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

jonrhaider

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jonrhaider

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Los Angeles

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

718 profile views
  1. In the case of physical therapy, the practice of medicine, or providing relief, many things that would otherwise be non-permissible are allowed. Just like you would accept a male doctor examining a woman for breast cancer, or even delivering a baby, there should be absolutely no problem with such physical contact or exposure. I remember hearing a quote from Imam Khomeini that the best indicator as to whether something is permissible is your conscience (الضمير). You know whether your intentions are pure, selfless, and positive, or whether they are malicious. If there are impure intentions
  2. This quote does an amazing job at identifying the type of person, debater, and thinker that AlKhidr is (with all due respect). In one sentence, he demonstrates to his readers the type of arrogance that such 'thinkers' possess. He begins his debate with his own conclusion, stating it as a fact, thereby self-proclaiming to be an authority on the subject, and implying that he has either considered all of the relevant research, analyses, and debates - amounting to centuries worth of writings - and that he possesses the necessary intellect to dissect, process, and evaluate the data, as well as the
  3. In essence, I agree with you. We should not be quick to take these types of articles/stories as truth, and should always question the accuracy/source. I disagree, however, with your assessment that this is 'unlikely-sounding' (for the reasons I've outlined above). Could this possibly be a fabrication? Yes. Could it be an attempt to defame the Wahhabis? Yes. And both of those are things that we don't condone. But, what makes this a concerning matter is HOW fatwas are issued by these Wahhabi sheikhs, without undergoing any scholarly scrutiny and a sort of "peer-review" process. They're set up in
  4. Hardly surprising at all. I think any sane person recognizes that Wahhabism is a global terrorist thug ideology that exploits the gross ignorance of the isolated arab, north african, and asian populations. Young "men" (for lack of a better word) are recruited to carry out military operations that serve the interests of a few warlords. These interests include weapons sales, oil sales, pressuring other groups and governments for political gains, among other things. To this end, you must anticipate that they are willing to issue any fatwa whatsoever, with absolutely no regard to whether or not it
  5. What determines how these murderers are dealt with is the answer to the question: "what benefits the country and the society we're trying to build for the future?" Of course, I'm a Lebanese American, not Iraqi, but even from an observer's perspective, I'm referring to the Iraq that we aspire to see. Each approach has its pros and its cons. Slaughtering them, as they've done to the innocent, accomplishes the following: 1- It reinforces the sectarian tensions. (con) 2- It displays an Iraqi leadership and army whose decisions are governed by the (primitive) ideas of revenge and retribution. (co
  6. Although your numbers may be correct, the problem is that in order to create a union, you must give incentive to the minorities not to want to break off. In other words, knowing that the Kurds would very much like to be completely independent, the one thing that would keep them as part of the Iraqi national government (if not brute force) is to offer them political gains that would make breaking off less desirable. You might think this is a bad idea, but arithmetic does not govern how things are weighed on a strategic level. Instead, you must realize that there is a non-linear relationship be
  7. Breaking News: http://www.almanar.com.lb/adetails.php?eid=927804&cid=21&fromval=1&frid=21&seccatid=20&s1=1 السيد مقتدى الصدر: التنظيمات الإرهابية انهت استعداداتها لدخول بغداد http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/08/08/Iraq-s-Sadr-claims-jihadists-planning-Baghdad-push-.html Iraq’s Sadr claims jihadists planning Baghdad push
  8. Thanks D3v1L for the quote. Great words by Erich Fromm. I think this quote explains very eloquently what led to the formation of the ISIS phenomenon (as a social rather than individual issue). I've always believed that this type of extremist, violent, ruthless, and destructive mentality is the result of a group exploiting all of its apparent alternatives (in order to achieve some goal), to no avail. There is a major problem in the Sunni world's ability to elect (or produce) a religious leadership that is independent, strong, charismatic, and is able to unite the diverse schools of though
  9. To a limited extent, as I've mentioned. In the sense of a politico-economic system, the premises on which even the American National School was based were perhaps consistent with Islam. But once again, such a system that takes no consideration of moral accountability in matters of trade is bound to be un-Islamic. Not to mention the role of Central Bank in Hamiltonian economics as lender and interest collector (a concept which is also rejected in Islam). The fact that federal law places no cap on interest rates, and never has, is enough to argue that the system (even during the American School
  10. Salam, I really didn't want to reintroduce the discussion on whether Capitalism is Islamic or not (i.e. moral or not in the eyes of a Muslim). But I honestly think that several key points have been completely overlooked, at least not emphasized nearly as much as they should have been. As far as the claim that Capitalism is an economic system in which private enterprise and wealth accumulation are permissible, this is a very narrow definition. These are key elements in a capitalist society, and are emphasized when talking about modern-capitalism because the concept was developed at a time when
  11. ÓáÇã Interesting topic. I think the most convincing explanation I've read was that provided by RottenCoconut. It makes complete sense to me that rather than the moon actually splitting (which would have been a much more widely covered event), those who requested it be split, saw what they came to witness and were convinced. Now, my fiance is a PhD Student in Cognitive Psychology and I'm a Civil Engineer, so I admit that optical illusions, mind tricks and scientific explanations are going to be more convincing to me than others. Isn't it widely known that David Copperfeld made the Statue of L
  12. I think you've misused the word "justice" in place of "physical characteristic", or perhaps "advantage". If it is true that men have an advantage in physical strength, this is completely irrelevant of "justice". Justice is the concept of moral righteousness, accountability of one's actions, assumption of one's responsibilities, implementation of legal ruling, etc... and is completely irrelevant of the physical advantages that one may or may not have been gifted with. I'm not sure how one could make reference to the word "justice" and state that it is isolated from equality. That is the first f
  13. I think I share your position entirely. I feel like the mere fact that "gender-superiority" is still being discussed today is an indication that there still is a major problem in the understanding of equality, rights, freedom, responsibilities and roles. And I think the first step for women to be perceived as equal is for women to realize that they are equal. The thing with cultural awakening is that one society cannot eat from the fruits of another society's awakening, so until Muslim women begin to fight for the recognition that they are equal (which they are by all means), they cannot simpl
  14. Salam, I'm not sure how this qualifies as "proof" by any standards of logic. While it may support the idea that "men are superior to women", it certainly does NOT prove it. In other words, this argument alone is NOT sufficient to conclude that men are in fact superior. Actually, the argument of historical oppression can easily be used to show that women are superior to men! Since men have oppressed women on the basis of their sexuality, men are guilty (historically) of a clear sin, and that is exploiting those who are in a position of less power. This exploitation is more proof that men are
  15. Pardon me, but I;m not sure what you said was very clear. Could you please rephrase that? Do you mean to ask whether we are required to seek fiqh even though we are simply following someone who is already knowledgeable? I'm not sure if that is your question, but if it is: I think you should never be content with the amount of knowledge you possess, and it is a religious as well as a moral and humanitarian responsibility to continue to pursue knowledge, no matter how much it seems that that is unnecessary. Additionally, it's each of our responsibility to be able to critically analyse jurists r
×
×
  • Create New...