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

Bonafide Hustler

Veteran Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Bonafide Hustler

  1. We live in the world of nation states, they are pretty much inherently immoral and corrupt by definition and eventually they ought to disappear. For the moment, with more powerful nations putting their national interests ahead of world peace, solidarity and integration, others naturally have to respond with similar nationalistic gestures, it really is a matter of survival. Although inherently flawed, corrupt and immoral at its very core, there are on the surface at least some advantages to upholding nationalistic ideals in order to establish national unity, identity and a sense of national pride. We have to keep in mind, that the leading intellectual and political proponents of nationalism have little or no concern for the ideal at heart, they are primarily concerned with using nationalism as a means to further incredibly individualistic interests. There are rare exceptions but that is generally how things roll. As to your question, nationalism is not compatible with Islam or in fact compatible with any inherent humanistic ideals that help shape our perceptions of how the world community ought to be. There is some overlap here and you can focus on certain specifics and have them reconcile with each other within the frameworks of nationalism and Islam for example, in any significant sense however they are incompatible. In your second instance, nationalism is in fact not helping organize a peaceful society domestically, what is happening in Egypt is predominantly shaped by very real grievances and not nationalistic urges. I do not know about Islam, but certainly ones humanistic inclinations would be enough to persuade one to join the oppressed in their struggle for elementary rights, no one in Egypt in their right mind would be opposed to this. Notions of religious superiority might make for an extremely intolerant society but nationalism can do just the same if not worse, for example, any dissidents within nationalistic societies such as the US for example who truly have the peoples best interests at heart are simply denounced as anti American and outright ridiculed. For so many the words within the constitution amount to gospel and any criticism is severely frowned upon. In essence both of these approaches by their very nature promote intolerance on international and domestic fronts although in varying ways. States are not moral agents, they were not meant to be, I mean the fact that American corporations in Mexico are given more rights than Mexicans of flesh and bone residing in the US is astounding enough. Islam at its core does not promote the kind of intolerance many muslims and other religious groups demonstrate, most of it is superficially implanted in peoples heads through indoctrination, that is obviously not Islam, in any case, nationalism at its core is incompatible with all things ideal and desirable in a pluralistic, humanistic and global sense.
  2. Benefits? This is how American capitalism works: The state launches a research program, let us take two obvious examples in the World Wide Web and computers (two of the great western technological achievements), since their inception and through the core phases of their development, the programs are publicly funded. The public naturally is made to bear the burdens and the risks associated with such ventures. Due to public funding, the approach focuses on long term benefits and quality rather than immediate short term gain. It can also afford to run a loss for years as it is not solely concerned with monetary benefits. Once established and sufficiently developed as the WWW and computers came to be under the state sector, they are finally privatized and sold off to private corporations so they can in turn reap the financial benefits. Benefits which are highly concentrated in very few hands AKA the corporate elite. To top it off, as if this is not bad enough, bestowed with a tremendous sphere of unaccountable power and authority, the elite is able to embark on risky ventures that focus primarily on short term profits for loaded corporate pay cheques. They are able to take such seemingly ludicrous risks because the state offers them a public insurance policy AKA a public bail out. This is how American capitalism works, this is why ever since the implementation of out and out neo liberal policies some 4 decades ago, corporate salaries have sky rocketed while working class wages have steadily declined. The same is true of Egypt which is crowned by some as a neo liberal miracle under the Mubarak regime, it has posted impressive economic numbers, but the majority of the populace has been worse off, the benefits concentrated in very few hands. As far as what capitalism entails at its core, well you can come up with a hundred different definitions with varying levels of state intervention, but at its core and as its generally accepted and promoted, it has at its core private ownership and markets. Every single developed nation in the world today, be it the United Kingdom, USA, other European nations or the Asian miracle economies, every single one had to implement incredibly intensive protectionists policies to rise to economic prosperity. It is only once they had established themselves as prominent world economies that they started preaching free market capitalism around the world and shoving free trade agreements down developing nation’s throats. It is quite rational for them to do so for obvious reasons, the leading economies of the world have an incredible comparative advantage over the developing nations in an open market globalized model. Developing nations cannot even begin to dream of surviving in open competition. They can only develop by initially protecting themselves (at least their core industries) from international competition just as the any other contemporary economic power has demonstrated in the past. Essentially they are saying: We used to be just like you, we protected and ran our industries through our infantile stages, now we are global powers, and we can help you rise to prominence if you would just open up your markets, allowing us to penetrate so we can suck your unexploited resources dry. In essence it is to advocate a path of policy based on utter hypocrisy. The same applies to the local scene on a micro level. Japan and Korea lauded as beneficiaries of capitalist reforms also rose to prominence through predominantly anti capitalist measures, Toyota, the greatest automaker in the world was severely protected by Japan and ran a loss for 30 odd years after the so called capitalist policies were implemented, Samsung in Korea also ran a loss for ages and was consciously protected. Capitalism entails the economy if not completely (virtually impossible) then predominantly being run through an open market and privatized system, by this definition, it promises nothing but an economic disaster. The United States or United Kingdom may fall within the varying and diverse range of definitions under the capitalist umbrella as Khadim alluded to but if capitalists are so bent on calling these economies state capitalist then surely the same can be said about Russia or China, were they state capitalist or communist? One can also do the same with socialism or anarchism, what we are concerned here is with core elementary principles that define the concept, for capitalism, it is markets and private ownership. For socialism it is worker control over production and for anarchism it is primarily an inherent contempt for authority. Let us keep things simple. The champions of free market capitalism are hypocritical in their rhetoric; having developed through highly protective and interventionists methods, they are now continuously bailed out by the public due to their privatized management incompetence. The extent of state intervention and protection in any of these economies is remarkable, not truly capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. Markets have their place, but a very limited one at that, they can only offer benefits when allowed to function within a limited number of industries and through some mechanism of public supervision well above that puts overall public interest ahead of profit and takes externalities (capitalist despise externalities) seriously. It is naive for anyone here to assert that an economy has ever succeeded predominantly through capitalist measures, that is simply factually inaccurate without exception. If anything, dominant world economies have all risen to prominence through highly anti capitalist measures while letting markets function in severely limited ways. The balance here is severely tilted, but neo liberal advocates will tell you otherwise.
  3. Formal education today is a complete mess. It is predominantly geared towards producing obedient and disciplined workers for the corporate sector. Yes you may learn a few useful things along the way, especially in technology/engineering related programs where students do acquire useful skills but most other programs are designed to produce passive and disciplined students to be further strangled with debt upon graduation. A well intentioned law student may want to represent working class cases for example but upon graduation would have little choice other than to pursue a corporate law firm to deal with his soaring debt. Once you are sucked into the corporate culture, with all its benefits and amenities, you can pretty much kiss your initial noble minded ambitions goodbye. Programs in economics, history, business, political science and other core social subjects are subject to heavy indoctrination from the top and severely limit critical independent thought. There just isnt enough room for organic pursuit of knowledge, students are bombarded with 100s of dumbed down assignments which take up 90% of their time, are graded to the bone while also being incredibly structured and rigid. The competition for prestigious corporate placements in big business backed school programs and firms is beyond sickening, it is a rat race, this is not what learning is all about. Obviously there are exceptions, you will find a handful of professors who defy the status quo, encourage independent thought and bring in outside sources into their lectures which are absolutely essential yet purposely not included in the curriculum. I do not buy argument that if it wasn't for the structured style of learning imposed by schools on students, it would be impossible for students to focus and learn. On the contrary, If you let students engage in activities which interest them and ones they find truly meaningful, if you allow independent thought which is organically driven through pursuit of ones interests and not GPA or placements, students would experience intellectual development which is far more profound. Usually when students start out, their ambitions and interests are driven not solely by material wealth, intellectual challenge and prestige, but they are also in tune with inherent human tendencies of human solidarity, sharing etc, and a moral commitment to the general welfare of society. Unfortunately, most of these latter notions are driven out of students heads as they progress through formal schooling. I mean its not a big surprise that the big shot graduates from top business/political/economic schools seem to enter prominent roles lacking any moral conscious what so ever. They are not inherently self centered or evil, its just that these notions are driven out of their system by the time they grab that paper for the big interview at a top firm. Having said that, a lot of activism takes place in university campuses, usually it is the students backed by a handful of isolated rebel professors, quite powerful but rare. It is also interesting when you compare top schools with lower tier ones, the culture of obedience and conformity in top schools is more prevalent than in smaller schools where as much emphasis is not placed on grades and placements. The problems with the system are severe, and to think students are subjected to them throughout the most fertile phase of their development, it is quite sad really, it takes up a lot of time. That is just how things go, with all these unnecessarily created wants and mismanagement of vital resources, people have no choice but to go through this formal procedure to obtain a placement. You cannot blame them. Essentially we are left with a formal system of education, which produces countless graduates with decent amount of skills, a lot of youthful energy, but with little wisdom to apply them in a morally and socially sound fashion. Not to mention the financial burdens which further limit creativity and learning.
  4. Apart from your mother, women in this world aren't worth the time, increasingly so these days, so stay single as long as possible before stupidly volunteering to walk yourself into the penitentiary.
  5. You have got it wrong, philosophy at its root and core has little to do with love of reason, quite remarkable that you would actually assert that as its accepted definition, it is quite established that rather it is wisdom which philosophy attempts to impart. In essence it is then a love for wisdom, which is quite different from reason. This is why you see that men of reason tend to gravitate towards philosophy in an attempt to find moral, social and ethical justification for their reason among other things, not the other way around. United States might find it perfectly reasonable to continue to pursue its imperial agenda, in fact it would actually be quite rational on its part to do so, however such an undertaking would lack elementary moral wisdom. It is elementary wisdom which is severely lacking in the world today despite an overload of knowledge, doctrine and reason. It would also be quite ignorant of you to imply that philosophy basically is a "collection of various different schools of thought that have developed in history with their own methodologies and conclusions (few of which agree with another on much though, which makes one wonder how effective these approach really are to arriving at any truth)." Nothing could be more violating to the very core essence of philosophy. Methodologies and conclusions do very well exist from men considered to have had great philosophical minds, so what? It doesn't automatically imply that anyone who aspires to become a philosopher or simply philosophize has to accept any of these doctrines, adopt them or even consider them, that approach would stand in direct violation of a philosophical one. Also it wouldn't be very wise to say that Shaykh Mufid or whoever wouldn't have considered themselves philosophers. Even if they actually said so in print, it really wouldn't matter much, most people, from peasants with very little knowledge to some of the greatest prominent intellectuals philosophize about one thing or another, most in fact about every complicated question that arises. Secondly, the notion that philosophy is a rival madhab of doctrine? Are you kidding me? It is no such thing, it simply is an organic way to approach problems, difficult questions that lie somewhere between concrete reason and irrational belief, and it has nothing to do with established doctrines. In fact, it is inherently false for a philosopher to assert that his theory at all contributes to or constitutes a doctrine. You will find they assert no such thing. So it is false for you or Shaykh Mufid to do so. You need not have read Kant or Greek philosophers to have engaged in this rewarding exercise, even though if you approach their prominent works with your own philosophical approach then surely you can benefit. The fact that certain prominent principles theorized by Kant, Plato etc tend to contradict or rival each other is a good thing. There are no concrete answers to these questions in the first place, but the pursuit by utilizing our collective faculties in trying to figure them out can better help us put things in perspective and endow us with wisdom to better deal with everyday issues and complex problems. However complex these questions maybe with no concrete solutions, they have very real practical implications with respects to justice, morality, social framework and so on, hence they should be subject to philosophical debate, not just a theological or scientific one. Theology and science can both be very stubborn in their claim of having an answer to every question there is, science is very limited for obvious reasons and theology can take deep dives into the realm of irrational belief, philosophy at least attempts to balance the two by putting each in perspective and attempts to tackle questions and formulate answers not truly substantiated by either side, answers which it accepts are not carved in stone as science and theology would claim they are. Philosophy essentially resides in a space between irrational belief and headless science. That is a wise place to reside in time to time, we should all try it, theology and science would both benefit from it tremendously.
  6. No, nothing to do with liberal or western. These terms are literally devoid of any meaning given how senselessly they are thrown around these days and certainly they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If we as human beings are not inherently inclined to side with truth and against lying, stealing, senseless killing, torture and rape of our very own women and children, then I do not know how you can even begin to make sense of how we ought to address some of the elementary problems in society. It is difficult to understand human nature in the first place, what we are left with then is to depend on deriving conclusions from historical record and current patterns of human behavior, given the historical record, there is no evidence to suggests what you so boldly claim as fact, in fact despite our violent history, it tends to suggests the opposite, certainly when it comes to questions of basic human morality.
  7. Obviously what I meant with universality was not meant to be taken in the most extreme literal sense. You will naturally or unnaturally find outliers that that tend to stand on the opposite ends of the spectrum on some of these issues. For most of us, with religion or without, it can be argued that there is an inherent natural tendency to be inclined in a certain direction when it comes to elementary moral questions. I am sure if you were to take the same German warrior and raise him independent of the indoctrination from his superiors, and he was allowed to rationalize and reason the inherent values within him , you would be hard pressed to find him arguing in favor of rape, murder, torture and so on. Furthermore, if you were ask the same German warrior if he would approve of his own wife being raped or child being tortured, he would surely oppose to this as well, on this basis he would eventually come to oppose such horrific acts being done onto others as he would not want them done onto himself/his family. Most of these acts continue to take place simply due to political/power motivated manipulative indoctrination, and if these people were given an ounce of freedom to think independently and critically, they would surely, 99.9% of the time denounce the horrific crimes you talk about, and would generally be in agreement with universal notions of accepted morality. Now all this is not to say that all of our morality is totally established, grounded, settled in argument and reason, obviously people differ, especially when it comes to moral questions that deal with conflicting values, but no divine justification, or religious justification will make our morality any more grounded or substantiated than it already is.
  8. What does ownership of an idea really mean? And does it imply ownership over subsequent financial benefits no matter how substantial the amount? Do you think it is acceptable or even principally right that through such mechanisms and protection, that certain individuals are able to amass billions of dollars in monetary wealth while millions starve to death? Should that even be allowed on the sole basis of ownership rights and their protection? This is why certain aspects of patent and copyright laws are an absolute joke and ones which have not been democratically enlisted but through a body of corporate lawyers. With respects to voluntary giveaway, how practical is this? How many owners can you find who would willingly want to part away with chunks of their power when they can effectively limit the financial benefits to themselves and their subsequent generations? The answer is barely none if any. Whatever little stake employees have actually won over from the ownership has been due to collective employee struggle and not good hearted intentions of owners. I am not here to say all management and ownership are inherently evil, they can be perfectly moral people and I am sure most are, but their institutions are set up in a fashion which legally and socially forces them to forgo public good for the sake of maximizing profits. They are in fact legally obliged to do so. In any case, the question of ownership is a complex one, you can come up with an idea, start a business, what you produce individually, is entirely your own product and you shall be entitled to its benefits. However as your business expands and you are forced to hire employees, in thousands of numbers, their contribution to your company far exceeds your own, in fact without them, as I have said before, your business would be left to what it was when you operated it alone. In effect, it is the workforce due to its contribution that becomes the majority stake holder and literal owner of the business. However as we see today, without unionization and even with it, they are granted very little control over directing the institution they effectively power. I suppose you could argue that yes, the people who originally came up with the idea are entitled to some premium benefits, you can argue so in monetary terms, however in terms of democratic control and literal ownership of how the company ought to be governed and regulated, this should fall into the hands of the employees. As I said, the ownership issue is a complex one, but it is complex within a very narrow spectrum, and no matter how you resolve that issue, it would never amount to the benefits owners receive and the power they exercise in most corporations and businesses today. That is if you completely ignore the moral reality of the situation where any sane society would put public interests ahead of individual ones, and put real development over short term profits but that is a different argument all together.
  9. Yeah men look at other hot chicks and drool over them, rate every chick that walks by, well I don't and I do not expect the girl I am going to spend the rest of my life with to be screaming wow hes so hot, I mean that is just general elementary modesty and self respect. This is not complicated.
  10. I would argue that democracy is the always valid only answer. It is evident by taking a look at certain western secularist states that a parliamentary style, vote ballot approach has time and time again proved itself to be practically is of no real democratic significance or implication, especially given the extremely narrow range of political choices that do not even begin to represent or address real grievances of the people . Real democracy can only exist when people bestowed with particular roles of justified leadership (which is difficult to justify in most cases) are actually held accountable to the people on a consistent and continuing basis. This is practically impossible given the current setup, people go about their daily professional lives, hardly having enough time to be directly involved in major political decision making that directly influences their daily lives. Cast a vote every 4 years and then let the politicians run wild in their own distant world of complex ideologies and fancy rhetoric. As I have asserted before, the only path to real democracy in this business run, financial economy is through worker self management. This idea sounds dangerous to you, it is quite natural if you really think about its true implications. Bear with me and take any major corporation in America that was recently bailed out by billions of tax payer dollars, say for example if instead they had eliminated the incompetent management all together, and allowed the workers to take over the company, there are 1 of 2 possibilities that arise. Either the worker managed company will lead to increased political power, and hence have a democratizing effect on the company, economy and the country as a whole, it will also perhaps be more efficiently managed since the original management proved tremendously incompetent and it will address directly the core needs of the working population rather than a limited few in management. The other possibility, is that workers would prove simply incapable of self management, and the company would self destruct. Still one would argue that worker managed self destruction is an easier pill to swallow that continuous management inspired self destruction subject to senseless public bail outs. So these are the two possibilities upon worker take over and complete removal of management, both of which you can argue for. Now if you take the same corporation or any giant corporation for the matter and you systematically remove the employees, the company simply seizes to exist without question, if the workers collectively go on strike, the management has to respond to their needs, there is nothing more democratic than this. This is how government ought to operate and be held accountable to the people below. Modern government policy is directly dictated by the big financial and corporate institutions. If the citizenry, most of which comprise of the workers can collectively organize and work to pursue their collective interests, you will have tremendous democratization effect on society, far more than the vote you cast once every 4 years, in fact this is why unions have been so severely crushed over the past few decades in the US, US has a very violent labor history. This is why the US is as democratic as Russia was communist. Anyhow, sorry to go off on a tangent, that is just how I see things, with respects to what you said about democracy only being a viable option under certain circumstances, I do not agree with this for the following reasons. To begin with, it is a tremendous underestimation of the creativity level, wisdom, and profound levels of awareness present in underdeveloped and so called 'jahil' societies and secondly, nothing can play a greater role in limiting their ability to learn and self manage in a democratic way than having democratic institutions being kept from them until they are 'ready', 'developed' or prepared. Furthermore, this is a typical excuse for the powerful and intellectual elite to postpone democracy for the time being by further solidifying their powers through creating institutions even of educational nature that prepare students and professionals to generally server their needs. I think a far more natural and liberating argument works in favor of democratizing even the so called jahil societies, give them a chance, they can self manage their problems, they might struggle initially, but democratically working through their problems will eventually play a leading role in educating and shaping them as participatory citizens in a democracy. This type of education, would impart true social/political learning, far more so than the current structured educational programs you see. Democracy is never a bad idea, and one cannot talk of democracy simply as a political ideology, it is more than that, it is a natural inherent tendency within societies, they naturally gravitate towards democratic reforms if left alone without direct interference and control from power. Jahil societies would do just fine, so long as anti democratic power structures are not allowed to dictate.
  11. Better not to get married than be stuck with a woman who finds other men irresistible. For all here who are saying you can teach her to overcome her tendencies, well you aren't her father, it is a dangerous gamble in the first place. It can be naive and stupid to be picky when it comes to superficial things in a person (looks, nose, eye shape, syed/non syed etc) but we all deserve to be picky when it comes to questions of basic moral decency and wisdom, she is going to raise your kids after all. Peace out
  12. First of all it so far is not 'provable' through logic and reasoning, that is a false assertion. The fact that prostitution has negative consequences, the fact that extra marital affairs have negative consequences, the fact that lying, backbiting and occupying oneself with superficial and materialistic gains is harmful to ones peace of mind are conclusions which can be derived independent of religion by a 12 year old in church/mosque less streets of Cambodia. The reason women are out there objectifying themselves cannot be simply attributed to the absence of religion in their life. Women a lot of times are pressured into such situations through models of consumption etc which no wise person approves, religious or not. You could technically and legally have a muslim society in which men would sleep around with different women on a daily basis, after all it is deemed perfectly halal in shia Islam through mutah, even though you could be married with children, it is perfectly moral, I doubt you would consider that extreme, but nudity sure is even though it has no bearing on trust or fidelity. Have a discussion with someone who does not believe in organized religion but upholds some of the basic universal principles of morality and shares a sense of care and compassion for fellow human beings. He will without a doubt denounce objectification of women, denounce lying, backbiting, breaking a friend or partners heart and senselessly engaging in domestic violence. None of this would of course have been derived from religion, these are common sense elementary universally accepted morals. If you were to lure a critical thinking, humanitarian, wise and compassionate non believer into islam, he might question certain practices that seem extreme to him, such as killing of the apostates, stoning of women who happened to commit adultery (correct me if I am wrong). Now you may approve of all this since it is the unquestionable word of god, and hence thats enough to justify it, but the point is these might seem just as extreme to him, while you sit here asserting islam has a monopoly on all things moderate. The simple truth of the matter, is, most of what you see wrong in this world is due to a lack of elementary wisdom and not a lack of religion. There are tremendous economic forces at work to keep people behaving in a certain fashion, to create certain conditions to foster certain practices so the select few can get rich of other peoples misery. One cannot simply assert that lack of religion is the cause of all problems humanity.
  13. The most meaningless and irrelevant of posts that contribute nothing to the discussion at hand.
  14. Brother I think Iran will do just fine, so long as it is not attacked and occupied with war, it is engaging in crucial deals with eastern giants that it wasn't able to do in the past and oil still remains a dominant resource for Iran. In any case, given the worlds problems, it really shouldn't be about where Iran ranks with respects to other nations, so long as it is able to provide sufficient economic prosperity for its citizens. Let us hope that some sort of international order will restrict the inevitable emerging super powers in China, India and Brazil from dominating and running an empire as US has to this date.
  15. No, firstly, obviously an economically powerful Iran is a worry for the west, but it isn't something that has got them shaking in their boots, in a world still dominated by hard labor oriented industries, Iran cannot even dream of becoming an economic 'super power'. Secondly, there are far more efficient options which aren't as risky that could help ensure Iran's economic prosperity. Sure peaceful nuclear use will help, but it isn't something that will propel Iran to the top, which it cannot do so in the first place given its small labor force. The best case scenario for Iran is probably a second or third tier position of economic prosperity behind the giants such as India, Brazil, China and another group of emerging economies. With respects to Iran's weapon not being able to act as a deterrent, its party true, soon as Iran even loads up the missiles for a strike, the country would we wiped off the face of the earth, however that is in desperate situations, before getting to that point, the weapons can indeed play a powerful role in shaping international relations and practices.
  16. There are certain moral principles which are simply universal, no sane individual would oppose them. These exist independent of religion, it is basic human morality, a lot of which is actually preached upon by religion as well because it is utterly natural and common sense. Apart from these moral principles which pass the test of universality, there are moral questions and issues which are more complex and subject to intense debate, religion as hard as it might try, has not been able to stifle the debate on questions of morality that remain complex and shall remain so in the future. So the debate on such moral issues will rage on.
  17. OH SMARTY dignified and matury pants, look at me im all mature with my FYIs, lets forget whats going on in the video and demean the poster, how fun, Son sa son son, relax, if you are too blind and brainwashed to see what is BLATANTLY wrong with what he said, then go and take a hike, no one cares.
  18. I shed a few tears, I think 8 years ago, on the 9th of muharram, at home by myself, shed a few tears, thats all I ever could muster, that was despite trying, now I don't even try, and not because I have given up, but I dont really feel the need to.
  19. Well I would love to delve into the deeper more insightful inner workings of monotheism and divine unity in its truest meaning, but for now I suppose common sense would do just fine.
  20. COMMON PEOPLE, this aint about fitna, this aint even about PRO WF THIS THAT, what is wrong is wrong, you can be pro wf but within reason and if you are able to back certain practices up.... its all good, I got pro WF homies HOWEVER what this SHIEKH is preaching is dangerous HAVE NO FEAR, deal with the truth, how is this normal, how is this acceptable???? COMMON MAN
  21. Are you kidding me? Outright blind following what in the? Their words are the word of god? it is not good to doubt taqleed and marjaeeeaaaat?
  22. Thank you Calm, I checked him out last night, didn't quite appeal to me, yes he is soft spoken and easy on the ears, but IMO his material isn't very organized and isn't of much substance anyways, kinda jumps all over the place. Anyhow he does seem the best out of the lot I have heard recently and I should suspend judgement till I have heard a bit more of him. Thanks.
  23. Man check these two videos out bros and sissos My cousins seem to admire this speaker, so I decided to check him out, a freind sent me these links and I was like : O, how does he say this stuff and get away? BUT I don't really know, you guys might see no problem with the following, but well thats good for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QQY6xLFi6o This clips a bit bigger, be patient, recite kalima 10 times over salawat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTYbgclShsY I have no clue what they are teaching in them hawzas in Iran, but common man, somethings just not right up in this joint. Also I don't know what this brother is preaching, but you damn well out to loose hope when it comes to global warming and the environmental catastrophe, you ought to hold such concerns as a top priority and not just sit back and wait in hope for the 12th imam. This type of outlook deflects shia attention from where its most needed.
  24. Who said it does not exist? This is elementary, sure it exists, but given our limited understanding, given our limited scientific understanding and evidence and finally given that you or I have yet to see god first hand, we cannot reach a concrete conclusion with 100% certainty, for or against the existence of God. For the moment, we have to suspend that judgement till we find sufficient evidence. Perhaps after this life is all set and done, you will have a face to face with your maker, or not, either way, that certainly would suffice and settle this question.
  • Create New...