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


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,609 profile views

skinee's Achievements

  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 sometimes only the mind becomes awake while the body doesn't. during this state you are sometimes between the dream/sleep world vs the waking world... because it can be scary, your mind generates imaginary scary things, much like in a dream/nightmare i.e. your negative imagination begins to overlap with waking reality. later on life i actually would induce paralysis as an aid to enter dreams consciously (it helps with lucid dreaming). the easiest way to break out of sleep paralysis is to change your breathing pattern, your body will normally wake up straight away.
  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 hypocrites. These are same people or their descendanys that took the ladies of Karbala as captives. so there was plenty of room for abuse.
  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 2nd child more pure, than either He didn't make the first boy pure or made him less pure. 3. Why was Khidr needed to kill this boy? Allah could have taken his life in any number of ways. 4. What is the moral of this specific incident? I don't understand how to interpret these verses... someone please help!
  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 care of, and they may be employed etc. That every human is "free" and can not be the property of another.
  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 please tell me your thoughts/justifications for the following explanations from Tafsir AlMizan (for Sura 4, verses 23 to 28), please read all of it if you wish, I'm only posting part of it here: "Prohibition of mothers and the others described in the verse, means prohibition of marriage with them, as is understood from the subject and the order.... such metaphorical expressions are very common in every language... Nevertheless, it seems a bit difficult to say that it is ‘marriage’ which is implied by the word, ‘forbidden’, because of the exceptional clause coming later: except those whom your right hands possess. Sexual intercourse with one’s slave women is lawful without marriage. Consequently, the exceptional clause, ‘‘except those whom your right hands possess’’; will exclude one’s married slave girl from this prohibition. It has been narrated in traditions that the master of a married slave woman may take away that woman from her husband, keep her untouched for the prescribed term, then have sexual relation with her, and thereafter return her to her husband."
  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 from her master. You might say that if the master was a better or good person, as per Islamic teachings he should allow his slave girl to get married. The master isn't a bad person, and he likes this slave girl very much, so he doesn't give her permission to marry the fruit seller - and the master has this right over her, he wouldn't be doing anything wrong as per Islamic law. This (and other reasons which I'm not writing here )in my view makes slavery immoral, it gives rights to the master which are unfair as demonstrated above.
  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 marry of his 4 year old to someone. the result you get is the ability to "thigh" a girl. How anyone finds the above justifications reasonable or morally acceptable is beyond my understanding.
  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 impossible in eastern and even western societies). For example suppose some society has a common tradition of gay marriages, and then you create laws around it to cater for it... does it make sense?
  • Create New...