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

skinee

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About skinee

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,410 profile views
  1. i once woke up from sleeping and couldn't move... i suddenly saw a dark shadow entering the room and started feeling heaviness on my chest... started reciting nad ali and was able to move and everything was back to normal. now i could conclude that I was visited by a jinn. in reality what i experienced was sleep paralysis. it's when your mind wakes up but your body is still paralyzed. this is part of the sleep mechanism, your body every time you sleep undergoes paralysis to help you sleep better... it's a biological function. most of the time both our mind and bodies wake up, but sometim
  2. it can be undiagnosed schizophrenia in many people that think they are seeing ghosts/jinn/ some other entity. I have a friend that hears voices and he's been diagnosed with schizophrenia... but i've noticed among muslims they start thinking it's jinn. the opposite could also be true that maybe schizophrenia patients are in fact seeing jinn.
  3. As I stated, the topic of this thread isn't slavery. It's taking women and children captive against their will. They wouldn't be prisoners if they did of their own free will. It is their loss in war that their men were fighting which resulted in them becoming captives. What you have written above is that Islamic slavery was much better than any other form of slavery. A Chrisitian may have argued the same when they justified their form of slavery as sanctioned by the Bible. Do you really see the Prophet's companions as people that observed the "law"? weren't many of these people hypo
  4. I listened from 53. He doesn't answer my question why Islam allows taking women and children as captives? i understand the point it was not possible to abolish slavery completely, that Islam introduced laws which brought slaves to the same level as normal people, but that doesn't explain why it's considered ok to take women and children as captives.
  5. Asalaam Alaikum I always have doubts over these verses and questions that I haven't been able to answer. "And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy." Questions: 1. Did Khidr kill a boy that had yet to commit a crime... "we feared"? 2. If Allah can make/substitute a better child, what does this imply about the first boy? Did Allah make him less pure? Surely if Allah can make the
  6. Asalaam Alaikum I was having a discussion on slavery in another thread, and these questions are not related to general slavery laws in Islam. My question is why did Islam allow taking of women and children as captives of war? This seems to be something right out of the age of jahiliyya. It doesn't really matter how well/unwell they were treated. Just imagine becoming property of Umar and Abu Bakr or Khalid bin Waleed or any of the other amazing "companions".
  7. I'm trying to explain to you that logically this is not a sound argument. An act is immoral regardless of there being a solution for it or not. I didn't want to offer my opinions or speculations on how slavery could have been prohibited, so the following is not something that I would use as an argument. I see this is a separate topic. Nonetheless, one could imagine that the Prophet could have said there is no such thing as human ownership, no human can own, buy, or sell another human being. That if there are extremely poor people in society, they should be helped, they should be taken ca
  8. There were many things that the Imams had to do to adjust to the times, eg. followers to practice taqiyya. However the above argument doesn't hold as well when we speak about the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), or we speak about slavery as a general argument. I'm happy to move on from this point. A master can't always be compared to a father. A good father has the best interests of his child, whereas a master has his own interests as well... it is the self interest of the master which makes the relationship of a master and slave in the above scenario unfair. Either way plea
  9. Can you please elaborate why the complete prohibition of ANY act has anything to do with the act's morality? And why it differs for "slavery"? Couldn't all of this been done without owning these people? I mean the Imam taught to non-slaves as well. Consider the following scenario and please explain to me how this is morally acceptable: Suppose there is a honest and pious fruit seller in the markets of Mecca. He see's a girl that is a slave. He talks to this girl and tells her he wants to marry her. She says she is willing to marry him as well, but must get permission f
  10. When people give examples of freeing slaves as a "good" thing, than it logically follows that keeping slaves is the opposite of freeing them.
  11. That's fine my dear brother/sister, we can agree to disagree, we can have differing views As for your first paragraph, i have already addressed that in my previous reply.
  12. There is plenty of evidence in history that the Imams had slaves and had kids with them as well, regardless of how many they freed. Imam Ali had some children with concubines as per our historical records.
  13. back to OP's topic. This fatwa doesn't contradict Islamic fiqh. Islamic fiqh allows the father to marry of a minor that hasn't reached puberty IF it is in the "interest" of the child and doesn't harm them. However what defines as "interest" has not been clarified. Sometime people cite poverty as a reason. Let's assume poverty justifies such a marriage... now imagine you are living in arabia where girls as young as 6 to 10 are getting married because that was the culture and girls matured much faster. Now some poor father who has barely any money to feed himself, feels it will be better to marr
  14. My question is very simple, is the concept of owning another human being, the abilityto buy/sell them etc is this a morally acceptable concept or morally unacceptable? In my opinion it is morally unacceptable. As to how it should be abolished, this is entirely a different question. Many acts are considered a crime, but can never be truly abolished (rape, alcohol, drugs, murder, racism) etc. We accept that all of these are morally unacceptable. My question isn't how laws should be implemented, but whether the idea of human ownership is morally acceptable or not.
  15. This is exactly the issue and question. Since there is no forseeable scenario in which it is in the interest of any parent to marry a "female who has not reached puberty", it nullifies the law and doesn't follow that there should be a law to begin with... common sense states that if any society was practicing such traditions, the problem lies with that society's culture and should be condemned. Even if it was very common in many eastern societies, it seems strange why Islam didn't condemn such a practice and instead allowed it under impossible circumstances (which apparently were not impo
×
×
  • Create New...