certainly shouldn't be interpreted according to guesses and opinions. Your view and statements may sound deep and esoteric to you, but until you justify them, and present narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (as), they remain mere conjectures.
  13. Not really, but even if that was so, the same problem remains. Before eating from the tree, they were not complete humans as they did not have full awareness.
  14. It's certainly not implied as different interpretations and opinions exists, yours being a conjecture among many.
  15. SoRoUsH

    "Get Down"

    As I mentioned in the ther thread, you can't just write stuff in brackets and assume them to be true. You need to elaborate how you arrived at those propositions and interpretations.
×