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

Posts posted by mshoari

  1. I don't think you should confuse the people with such rhetoric questions. As it is there is so much fitnah against us these days.

    Brother I have wrote this forume to test people on their intelectuality. Understanding hadith and Quranic verses are all about rhetoric and what word mean. This hadith is a prime example. If it didnot have the word "edifice" then it would make it blasphemy and a wrong narration. But with the word it is completely the opposite.

    This is a challenge for Shia or Sunni youth to test their understanding of their own religion. There is a clear difference between knowing and understanding. I took a few minutes to figure this narration out. But in the realm of Islamic sciences this is considered a easy problem. If you are not able to solve it then you should try more and challenge your understanding of Islam.

    I have read countless arguments against the shia and have not found any thing which cannot be explained. So the challenge is to make ourselves better and not worry about what other people say.

  2. mshoari, bro/sis do u hav a link for that book.

    and does it explain it coz u seem to say it still leaves it a mystery.


    I am sorry brother. I have not found it online. But I have read it from my university. You should check your library. All I can say it is worth searchig for it all around the city. It is very informative book.

    The writer talks about some possibilities but at the end says that it is actually a mistrey which one was the prime factor.

    And I am A man.

    Mohammadreza Shoari

  3. I've only read "Fatima is Fatima" and there were constant references to non-Muslims' views but hardly any Shia ulema's views. I do agree with him to some extent about appreciating your own religion through external views, but we shouldn't be ignoring our own scholars' views as well IMHO

    The Man is a genius. You should read his book on sociology and the one on Abu Dhar and Salman. Absolutely stunning. But I have his point of view. I became a better muslim and a shia when I started to learn about my prophet through non_Muslims.

  4. (salam)

    Bro, this is not possible, because a God who negates His Divine attributes is no longer God. God cannot be something which is not God. It's like asking, can God create a square-circle? A square-circle is inherently impossible, it cannot take place, because a square and a circle contradict one another. A "square-circle" is just like a "God incarnated in a body"; they are both empty, literary non-statements. Nothing but words void of logic.


    I thought of what you just say before writing that. I did a paper on illogical actions that people want god to do. But that would only make the argument i was refuting more complex and lets face it i have no time to write a book online. What you say is completely true but only complicate the whole argument unnecessarily. That is why I used the word "maybe".

    Good on you man,

    You are sharp.

  5. The Persian rejected call to islam and treated the person who brought letter from prophet(pbuh) roughly.

    So did the quraish and most of the Arabs but God didnot say to invade them and make them into slaves. Brother what you saying does not make sence.

    The persian empire also was a threat to islam and was constantly harassing muslim.

    Just because some one is a threat you do not invade them and make them into second class citizens (mawali). And about the harassing that you claimed I have found no evidence through history. The following is the letter Omar sent to the persian king Yazdgerd III; (http://www.kavehroom.com/Yazdgerd_en.html).

    "Bism-ellah Ar'rahman Ar'rhim

    To the Shah of the Fars (prophet himself used respect in his letter and called the king "the geat king of persia")

    I do not foresee a good future for you and your nation save your acceptance of my terms and your submission to me. There was a time when your country ruled half the world, but see how now your sun has set. On all fronts your armies have been defeated and your nation is condemned to extinction. I point out to you the path whereby you might escape this fate. Namely, that you begin worshipping the one god, the unique deity, the only god who created all that is. I bring you his message. Order your nation to cease the false worship of fire and to join us, that they may join the truth.

    Worship Allah the creator of the world.

    Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation.

    End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior.

    This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians.

    You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians.

    Submission is your only option

    Allah u Akbar

    The Calif of Muslims Omar Ibn-Khat'tab"

    And the following is the answer that the persian king wrote; My sunni brothers might be a bit angry about the answer and might be offended. So I like to remind them that i do not included these letters as the source of insult but these letters showed how little Omar new about Persian and absolutely nothing about Zeostarianism which is the oldest monotheistic religion. Persians worship one God whn aristotle and plato and greeks and Roman were pagan. I am not trying to insult the Caliph, but I am looking for a mistrey about this whole incident. Yazdgerd himself was a weak and corrupt king but that does not justify an invasion.

    "In the name of Ahuramazda the Creator of Life and Wisdom

    From the Shahan-Shah of Iran Yazdgerd to Omar Ibn Khat'tab the Arab Calif. In your letter you summon us Iranians to your god whom you call "Allah-u-Akbar"; and because of your barbarity and ignorance, without knowing who we are and Whom we worship, you demand that we seek out your god and become worshippers of "Allah-u-Akbar".

    How strange that you occupy the seat of the Arab Calif but are as ignorant as any desert roaming Arab! You admonish me to become monotheistic in faith. Ignorant man, for thousands of years we Aryaee have, in this land of culture and art, been monotheistic and five times a day have we offered prayers to God's Throne of Oneness. While we laid the foundations of philanthropy and righteousness and kindness in this world and held high the ensign of "Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds", you and your ancestors were desert wanderers who ate snakes and lizards and buried your innocent daughters alive.

    You Arabs who have no regard for God's creatures, who mercilessly put people to the sword, who mistreat your women and bury you daughters alive, who attack caravans and are highway robbers, who commit murder, who kidnap women and spouses; how dare you presume to teach us, who are above these evils, to worship God?

    You tell me to cease the worship of fire and to worship God instead! To us Iranians the light of Fire is reminiscent of the Light of God. The radiance and the sun-like warmth of fire exuberates our hearts, and the pleasant warmth of it brings our hearts and spirits closer together,

    that we may be philanthropic, kind and considerate, that gentleness and forgiveness may become our way of life, and that thereby the Light of God may keep shining in our hearts.

    Our God is the Great Ahuramazda. Strange is this that you too have now decided to give Him a name, and you call Him by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar".

    But we are nothing like you. We, in the name of Ahuramazda, practice compassion and love and goodness and righteousness and forgiveness, and care for the dispossessed and the unfortunate; But you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar" commit murder, create misery and subject others to suffering! Tell me truly who is to blame for your misdeeds? Your god who orders genocide, plunder and destruction, or you who do these things in his name? Or both?

    You, who have spent all your days in brutality and barbarity, have now come out of your desolate deserts resolved to teach, by the blade and by conquest, the worship of God to a people who have for thousands of years been civilized and have relied on culture and knowledge and art as mighty supports.

    What have you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar", taught these armies of Islam besides destruction and pillage and murder that you now presume to summon others to your god?

    Today, my people's fortunes have changed. Their armies, who were subjects of Ahuramazada, have now been defeated by the Arab armies of "Allah-u-Akbar". And they are being forced, at the point of the sword, to convert to the god by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar". And are forced to offer him prayers five times a day but now in Arabic; since your "Allah-u-Akbar" only understands Arabic.

    I advise you to return to your lizard infested deserts. Do not let loose upon our cities your cruel barbarous Arabs who are like rabid animals.

    Refrain from the murder of my people. Refrain from pillaging my people. Refrain from kidnapping our daughters in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar". Refrain from these crimes and evils.

    We Aryaee are a forgiving people, a kind and well-meaning people. Wherever we go, we sow the seeds of goodness, amity and righteousness. And this is why we have the capacity to overlook the crimes and the misdeeds of your Arabs.

    Stay in your desert with your "Allah-u-Akbar", and do not approach our cities; for horrid is your belief and brutish is your conduct.

    Yazdgerd Saasaani"

    Brothers these are historical documents and are very striking and harsh on both sides.

  6. (salam)


    Let me ask you. Did Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) ever shave his beard? Did the Ahlul Bayt (as) ever shave their beards? I don't think so. It's wajab as Muslims to follow the sunnah of the Prophet, and there are also hadiths that you can search regarding the beard.

    But depending in which scholar you follow, the shaving of one's beard is either haram or makrooh.

    What you say is true, now my questions are;

    1) did shaving cream made in the time of prophet?

    2) did they have a way to sterilize their blade?

    Let me tell you something brother. Most of the arabs at the time use to shave using their own sword. Do you know how many health problem does that creates.

  7. He was a great visionary man and he had lots of understanding of islamic thought and sociology. His works are legendary among the Iranian minds. He is still one of the most influencial thinker of Iran (29 after his death). But he was not very popular with the shia ulema of his time. He looked at Islam from a muslims eye but he also looked at islam through a non-muslim eyes.

    His works are full of citations and references to non-muslim schulors and hardly use the work of shia ulema. He thought that we have reach an limit of our understanding of Islam and the prophets (pbuh) and Imam (as). He thought in order to expand our understanding beyond our current one is to look at the work of the non-muslims whom have done work on Islamic topics. It is through them that we can understand and appreciate our own religion more.

    Do you agree or disagree with this???

  8. Poor fire worshipping persians who tore and spit at the letter inviting them to islam.

    zoroastrianism was the religion of iran for thousands of years and you say they would become Muslim?

    First of all zeostarians are now recognised as people of the book, since they have, (1) A prophet, (2) Obey on God (Ahura Mazda), (2) have a holy scripture, (4) they believe in the judgement day exactly the same way muslims believe in it. They do not worship fire nor see it as equal to God. the story of fire goes something like this. The ancient Pagan persian asked zeoster (prophet) (as) to show them a sign of his prophethood. Zeoster sign was that he walk through fire and was not burnt. Then he said to the people, if you are clean from sin you can also walk through fire. So it is an insult to zeostarians to say they worship fire. Would you like someone come to you and say you worship the Ka'aba.

    islam was growing empire and both romans and pershes would have atttacked the islamic empire.

    remember when the prophet sent a mission to tabuk?

    Brother Islam is a religion of truth its basis is on spirituality and not an empire. Expedition of Tabuk was lauched because of a rumor which came out to be false and it was from the Byzantinian side not Persia. There is no evidence that the persian empire was going to attack the Muslim Ummah. All persians care about was that muslims do not support the Byzantinians. As I said why attack before you have made any effort to make peace?

  9. SpIZo, are you saying Kafi is 100% authentic

    Brother we shia do not call any books that we can call completely Sahih (e.g, Bukhary). The only Sahih is Quran since it is the word of Allah. Any book which has been written by a man is not considered Sahih and saying it is Sahih is like making it equal to the Quran which is blasphemy in shia Islam.

  10. It is reported in Usule Kafi,

    Imam Jafar al-Sadigh said: "The edifice of Islam is raised on its five pillars, namely, the prayer, poor-due, the fasting, the pilgrimage (Hajj) and the wilaya (Imamah), and nothing else was declared on the day of Ghadir (to basis of Islam) except wilaya (Imamah).

    I found this narration in a book which was wriiten against the Shia doctrine, he said "Look how widely these (shia) people differ from the muslim in general. He said this since sunnis have some thing called the 5 pillars of Islam and it has all of the above, but does not have wilayah. In its place they have the shahada.

    so it is, 1) Shahada, 2) prayer, 3) poo-due, 4) fasting, 5) Hajj.

    He continues to say "But these shia do not count all the attestation to Unity (of Allah) and messengerhood (of muhammad (pbuh) ) among the fundamentals of Islam.

    Well first look at the hadith he is right and this hadith is false. But we should not be hastey in our dicision. I have already found the answer to this saying. I beleive that is not blasphemy at all but it is a great saying. I will give the answer tomorrow.

    Now I would like my Muslim brother to look at this as a puzzle that needs to be solve. So have a go at explaining or rejecting it. And please write what you think.

    P.S. I give a hint

    1) What is Usule Din?

    2) Edifice = (1) Building, (2) a complex organisation.

  11. And people dont call him "Imaam" Khomeini because they think he's infallibe right? I thought they call him that as a sign of respect, becauyse he is the representative of IMaam Mahdi?

    Maybe you do not know this but calling him an Imaam done by news papers. He had a lot of title and since he was very very respected. So the news papers were required to write all of his titles which in their point of view it was more words less space and money lost. One day some one by accident call him Imaam, and the editor like it so it remained that. This is a true stroy which is well known in Iran.

    Now for his tought of infalibility you should watch the documentary "Iran betrayed". Brother I will not accuse him of something I have doubt about. I have listen to both side of the story for a long time and come to an conclusion about such personalities.

    There is a great reform going on in Iran to change the political role od the Valiate Faghih, which was made by Ayatollah Khomeini himself. Iranian now have come to the conclusion that such thing is wrong and are trying to change this but the extremist have been persecuting such people. There are reformist between Great Ulema of Iran and they are all talking about a re-visit to the Constitution.

    Now social problem. Have you ever heard the expression "you cannot force people into paradise". Ayatollah Khomeini was actually trying to force people into paradise.

  12. salam alaikum,

    what confuses me is that although the Ummaya Dynasty (la) rejected the wilaayat of AhlulBayt (as), how is it that that today's muslims are predominantly sunni considering after the Ummaya Dynasty (la: who didn't accept the wilaayat of AhlulBayt) it was the Abbasid Dynasty (la) who did accept the wilaayat of AhlulBayt.

    have i missed something??

    Read "An Introduction of Shia Islam" by Moojan Momen

    Abbasid also rejected the wilaayat of Ahlulbayt (as) .I myself (after reading historical books) have come to the conclusion that there were three type of people in the time of Umayyad and Abbasids. they were shia, sunni and uninformed (didnot know whats happening). There is a very good evidence that shows there use to be more shias than sunnis butthe trasnformation is not clear how it happens. The about book talks about it and it has been done from an unbias source so it is good and reliable.

  13. [Day] Hello Mshorari. If nothing is impossible with God, then why couldn't he incarnate himself in a body? I think God would be limited if he couldn't do that. The Bible says that God is Spirit (John 4:24). So spiritually he could dwell in a human body.

    Maybe God can incarnate himself but why would he do it? This is a real question. He created the Universe and created Laws and rule for it which he is beyond such limits. Why would he limit himself to such petty Laws. Lets imagine this; You are sitting in emepty room. You can sit any where you like and it won't make any difference where you sit. Wouldn't be inlogical to say well "I limit myself to this corner." There would be no difference were you sit the result will always be the say. So limiting yourself is not logical in such a case is not logical.

    So Muslims relate to God through his attributes. These attributes include his 99 name which you can find online.

    Quran says there is nothing like God. So how can you know and understand and describe something which you cannot find its similarities in the physical world. Atoms and energy are also physical and he is not like them (made out of them). So how can you describe such being.

    As you know we know our God through what he has created. We cannot describe him through shape or property so what do we do. Now God has created attributes which some on them were given to prophets. It is through this attributes that we can understand god. Since attributes are the only similarities which we find between creator and created.

    Even thou, you have brought up a very good point and I hope this answers. If not please write why,

  14. Actually what you just said proves my point more.

    If it is written in a vague, ambiguous language, then whatever scientific truth in it will be the same. Vague and ambiguous.

    So other languages. Every tranlation of languages into another language would make it vague.

    But even other translation of the divine books still does not come close to sciencetific fact. But Quran does. Muslims are the only people whom are even capable of comparing all sections (not only some section and throw away other sections) of their scriptures with scince today. This is a big thing and contradict you argument.

  15. Qur'an should NEVER be explained by science. Science is faulty. Qur'an is not.

    Imam Jafar al-Sadigh said: "Science and philosophy are two different subjects. Science gives us definite and exact results even if they are small and insignificant. But philosophy serves no practical purpose and gives no useful results... However, it is beyond the scope of science to discover the ultimate truth; but it is within the domain of philosophy to do that."


    So lets not be extremist like wahabis and have a open mind so we can see the wonders and miracles of our religion.

  16. I don't think we actually know what happened. I believe many accounts could have been embellished a bit.

    Then what is the point of believing?

    There is many things we could believe in, unprovably.

    Easter bunny, tooth fairy, Santa Claus. All unprovable. What is the great benefit of believing?

    There is none. Sure, you could say it makes you feel better, as it would make me feel better to believe I have just won the lottery.

    However, when reality sinks in, you just have farther to fall.

    That's the way I see it.

    First every decent historians would agree on what happen in Kerbala and how it happens. So lets leave history upto historians since they know more how to verify narations and stories.

    Why dont we belienve in tooth fairy since If we put our tooth under the pillow, it will not get stollen. Such thing can be proven or disproven through theology and history to find out how such belief formed.

    Now lets talk about faith. In english language the phrase "to have faith" does not include having reason and logic for that. But the in arabic we use the word "Imaan". Some dictionaries translate this into "faith" but this is wrong. Imaan literaly means "to learn". To learn means to observe reasons and logics. So through these come Imaan in God. I have to say that Sunnies do not believe in this but their reasons is not adequate enough, at least for me. In the article I was defending faith in shia theology. Since through Quran, Hadith and narations there is a very strong case for logic to belef in God.

    You should not compare belief in god with belief of tooth fairy. Belief in God will give a man a completely different world view. I cannot go through this since it is a long Topic. If you want to learn about world view. you should read the works of Dr Ali Shariati.

  17. Salaam

    By the way I am in no way trying to defen Caliph Umar or his crimes against the Persians but think would they be muslim today if he never took over them. But what he did was wrong with the slaves and prisoners even after they converted to Islam.

    Brother you are wrong,

    Malaysians and Indonasians became muslims without living under Islamic government. They became muslim through traders and missionaries. Islam is Truth and truth sits on the heart of a good man. So ofcource there would be muslims today. There might have even more since there would be no evidence of force comversion and this is favourable with people.

  18. ^ Actually, Faith means to believe something without evidence.

    If you had evidence, you wouldn't believe something, you'd simply know something. You would have replaced "faith" with "reason".

    This is a problem young earth creationists have. The Bible is directly contradictory to current evidence. We can see the Bible is wrong.

    So to keep one's faith one has to throw science out the window, and vice versa.

    Islam may not have this problem to the same degree, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

    For one, the need for a creator has little scientific basis.

    The existence of Jinn have zero scientific basis.

    And it is hard to say what actually happened at the Battle of Karbala.

    And so on.

    Imam Jafar al-Sadigh (as) was the first man whom divided philosophy and science. Imam Said:

    "Science and philosophy are two different subjects. Science gives us definite and exact results even if they are small and insignificant. But philosophy serves no practical purpose and gives no useful results. However, it is beyond the scope of science to discover the ultimate truth; but it is within the domain of philosophy to do that."


    how can you understand an enfinit entity. Science will never find the answer since its result lies on measurements. Science is limited because it works with limited entities. But philosophy is capable of proving God since it is unlimited. You can ask a philosophy teacher and he will tell you the say. I study philosophy in Uni.

    I beileve there is absolutely no way to prove Gods existence through science. But you can use science to a small degree for arguments though. But science is not a defenitive answer. Well any physicist would tell you that there is a good evident to show that there is some kind of higher being or beings.

    Mate you should read the following



  19. zulfiqar;i wouldn't call it 'forced'. it was made state religion and thus people were thought shia islam. some of them possibly were forcefully converted but many remained sunni.

    mshoari-you're referring to conversion to islam from zorostranism not sunni->shia

    My brother, you misunderstood me

    First paragraph I talk about the conversion from Zeostarians to Islam. No unbais historian can say wether there were more shia or sunni in the time of umayad and biginning of abbasid dynasties. There are evidence pointing in both ways.

    After that paragraph I talk about the influence of Shia thought on Sunni Iran. What I am trying to say is that the Shia thought had always from the biginning had influence within persian thought.

    As there is evidence that say some persian towns were force into becoming muslims there is also evidence some sunni towns were forced to be shia. But large majority of persian became shia in 16 & 17 century AD. This shows that the conversion was a gradual process which was done by a great campaign (by campaign I mean peaceful sermons and propagating) by Shia ulema.

    Iranians becoming shia was even fortold by the prophet (pbuh) himself. Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) reported "I heard the prophet once say: Just as you strike the Iranians with your swords in the name of Islam, so will the Iranians one day strike you back the same way, for Islam." This is about the wars between Ottomens and Persians in 16th century and even later Iran-Iraq war. the following is the reference of the narations.

    Safinat-ol Bihar by Shaykh 'Abbas al-Qummi. Vol 2. p693. (From an eminent Shia source )

    Sharh Nahj-ul Balaghih Ebn Abi-alhadid Vol 19, p124. ( From eminent Sunni source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Abu_al-Hadid)


  20. 1. Attack is the best form of defence

    even now a days

    2. dont confuse prisoners with slaves

    Wrong assumptions slavery started to end during the times of Umar (ra)

    Attack is the best form of defence, when:

    1) There is a imidiate threat from the opposite site,

    2) All other option of peace are closed.

    The translations say that they were slaves. But the second problem is under what islamic law can you make non-combatants (normal citizens and women) into prisoners. The third problem under what islamic law can you make prisoners into slaves. Prophet himself did not do this. If you doubt me read what happen to the prisoners of "Badr".

    Brothers I have already taken into account such reasons, and non of them work at all. Now what I need is what the historians say about Omars reasons. This is a historical problem.

  21. Dear brother i am shia and would like to answer ur question

    Umer Ibn Alkhatab knew that he is not right full khaliph and order to make public loyel to his government he needed money as money is the most powerfull attraction for people so he attacked other nations for getting their wealth. He used that wealth to buy loylties of people. He was ignorent of very commen islamic laws and he thought what ever he is doing is the real islam so he did lots of stupid things in his time. He was a great politician and always knew how to deal with people weather that method is islamic or unislamic.

    You make a bold statement and a claim.

    Whether this was his real intention or not my question was what reason he used for attacking. What was the reasons he publicly announced for such actions? I am looking for this.

  22. The following is an article I did for my Philosophy class.

    Faith and Science

    There are fools around the world whom think they can prove god’s existence with science. I got two words for them, “Dream On”. God is a being that lives outside of our space and time all together. And since we do not know how he influence our time and space, we cannot observe him through science. So proving god in science is almost close to impossible. This view is influence by science and religion of Islam. Interestingly Islam does not talk about the physical characteristics of god at all. It takes the view that if every human on earth imagine god, they will not be even close to what god is.

    So what is the relationship between faith and science? Well faith and science are not related to one another at all. I was being careful to not use the word “opposite”. There reason is opposite means you have a choice between the two, so you cannot have both at the same time.

    There are scientists who do believe that science is opposite to faith, and they cannot coexist. One such scientist is Richard Dawkins, who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and is an outspoken scientist in the field of evolution. Even though I do respect this man very much for his contribution to the world of science, I do not agree with his extreme view of faith and science. OK!!! Let’s examine what faith is.

    Wikipedia describe faith as “a belief, trust, or confidence, not based merely on logic, reason, or empirical data, but based fundamentally on volition often associated with a transpersonal relationship with God, a higher power, a person, elements of nature, and/or a perception of the human race as a whole.” I would use the Islamic understanding of faith since it is what I am more familiar with. Osul e Din (pillars of religion) is what Shia Muslims have to have personal faith in, without copying others (you cannot copy faith so it has to be personal). There are five doctrines;

    1. Tawhid (Oneness): The Oneness of God,

    2. Justice of god,

    3. Prophet hood,

    4. Leadership,

    5. The day of judgement.

    Every Shia Muslim needs to have faith in these 5 doctrines. Otherwise he/she is not a Shia Muslim. What makes this faith interesting is the justification for the faith. This faith need to have a strong justification based on logic and reason but not so much on empirical data. The stronger the justification is, the greater the faith is. In fact a faith without reason is considered blind faith and a sin. I do not blame Wikipedia for this description of faith (they also have a section about faith in Islam which is influenced by Sunni Islam). Wikipedia’s explanation is influenced by western world and religious views. But it overlooks some other explanations of faith (e.g. Shia view).

    Since a lot of religions including some Muslims embrace faith without reason and logic, we cannot change the description of faith. So we need to find a phrase which is compatible with the faith explained is Shia Islam. Interestingly, I saw my answer in one of Plato’s works. The phrase I am referring to is knowledge. Simply Plato believed that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed. Well it is not the best description since it lacks one criterion. Shia faith fulfills two criteria (believed and justified) but it lacks one criterion (true). Description of knowledge does fit Shia doctrine of faith, since it fulfills the two criteria and you can argue about the third criterion by saying “since the belief is justified by reason and logic, it must be true”.

    If science and empirical data do not support the existence of God, does that mean there is no God and faith is baseless? Not necessary! Science is not the only reason and logic there is which can be accepted by everyone, for example philosophy is not considered as a science but it is still uses logic and reason which might not necessary be based on science. What make this interesting is that science is also considered to be knowledge since it does fulfil the three criteria. Therefore we have faith and science both considered to be knowledge and they do not necessary have anything to do with one another. So we can see that science has no relationship with faith. Therefore they can co-exist together.

  23. On YouTube there are a lot of videos to do with people possessed by "Jinn"

    Why is it that only Muslims seem to be possessed by Jinn?

    If I am an atheist, am I possessed by Jinn? Why do I not feel sick if I read scripture?

    I am not big with being possess by Jinns. I know few thing though.

    1) Jinns do not possess the same way as with Christian evil possession. (they freak me out big time)

    2) Jinns only hurt humans when the human hurt them first. Other then that they do nothing.

    3) By saying the phrase "In the name of God" in arabic Jinns leave.

    4) We dont really know what are Jinns in the first place. Quran talks about them but give no description of what exactly they are.

  24. Why there is so much death? If you are materialistic man then death is a bad thing. But this is not true if you have a religious view specially Shiism. I give you tranlation of one of the greatest sufi and Muslim alim in the history of Islam. His name is Rumi.

    It is on my mind every morning and say it every night,

    Why am I not aware of my own self.

    Where did I came from? Why did I come?

    Where am I going? In the end, you have not shown me my nation (he says this line to God as a Dua)?

    I am really confused. Why did he created me?

    Or what was he trying to achieve by creating me?

    My life belong to this world and I am sure of this. (He recognizes life as a physical entity which belong to a physical world, So it is limited at all times)

    I will pack my luggage from the same place that I had left it. (we are born naked and we will be buried naked and we leave every material thing behind)

    I am a bird in the garden of God (his soul). I am half from soil (His body).

    He has build a cage (his body) for two or three days. (He sees the whole human life as two or three days).

    Merry is that day that I fly to my friend. (he mean when he dies)

    I will fly around them.

    This is only half of the poet which says that even though he does not know every thing he knows that his death is not sad but it is a merry event. since he end the test and sees his result. so he no longer has to wait. My brothers death is a sad day but it is a merry day.

  25. (salam)

    I have two questions that has bothered me for a while :dry: . These question may be touchy but they have been bothering me for a while and I like some answer. Also write wether you are shia or sunni.

    1) I am just wondering why did Umar ibn al-Khattāb attacked Persia and what Islamic law allows aggression?

    2) Under what Islamic Law, did Umar ibn al-Khattāb made newly conquered Persian into slaives? I say this since the wife of Hussein ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib was the daughter of the Persian King which Umar arrested and claimed she was a booty of war. The person that killed Umar ibn al-Khattāb was also a persian slave. Since when you attack and conquere nations and make them into slaves?

    Please answer


  • Create New...