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

mshoari

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mshoari

  1. (salam)

    You are in a tough situation brother. You are stuck between love and respect for family and your religion and intellectuality. Dam that is tough. First thing I want to clear up is that your niece and nephew's father has done injustice his his children by withholding useful knowledge from them. I am sorry to tell you this but in the judgment day his children will complain to God from him and his guilty of this sin.

    And now your problem. You are required to respect your family members and obey your parent at all times, but not if that makes you do something against the command of God. I hope you agree with me on this. What you did to your niece was called "Amr-Bil-Ma'rūf" (Call to good deed). Your story encourages those children to think about the good actions of other people. What you did is by no mean wrong. You did not encourage them to become shia and you have nothing to worry about.

    Just talk to your brother in law and fix thing up.

    I personally an extremist in this situations because I hate people that withhold knowledge from their children. I would first talk to these people and If they do not see reason and logic then I would just stop talking (or just hello and Good bye) to these people and that is it. I knew a man I talk to sometimes and when he became a Christian over some stupid and lame reason, I just stop talking to him. But please do not listen to this advice. It is always better to talk and pach thing up.

  2. About the Christian knights who hanged up 'portraits' of Imam Ali (as) . I doubt Amirul Mumeneen would have much regard for this 'love' based on false ideas, which is not a true love or reverence to begin with. Would he intercede for the man who had such a horrid opinion of his master, the Holy Prophet (S) ? Lol, talk about ridiculous.

    OK! I never said "love" or used it. I said "respect" and it is different than "love". respecting someone does not mean loving him. They respected Ali (as) because of what he did in his life time. The righteous and just actions moved people heart and made them respect this man. There are other example of such situations. For example the ancient Greeks used to call Persian barbarians but greatly respected "Cyrus The Great" because of his acts of benevolence and justice. One of the most famous Greek historians wrote a book on him call Cyropedia which you can find online.

  3. (salam)

    It has been a long time I haven't posted anything in here.

    Perfection in design has always been a trouble some argument for me. Some ulemah say that the the design of universe is perfect but there is a fundamental problem with that. Let me lay it dawn for you all. Simply the argument is If God is perfect then what he creates is perfect, for example our body. But the problem is If we consider God as perfect then what he creates also has to be a god because they are also perfect.

    God is perfect in every view. He will never die he is all powerful, all knowledgeable, and so on. That is why he is perfect. And now give me on human being whom has these attributes or at least one of them. If we call God perfect because of all of his attributes then how can we call the creation perfect when it does not have all of these attributes??? I, myself, don't think that we are perfect.

  4. Okay, how's this?

    I believe the universe was created by the tooth fairy. That is why we have teeth. The tooth fairy put us here so we could repent, and brush our teeth, or either be sent to dentistry hell, which looks like an ordinary dentist's office. Except that you may not leave it.

    Compare that to Christianity

    You are over simplifying one argument. There is no way to compare it. God governs everything that there is and there ever was. I cannot compare him with tooth fairy. Believing in tooth fairy gives me a new view of teeth (not a world view). But belief in God gives me a new world view which effects my every action and thought. But a new view of teeth or teeth view only effect what i do with my fallen teeth.

    I believe the universe was created by the tooth fairy. That is why we have teeth. The tooth fairy put us here so we could repent, and brush our teeth, or either be sent to dentistry hell, which looks like an ordinary dentist's office. Except that you may not leave it.

    Compare that to Christianity, the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman (created from a rib) was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

    Then Islam, which is a similar story, just a different magical fairy.

    You know what is really interesting that I have more of bible than I have read of Quran. I went through a phase that I doubt my own religion. I read all these stories. But when I thought about them they did not make sense to me.

    The doctrine of trinity creates more problems than it solves. It solves the polytheist problem of Christianity but it is against the simplest common sense. I rejected the doctrine and not only that I laughed at it always say to myself how can a man with brain accept such a jibrish claim. The worst is that when you corner the theologians in an argument about this topic they just say "well it is God and he is all powerful so this doctrine also have to be true? It is just we do not understand it." These answers are unacceptable in every sense of intellectuality. I tell you myself never ever listen to such non sense.

    Now lets get to the symbolism and acceptance of a certain master. Well one (I am not saying you) cannot argue against symbolic practice by saying it is stupid, weird or silly. I have seen some Atheist argue in such a manner and to me this is extremely unintellectual. Such people fail to see the importance of symbolic rhetoric to humanity itself. Such rhetorics or practices has a longer effect on human mind than other forms of communication. I give a example. Hafiz's (Persian poet) poetry were extremely symbolic and mystic. To such extent that I remember my Persian teachers refused to give us the interpretation of his works and told us that you should read them yourselves and contemplate on them since every man (human) will understand a different thing from them. Wheeler M. Thackston writes this about Hafiz in the book 'A Millenium of Classical Persian Poetry';

    "If Sa'di's (persian poet) Gulistan (one of his most important works) has been read by more people, and Mawlavi's (One of the greatest persian Poet) Masnavi (his work) has been called the Koran in Persian, no book has been so reverenced, no poet so celebrated, and no verse so cherished as Hafiz's ghazals (a form of poetry). Auguries from his divan (his work) have decided the fates of individuals and empires, rebels and heretics as well as the pious have died with lines by Hafiz on their lips, and religious and philosophic arguments have been won by apt quotation of a hemestich." As you can see symbolic practices and rhetoric can be extremely powerful and religion are based on such things because what they seek in reminding individuals at all times. Ypu should read the lecture by Dr Ali Shariati called "Man and Islam" or "Islam and Man", well i don't remember.

    Now the acceptance of a master. One time prophet (pbuh) asked to the the people "don't I have more right on you than you have on yourselves?" and the people said "Yes, Oh Messenger of Allah (pbuh) . "When I thought about it, I came to the conclusion that this is absolutely true. My prophet (pbuh) is my master. He has more right on my life than I have on my own. This is best understood with an example. A mother has more right on her 3 year old baby then that baby has on itself. Why? simply because that the mother has lived a longer time and have a lot of experiences (knowledge) about life. The mother also wants the best for their children. Now my prophet (pbuh) also fulfill these criteria. He is by far more knowledgeable (he has prophetic knowledge) than me and he wants the best for me. One might argue by saying we might out grow our parent s when we get old and therefore our parents no longer have right over us. But such a case does not include Prophets since they received knowledge that was beyond our perception in the past and still is to some extent.

    I get it that you might be a Christian. Now lets get to the doctrine of original sin. I hate it and it is stupid and irrational and [Edited Out]. There are countless argument against this doctrine. Our story of adam and Eve are similar to Christianity. In Islam every human is responsible for his own actions and his own only. I do not pay for something my mother did. As I said before you should read the lecture called "Man and Islam" by Dr Ali Shariati.

  5. Some truth maybe but also untruth. He believes some of the shia beliefs were created in the safavid era while historical facts show otherwise.

    Believe me brother i dont copy-paste my beliefs i do research.

    As you said before his works are full of citations from sunnis and non muslims which are easily disputed and dismissed. So i dont agree with you. And i am not saying this because i am a shia!!!

    So can you tell me the book you have read that he refuses some doctrines. I would like to read them myself and check their references. Thanks Brother.

    Can u prove this story plz?

    I do not remember Now. But I will try to find it and sent it to you.

    Shariati's daughter was just an example of non religious people following his thoughts.

    By the way i know a lot of women who cover themselves and are much better than that lady you mentioned in your story who dosn't pray and hangs around with pants. So whats your point? I said i don't judge people by their covering.

    My point from the story was that being religious and clean mindedness is not about whether someone wears a veil or not. She was doing something, since God exalted her and made people say only good thing and good things only behind her. I have never seen such a athing in my life. There are thing which are far more inportant than wearing a veil.

    I do not like to call people irreligious because they do not were veil. Who am I to call some one irreligious. Light of Islam comes from the heart brother.

  6. So how did they manage to bring so many to the battle field if they were so weak and uninterested .

    Well, do you know the story of Hannibal and Rome. Hannibal was a carthginian general and he defeated the Roman 4 or 5 time and every time Romans had more then 70,000 troops. This battles took place in Italy itself so you can see how close enemies were to Rome. Romans lost a lot of their allies and some became neutral. Every historian say that Rome was never weaker in all its history than that point. But the point is Even when Rome lost most of its allies and its enemies have even got into Italy it was still able to gather a large number of troops. So it is very possible to gather large armies. Sassanid King was using the main army (Arab defeated them in the first battle) to crush rebellions.

    Persia was also an extremely rich country. Its trade with china has made it very rich. So if you have money than you can assemble armies more armies.

    When they heard that Arab army is in their territory, Sassanid sent their main army to crush Arabs.

  7. This is really a childish argument.

    Are you suggesting we should speak "good" of Umar and Abu Bakr, the murderers of Lady Fatema (SA) for 'unity', especially 'good' which doesn't exists and overlook important facts? If yes, why speak of it in the first place? Might as well, keep quiet rather than speaking good of these men for "unity".

    Brother I was talking about the time when prophet (pbuh) was alive. Not after that. If you want to have a never ending argument then be my guest. It is a waste of time.

  8. but Umar was also doing things during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) (if you're unfamiliar, perhaps search about the 'tragedy of thursday'. It wasn't the only thing, but it's one of the worst.)

    This only complicate the whole issue. We might have done things like him if we lived in the time of prophet. Umar was not Infallible. So saying he said third and done that in the time of prophet is childish and not a good intellectual argument. Prophet (pbuh) sometimes said good thing about Umar and Abu Bakr. So arguments like this are like a never ending Tog-o-War. You say Umar did this and Sunnies say well prophet said this about him. It will never end and will only fuel hated and difference.

  9. There would be raids if the persian were attacking muslims which they were at that time.

    Yeah, common sense says that. But there is no record of that. Today I read a book on Sassanids in its end and before the invasion of Arabs. There were few rebelions all around Persia and Religious reformers rebelling from few places. And there was a threat from Byzantine and Sassainds dependent on trades. So the whole sassanids were in a turmoil which later on help the Muslim arabs in conquering Persia relatively easy. So What I am saying is that what all these problems, there is no way Persian waste their time attacking Arabs. Arabia is a big place an Invading it takes a large commitment. This is only for taking mecca and medina. This make sence also. Well you can say there was raids in the time of prophet (pbuh) and it shows that Sassanids were attacking Arabs, but Sassanid empire was in no place with all its own problems think about Attacking arabs. Empire was greatly weakend and under greater threats then Arabs.

  10. I'm an iranian and i can surely assure you he has a lot of friends and also enemies here. He has a book called "shi'ism of safavid shi'ism of Alavi". And its full of none sense. He tries to prove that the shia belief with have today was created by the safavid empire in iran some 300 years ago. His other books also have some correct things in them and some nonsesense too.

    Um sorry to tell you this, But there is some truth to this. I am not saying so much as created. But some doctrins were actually made up in time of safavids. Specially shah Ishmail I was a fanatic. This is history man. If you want to know about the history of shiism you should read books from shia sources then you read from sunni sources and the you read from non-muslim sources. After all these you would have a better and more complete view of history. You should read both sides and weight them yourself using intellectuality not by belief.

    I also know enough about him to say that he did not accepted something or belief without good historical and intellectual reason. If you

    Did you know?

    That the Christian knights whom fought muslims and called them infidels and satanic. they use to hang in their home a portrait of Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) as a symbol o chivalry, justice and righteousness. They denied the prophethood of Mohammad (pbuh) but had a great respect for Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) in all aspects. You never find this is Islamic (shia or sunni) historical works, but find it in Christian works.

    In all he's belief about shi'ism were not correct and most of his followers in iran today are people who are not very religious. He's daughter who follows his beliefs dosn't have much respect for the veil and dosn't wear a chador. She only puts on a scarf and leaves out parts of her hair.

    Young people not praying and are distancing themselves from religion is not Shariaties fault. No they have lost faith in the government that promised them freedom of speech. The government whom uses religion and persecutes intelectuals elite of the country. Najaf Ulema are distancing themselves from Qum not because of politics and US. They are distancing themselves because Qum is becoming more and more corrupted. If you dont believe me watch this.

    Tell me brother do you judge women by the covering. So an unintellectual woman whom cover herself every where like afghan women is considered higher then a women whom is intelectual and seeks to make herself better but does not cover her hair. I tell you a story to show you God's might.

    I have personally do not know a women that I have not heard something bad about her through gossiping. I hate gossiping but this is amazing. There were women whom cover themselves every where and women whom did not cover themselves at all. I was no different there was bad gossips behind all of them without exception. But One. She was not completely religious. She wore pants and T-shirts and sometimes put make up on. She was a kind women and had a very kind heart. She talked politely as well. To add to all this she was beautiful. I never saw or heard she did the 5 prayers though. But I never heard not even a simple bad coments behind her. Not even ONE. Not only that every person male or female young or old always said good thing about her. Every person that knew her respected her and admired her. Even the perverted people I know did not say a bad thing behind her and always said good things. I remember my male friends always said I hope i have a wife like her. I only heard good about her. Every time I remember her, I always say that truely God is all powerful. It was like God shut the people mouth when it came to he and filled their minds with her good deeds. he exalted her more then women whom covered themselves every where.

    This is true and gets me every time I remember it. Truly amazing.

  11. Did you read part where raid were being lead with Prophets(pbuh) consent.

    Yeah but it did not have any reference to it. Why would the prophet (pbuh) set raid against the sassanids. The raids against the Quraish started after the Quraish first declared war on Prophet??

    This might answer on seem to answer one question but in fact it creates far more questions and shows inconsistencies in Prophet's (pbuh) actions.

  12. What a great story ! Except if this story was really true why did RasoolAllah (sawas) birth destroy this same fire that you praise so much.

    First I said before. Zeostarians do not worship fire nor see it as equal to god, it is a symbol of "mahsoomin". Second I am not prasing fire. I am an shia and a strong one. I am defending a religion that muslim to this day think (not know) that is polytheism. They are less polytheist than Christians for god sake. You should read Avesta. Thridly fires of the a temple in Fars was extinguished but this was not because they were polytheist or evil. This had to do with Magians whom were extremist to some extent form of zeostarians and where distoriting the teaching of Zeoster (as) and Avesta (Zeostarian holly book) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magian#Arabic_Language). Magians were getting power in sassanian empire and where misusing their power. Zeostarians today are not Magian at all. Just like some muslims. Brother open you eyes and go look for yourself. History is written by the victors and there are a lot biases in muslim view of zeostarians.

    Read the Quran as it speak against Persians.

    [Pickthal 30:1] Alif. Lam. Mim.

    [Pickthal 30:2] The Romans have been defeated

    [Pickthal 30:3] In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat will be victorious

    [Pickthal 30:4] Within ten years - Allah's is the command in the former case and in the latter - and in that day believers will rejoice

    [Pickthal 30:5] In Allah's help to victory. He helpeth to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Merciful.

    [Pickthal 30:6] It is a promise of Allah. Allah faileth not His promise, but most of mankind krpnow not.

    [Pickthal 30:7] They know only some appearance of the life of the world, and are heedless of the Hereafter.

    [Pooya/Ali Commentary 30:3]

    This verse was sent to console the grieved Muslims bringing the prophesy that soon the Romans will defeat the Persians. Inter alia, this also meant that the pagans of Makka, who were so happy about the defeat of the Romans, would very soon be disillusioned both about the fate of the Persian fire-worshippers and their own fate against the Muslims.

    Lets examine this verses. I have read their Tafsir before and it does not support what you say at all. First Muslims were worried about the defeat of Byzantinians (not Romans). That was because they considered Christians close to themselves more tan any other religion. And the Byzantine was a religious country and thought if they (Byzantine) would aid muslims just like the king of Kingdom of Axum. Meccans knew this and taunted the muslims about this a lot.

    Give a closer attention to the verses. It never call the persian disbelievers. And when it says "and in that day believers will rejoice" it does not mean the Christian Byzantine but it actually mean the Muslim Arabs. they are the ones whom will be happy. So God does not call the Byzantine and Persia believer or disbeliever. Omar also invaded Byzantine as well.

    And here is gift for people with Persian Pride.

    300poster2.jpg

    I love that movie 300. I watched it 3 times in one day. So much killing and such a good battle. I tell you what I think I am. This a poem by a one of the Greatest of Persian Poets, philosopher, Sufi, Theologian, Alim. When he died christians, muslims (of all sort), Jews and even the pagans followed his dead body around the town and cried and weep for him. In the Whole history of Islam there has only been small number of people like him. Here is the verse,

    "where did I came from? Why was I created?

    Where am I heading to? You (Allah) have not shown me my NATION!"

    He is talking to God in this verse. He is acknowledging that he does not know any thing about the purpose of his (himself) creation. He also knows that he does not know where he is going. And at the end he says he does not have any nationality. Nationalities are inferior ideologies in his eyes. And If there is a God and he has created me as his deputy therefore I do not belong to thing earth and not in need of nationality. You should read his works. He is a genius.

  13. thought not states in the quran as people of the book i think it is dangerous to give them that title though you feel they deserve it.

    here is an interesting quote from wikipideia

    One ayah in the Qur'an can even be interpreted to encourage a neutral position toward non-Muslims. This ayah says, "Those who follow the Jewish and the Sabi'een, Christians, Magians and Polythesists — Allah will judge them On the Day of Judgement:" (22:17). The acceptance of Zoroastrians as dhimmis is partly because of this ayah, as the Magians were Zurvanist Zoroastrians, and this verse, specifically mentions them alongside other People of the Book, and lists them ahead of polytheists.

    so if you interperet it this way you can say they are better then polytheist but not equal to people of the book as the people of the book are usually mentioned together and the magians are not metnioned among the people of the book

    First prophet himself had never had a contact with any Zeostarians. I say this since there is absolutely no narration. Salman was also a christian. Now Quran does not talk about alot of prophets and divine books. Did you know that Islamic tradition specially shia there has been 124,000 prophets. in general there were more than 120,000 prophets. I have also heard about 600 divine books Quran included. Quran did not talk about a lot of prophets.

    Now lets see who are these so called Magians. Magians were a sect of Zeostarians. and they also distorted some section of it. They are not pure zeostraians. since the faction is no longer seen in the world. After 10th century they were all wiped out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magian#Arabic_Language). they were like wahabis and extremist of now. So do not associate them with zeostarians what so ever.

    But still my question was not answered. Under what Islamic Law Omar attacked persian and made them into second class citizens. What did he himself declare.

  14. As-Salam Alaykum

    Does this not show Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) were close companions and lovers of the Ahl al-Bayt? Abu Bakr in a tradition in Bukhari said to Ali (ra) he loves the Prophet's household more than his own family.

    Brother, Shiah do not have problem with Omar when the prophet was alive (pbuh) . We have problem with him after the prophet (pbuh) died. And the events that took place. It does not matter whether he was close to prophet (pbuh) or not. It is what he did after the death of prophet (pbuh) that matters to shia more? when he no longer had a prophet beside him to tell him what is right or wrong.

    So shia brothers. Do not argue with such things. I am a strong shia and I know that Umar and Abu Bakr did serve the prophet well. the main Difference between shia and sunnis is laid after the death of the prophet.

  15. Thanx heaps Ya Aba, Spizo, mshoari and Abuzar.

    i always thought the Abbasids accepted the wilaayat but i was mistaken.

    ur responses makes sense.

    maybe i should rewatch Imam Ridha's movie with english translation as my farsi and urdu aint too great.

    so can someone point me n preacher to the right direction??

    La'natullah 'alal qawmi dhaalameen.

    Well you can search video google.

    video.google.com

  16. sorry but untrue zoraoastrianism are not considerd people of the book. just because they have similar teachings.

    are sikhs too considerd people of the book?

    also they are perscuted under the shii regime in iran which should tell u somethin

    First get you historical fact check.

    Sikhism is not a divine religion from Allah since its prophet came 500 YEARS AGO. that makes it 900 years after prophet Mohammad (pbuh) .

    Zeoster came before even Abraham (salam) . That makes him around 3000 to 4000 thousand years ago.

    Dont throw word like "persecution" around so easily. Every religious minority has a problem in Iran. Sunnis have problem like any one else.

  17. sassanians were broadly speaking monotheistic but they had become corrupt and arrogant ...just like Romans

    Please bring me Quranic verse that say invading is allowed if most of the runners of State are corrupt and arrogant??? I have not seen any. Brother there are two thing which are considered worst in from of God.

    first is war but the second and even worst is oppression. and these two are the only reason you can go to war after you have tried to make peace. If you have evidence against this please write. Not only that by this law bahaiis can invade us since our governments and religious institutions are corrupt and arrogant.

    umar granted them status of people of book later and iranians by and large were pacified by these measures ...

    Pure fiction. I have found absolutely no historical reference to this.

    why did Ammar and salman farsi command forces in these battles [to name a few]?

    I know that Salman saved the persian capital from distruction. He arranged the surrounder of the city. But he did not actually got involoved in any battle. I do not about ammar but I will find out and write to you.

    and the devious amongst them revolted even during the caliphate of Imam Ali

    I heard this story from some persian fanatic nationalist website that was trying to bring down the status of Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) . I search it and found that it has a very weak link and nearly all historians (muslim or non-muslims) has despute and rejected the whole idea.

  18. The letter you pasted just reminds of and time people call someone to God they claim this was what out forefathers did. Quran clearly mentions it over and over . He also managed to throw some nice enthic slurs in. The point is Persian , The Byzantines, Islamic Empire were revival as empire grows there tends to be war and hostiliies no there was no islamic reason for war but there really has been no religious reason for most wars but the war against Persia was a justified war.

    (salam)

    My problem is If Omar attacked without a religious backing therefore he has go on against it. If you do not obey Quran then you disobey it. Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet has a clear rules of engagement and when there can be war. Since God considers war very bad. So in order for Omar to included in Rashidun Caliph (rightly guided caliph) he has to abide by quran at all time especially on the matters of war. What is interesting is that he did not try to make peace first. He was also ignorant of Persian and their religion all together.

    But still I would like to know what have the historians said about this???

  19. Imam Ali never objected to the conquest of Persia and the Persian princess was kept as a slave by him for some time which proves he didnt disagree with it.

    One point everyone here seems to ignore is that the Persians and Muslims were at war before the conquest, and even before Islam the Persians were trying to conquer Arabia.

    Some people here are saying that the conquest should have been "defensive". That doesnt make sense, how can you CONQUER DEFENSIVELY? If you mean the Persians should have attacked first, well then that is exactly what happened!

    Please brother i remind you that persian princess became wifes of the Hassan (as) and Hussein (as) . So they never slaves belonging to Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) . This happen as Omar brought the Persian princess into madina and was about to give them as war booty and salve to Arabs. Ali (as) interfered and stop such action. Ali (as) actually saved princesses from a life of slavery.

    I have already took into account what you say. But there is no historical evidence to support that. Persian were paying and influencing few tribes in the north of arabia which they used to guard their passage to mecca trading root. Persian were busy fighting the Byzantine and were not thinking conquering Arabia. There is also no evidence that whether Omar tried to make peace with the persians what so ever before the invasion. So in conclusion, I have already taken into account what you said but there is no evidence for it historically.

×
×
  • Create New...