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

Haq hai ali

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Haq hai ali

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member
  • Birthday 09/19/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • Yahoo
    danishsyed19

Profile Information

  • Location
    Austin, TX, USA (moved from Lahore, Pakistan)

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male
  1. salam! hapi bat day. Wish u d best in life.

  2. salam, happy birthday to you

  3. (salam) I do not want to start a theological or legislative discussion over the differences in Sunnis and Shias. My question relates only to inter-madhab (Sunni-Shia) marriage's effect on children. I am assuming that it is legally permissible for a shia to marry a sunni and vice versa. I have not heard any scholar say it is not permissible, except some salafi scholars. I dont want this discussion to take the form of legal permissibility of such a marriage. I am only interested in the consequences of it, either good or bad. My question is more of a sociological one, relating only to children. In an inter-madhab marriage there are many issues one could talk about: - compatibility among the couple - the interaction of the couples' families (one being sunni and the other shia) - disputes over other legislative differences among them etc etc.... But i want to only focus on the aspect of child rearing. Some people almost imediately assume that if the parents are of different 'sects' then the children would be raised very confused. Any thoughts? JazakAllah Khayr, Wasalam
  4. Salam'alykum Here is some really good articles on this issue by Allama Tabatabi: http://www.almizan.org/Discourses/PD4.asp Also take a look at this article..its really good: On Compulsion and Delegation I It is correct to say, on the basis of the divine decree and measure, that nothing happens in this world unless it turns an essential being; it is because every thing and every affair comes into being when it is decreed by Allāh, according to the measure prescribed by Him; and then it cannot fail to happen, otherwise the decree of Allāh would fail. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that a transient or possible thing becomes essential because of its sufficient cause. When looked at in conjunction with its sufficient cause, it would be called "essential"; but separated from that cause, it would remain as it was before - a transient or possible thing. When we look at it in relation to all things that are necessary to bring it into being - knowledge, will, proper tools and organs, the material, formal, efficient and final causes, and all the conditions of time and space - only then it will become an essential being; and it is in this context that it become subject of the eternal divine will. In other words, it becomes an essential being when all aspects of its sufficient cause are com¬plete. The divine will takes things into it Own Hand only when all aspects of its sufficient cause are complete, and not before that. The divine will decrees that a certain action be done by Zayd - not unconditionally, but on the condition that it is done by Zayd's free will, at a certain time and a certain place. Therefore, its relation to the divine will itself demands that it should be an action of a free agent, done by his own free will and choice. Doubtlessly, that action will be called an "essential" one if seen in relation to the divine will; but at the same time and by virtue of the same divine will, it will be a possible and transient action when related to the doer, that is, the man. In other words, there are two wills - the human and the divine; they do not run parallel to each other; the divine will comes after and above the human will - they are in a vertical, and not a horizontal position to each other. Therefore, there is no competition or collision between the two wills. It was a short-sightedness on part of the believers in compulsion to negate the human will in order to establish the divine one. The Mu‘tazilites said that human actions are done by man's free will. But they went to the other extreme. As the Imām has said: "The poor al-Qadariyyah, they wanted to emphasize the justice of Allāh, so they removed Him from His power and authority. . . " A master, showing kindness to one of his slaves, married him to a slave-girl of his; he bestowed on him a property, gave him a well-furnished house and provided him with all the necess¬ities of life. Then there came some people there, looked at his property, and began arguing among themselves. Someone said: "Even though the master has given this property to his slave and has made him its owner, the slave has no right in, or authority over, this property at all. Does any slave own any thing? The slave together with all his belongings belongs to the master." Another said: "No. You are wrong. The master has bestowed on this slave the right of property. Now the slave is its absolute owner, and the master has lost all his rights, and authority over this property. We may say that he has abdicated in favor of his slave. " The former was the opinion of al-Mujabbirah; the later that of the Mu‘tazilites. But both were wrong. The correct view would have been to say: The master has got his status of mastership; the slave his position of servitude and bondage. The master has made the slave owner of his (i.e., master's) property. The property belongs to the master at the same time that it belongs to the slave. There are two ownerships - one over the other. This is what the Imāms of Ahlu ’l-bayt (a. s.) have taught us to believe, and what the reason supports. There are two aspects of a deed - its actual existence, and its relation to its doer. It is only when an action is seen in relation to its doer that it is called obedience or disobedience, good or bad, virtue or sin. So far as actual existence is concerned, there is no difference between marriage and fornication. What distinguishes one from the other is the command of Allāh - marriage conforms with the divine law, and fornication goes against that law. Someone is killed without any reason; another is killed by a lawful authority in reprisal of a murder. A teacher punishes an orphan in order to guide him aright; an oppressor hits at the same orphan unjustly. In all these examples, the actual movements of the actions are identical. But one group is called sin because it does not conform with the divine law or goes against the common weal of the society. Allāh says: Allāh is the Creator of everything. . . (39:62). Every action is a "thing" inasmuch as it exists. And the Imām has said: "Whatsoever may be called a thing is created, except Allāh. . ." Also, Allāh says: Who made good everything that He has created. . . (32:7). It may be inferred that everything is good because it is created. Creation and goodness are insepar¬able factors. But at the same time, we see that Allāh has named some actions as evil. For example, He says: Whoever brings a good deed, he shall have ten like it, and whoever brings an evil deed, he shall not be recompensed but only with the like of it . . . (6 :160). These are obviously the actions done by man; not the factor of recompense which cannot apply to divine actions. Such a deed is called sin. It is evil because it lacks some thing; because it is a nullification of a spiritual virtue or social good. In other words, a sin is sin because it is a negation , a non-being; otherwise it would have been good. No misfortune befalls on the earth nor in your own souls, but it is in a book before We bring it into existence. . . (57:22); No affliction comes about but by Allāh’s permission; and whoever believes in Allāh, He guides aright his heart . . . (64 :11); And whatever affliction befalls you, it is on account of what your hands have wrought, and (yet) He pardons most (of your faults) (42:30); Whatever benefit comes to you, it is from Allāh, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from yourself (4:79); . . . and if a benefit comes to them, they say: "This is from Allāh;”- and if a misfortune befalls them they say: "This is from you." Say: “All is from Allāh;" but what is the matter with these people that well-nigh they do not understand what is told (them)? (4:78). On pondering upon these verses, it be¬comes clear that these misfortunes are relative evils. A man is bestowed with the bounties of Allāh, like security and peace; health and wealth, and so on; then he loses one or more of these bounties. This misfortune, in relation to that man, is evil because it has nullified some existing things, that is, the bounties which he had previously enjoyed. Thus, every misfortune is created by Allāh, and at that stage it is not an evil. But it is an evil when seen in relation to the man who loses an existing bounty because of it. Likewise, every sin is a negative factor, and as such, it is not to be attributed to Allāh at all; though it may be attributed to Him from another angle, inasmuch as it happens by permission of Allāh. It is reported that al-Hajjāj ibn Yūsuf wrote to al-Hasan al-Basrī, ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd, Wāsil ibn ‘Atā’ and ‘Amir ash-Sha‘bī, asking them to describe what they had got (and what has reached them) in respect of (divine) decree and measure. al-Hasan al-Basrī wrote to him: "The best thing that has reached me is that which I heard the Leader of the faithful, ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib (a.s.) saying: ‘Do you think that He Who has forbidden you has (also) acted cunningly against you? Rather, your lower and higher (parts) have cunningly deceived you, and Allāh is free from its liability.'" And ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd wrote to him: "The best thing I have heard about the decree and measure is the saying of the Leader of the faithful, ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib (a.s.): ‘If perfidy were in reality decreed, the perfidious man, if punished, would have been op¬pressed.' " And Wāsil ibn ‘Atā’ wrote to him: "The best I have heard about the decree and measure is the saying of the Leader of the faithful, ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib (a.s.) : ‘Do you think that He would guide you to the path and (then) obstruct you (from moving on)?' " And ash-Sha‘bī wrote to him: "The best thing I have heard concerning the decree and measure is the word of the Leader of the faithful, ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib (a. s.) : ‘Whatever you have to seek Allāh's pardon for it, it is from you; and what¬ever you thank Allāh for it, it is from Him.' " When their letters reached al-Hajjāj and he studied them, he said: "Certainly they have taken it from a clear spring." (at-Tārā’if ) It is narrated in the same book that someone asked Ja‘far ibn Muhammad as-Sādiq (a. s.) about the decree and measure, and he replied: "Whatever you may blame the servant (of Allāh) for it, it is from him; and whatever you cannot blame the servant (of Allāh) for it, it is the work of Allāh. Allāh will say to the servant: ‘Why did you disobey? Why did you transgress? Why did you drink liquor? Why did you fornicate?' This is, therefore, the work of the servant. But He will not say to him: ‘Why were you sick? Why were you of short stature? Why did you become white? Why were you black?(He will not ask it) because it is the work of Allāh." Lastly, there are the traditions which explain the words, like causing to err, sealing the hearts and misleading, when they are attributed to Allāh: ar-Ridā (a.s.) said explaining the words of Allāh, and He (Allāh) left them in utter darkness - they do not see: "Allāh is not described as leaving something as His creatures do. But when He knew that they would not return from disbelief and error, He held back His help and grace from them and let them alone with their choice." (‘Uyunu ’1-akhbār) The same book narrates from the same Imām in explanation of the words of Allāh, Allāh has set a seal upon their hearts: "It is setting a seal on the hearts of the disbelievers as a punishment of their disbelief, as Allāh has said: . . . nay! Allāh has set a seal upon them owing to their disbelief, so they shall not believe except a few (4:155)." On Compulsion and Delegation II When the actions are seen in relation to their subjects, that is, the species, they are primarily divided into two categories: First: The actions emanating from the nature. For example: our health or illness. These things are known to us, present in our own bodies; but our knowing or not knowing them has no effect whatsoever on their coming into being; they totally depend upon their doer - that is, nature. Second: The actions issuing forth from the doer with his knowledge - like the intentional actions of the man and even of some animals. The doer does such an action after knowing and identifying it; and it is the knowledge and perception that gives him insight. The knowledge makes him realizes what would consti¬tute his perfection, and helps him in deciding whether a particular action would lead to that desired perfection. The knowledge distinguishes the means of perfection from other things; and this distinction helps the doer in choosing a particular course of action. And the action comes into being. The activities based upon ingrained aptitude (like natural disposition, or natural breathing, or those springing from overwhelming grief or fear etc...) do not require contemplation or meditation by the doer. Why? Because there is not more than one form of knowledge here, and he does it immediately. But in other cases, where the doer has before his eyes two or more possible forms of knowledge to choose from, he has to spend at least a few moments in contemplation and deliberation. The first type of activities is called involuntary, like natural reactions; the second type is called voluntary, or intentional, like walking or talking. The intentional actions are again divided into two categories: First: When the man decides to do - or, not to do - a certain work, he may do so entirely on his own, without being influenced by any other fellow. Second: When the man opts for a certain course of action under the influence of someone else. A tyrant may force a help¬less person to act according to that tyrant's instruction under duress. The poor fellow in this condition commits sins and crimes against his own will. This is called a deed done under compulsion. Right? But let us look at this second category more closely. But it is the doer himself who decides to proceed on that way. It is true that the major factor leading to this decision was the tyrant's compulsion; but it is equally true that the decision was taken by the doer himself, even though it was taken to save himself from the tyrant's oppression. In short, even the deeds done under compulsion are done by the will of the doer. It follows that the division of intentional actions into these two categories is not real. Objection: There is enough difference between the two actions to warrant their assignment to two different categories. In the second case, the doer doesnt deserves praise or blame, and get reward or punishment. Reply: It is true. But these factors are based on subjective approach of the society. They do not have any existence outside the imagination. By talking on these subjective approaches we have crossed the limits of philosophy. Philosophy deals with the things that exist in reality, as well as with those things' natural characteristics. What all this leads to is the conclusion that the discussion whether man is free in his actions is beyond the scope of philosophy. We may yet bring it back on the track of philosophy from another direction: A transient (possible) thing has equal relation with existence and non-existence. The transient thing, when related to its sufficient cause, becomes an essential being - it becomes impossible for it not to exist. Now look at the universe at a glance. You will find a chain made up of unnumerable links, all of which would be essential beings. In other words, not a single existing thing could be called a transient, so long as it exists. But this "essential-ness" comes to it only when it is looked at in relation to its sufficient cause. The sufficient cause may be a single thing or a compound of various causes - the material, the formal, the efficient and the final causes, plus the necessary conditions of time and space as well as other preliminaries. An effect when related to its sufficient cause must invariably exist - because the said cause would make it essential. But when seen with only a part of that cause, or if related to any outside factor, it would not be essential; it would remain a transient as before. If a transient, on being related to only a part of its sufficient cause (e.g., to its efficient cause only) become essential and come into being, its sufficient cause would be superfluous; and it would be a contradiction in term. It shows that in this natural world two systems are found simultaneously: one of essentiality and the other of transience. The system of essentiality covers the sufficient causes and their effects - there is no transience in any part of this world, neither in any person nor in any action. The system of transience per¬meates the matter and its potentialities when related to only a part of the sufficient cause. Take any human action; if it is related to its sufficient cause - man (the efficient cause), knowledge and will (the final), matter (the material) and its shape (the formal) plus all conditions of time and space including removal of every hindrance - it would become essential. But if it is seen in relation to only its efficient cause, that is, man, it would remain transient. Finally, it should be pointed out that the transient things need a cause for their existence because of their transience. And this need would not end until the chain of cause and effect finally reaches a cause Who is the Essential Being. This observation leads to the following two conclusions: First: The need continues until it reaches the Final Cause, the Essential Being. Second: This need emanates from its transient nature. It needs a cause to bring it into existence with all its character¬istics and traits, including its relationship with its various causes, fulfilling all the conditions of its existence. First: No delegation of power: Man, like all other things and their actions, depends on the will of Allāh, for his existence. Second: No compulsion: This relation to the will of Allāh, inasmuch as it is concerned with existence, keeps all the char¬acteristics of the created thing in view. Every effect emanates from its cause - with all its characteristics which have any bearing on its existence. A man's creation is attributed to Allāh, keeping in view all its intermediary causes and condition - the father, the mother, the time, the place, the features, the quantity, the quality and a lot of other concomitants. Each effect is connected with the other cause vertically, not horizontally. Third: The human action, when related to its sufficient cause; becomes essential. But seen in relation to only a part of the sufficient cause, it remains transient. For example, when the action is related to only its sufficient cause, that is, man, it does not become essential, but remains transient as before. Therefore, what a group of modern materialist philosophers have said - that the whole system of nature is permeated by compulsion, and there is no free will at all in the universe - is totally wrong. As we have said, all effects in relation to their sufficient causes are essential, but, when related to only a part of the said causes, are transient. And it is the foundation on which man's life is based. A man teaches and trains his child and then hopes that his efforts would bear fruit. If there was no freedom in the world, if everything was essential and had to happen any¬how, then all this teaching and training would be of no earthly use; there would remain no place for hope in human life.
  5. Salam'alykum, I was wondering if you all know weather Dr. Sayyid M Syeed the active member of the Islamic Society of North America is a Shi'a? Some people say he is. Does anyone know for sure? Thanks, Wasalam
  6. (salam) I have a simple question that might help clear this problem. Please dont rush to an answer. Think about it first. What does it mean to "curse" someone (send la'nat)?
  7. (salam) First of all, I think it is worth mentioning that hijab and lowering the gaze is obligatory on both men and women. But the fact that Allah has granted more control over thier desires to women and less to men, and more beauty to the female sex and less to men makes the women's duty towards covering herself more and lowering the gaze a more important duty for men. Read Ayatollah Mutahhari's "The Islamic Modest Dress" for more details on that. But about the issue at hand, I will quote Ayatollah Shaheed Mutahhari from the above mentioned book... "(Quran 24:31) ...Nor let them (women) stamp their feet so that their hidden ornament may be known." Arab women stamped their feet so that their silver or gold anklets would make sounds and things hidden would appear. They are told not to do this, not to do something to draw the attention of others towards them. Thus in women's relations with unrelated non-mahram men, they should not do anything to draw attention towards themselves whether it be in the way they walk, in the way they talk, in their perfume or cosmetics. We had mentioned collyrium, for instance. It was an exception but it should not be so severe that it stimulates men and attracts them towards her The quote above might make Mutahhari seem too strict on hijab, but that is not the case. Please read his whole book to get a full picture of the reasons and limits of proper Islamic Modest dress... http://www.al-islam.org/modestdress/ wasalam
  8. ^ What do you mean? What work are you taking about? And Isnt what you said an oxymoron..."I dont believe, but yes they do work"
  9. Salam I'm not sure but I read somewhere that if its daybreak, you should speed up the witr and begin the nafl for Fajr.
  10. Im visiting Pakistan these days. Here I have cable net max. speed 12.0 Mbps, but it works around 3-4 kbps. Almost as bad as a slow dialup!
  11. (salam) Salam bro/sis Granica Punatum lol..me?....I dont think he is a "staunch exponent of Islam". But he is certainly a powerful orator, is there anything wrong in thinking that? Imam Ali (as) once said: "Knowledge and wisdom are really the privilege of a faithful Muslim. If you have lost them, get them back even though you may have to get them from the apostates." Even if a person is an apostate...Osama is still a muslim! Atleast he says he is wasalam
  12. (salam) I am not particularly a fan of the idealogy that Imam Khomeni brought even though I think the whole of Islamic world is indebted to his services to Islam. But this following sermon of Imam Al-Hussayn (as) is very moving. Imam Khomeini in the course of his lectures which were published in the form of a book expounds this hadith in the context of the tradition-based part of his discussion about the responsibilities of the scholars of religion. http://al-islam.org/masoom/writings/sermonofmina.html
  13. (salam) Apparently the discussion was only till the the 2nd Chapter "Modern Life and Islam". Does that mean there are going to be other discussions on this book? The net in pakistan is soo slow, even tho i have cable net, i couldnt get on the chat :( . So are we going to have another discussion? wasalam
  14. (salam) Read: Religous Pluralism by Ayatollah Shaheed Murtada Mutahhari http://ieb.world-federation.org/Publicatio...20Pluralism.pdf
  15. (salam) Very interesting. I have always found Moderresi a very inspirational speaker but in my opinion sometimes he is absolutely rhetorical. And remember, he is a Zakir (speaker) and not an 'Alim or Mujtahid. I would very gladly give preference to the words of our Grand Ayatollahs (any one of them) over him. I think that moderresi is right but at the same time he is wrong. Allow me to elaborate. if a tradition has been quoted in one of those books then I can assure you that the scholars who comipled those narrations have already exhausted all the different tools and guidelines that must be used to authenticate the traditions I have studied 'Ilm al-Hadith at the Hawza in Austin, TX. 'Ilm al-Hadith deals with the "sanad" or the chain of narrators only. This science does not concern itself at all with the actual text of the hadith. In this science we only study the 'sanad' of the hadith. This statement of moderrasi "already exhausted all the different tools and guidelines that must be used...." is completely in contradiction with what Sayyid al-Khoe says. If this statement of moderrasi was true, then there would be no reason for our scholars to re-evaluate all the hadiths on their own. Sayid al-khoe stressed this point so much, that every mujtahid must do his own ijtehad when deducing the law. One mujtahid cannot say that Ayatollah X says that such-and-such thing is haraam that is why i also say that it is haraam. This is totally un acceptable, no matter how great the previous maraja was, the new marja cannot deduce his laws, only on the basis of some other mujtahid's fatwa. And the other thing is, moderrasi mentioned Bihar al-anwaar. We studied in Hawza that even though this book is an amazing amazing treasure of hadiths, but it is the Shi'as most weakest book. Allama Majlisi THE AUTHOR OF THIS BOOK HIMSELF says in his introduction of Bihar al-anwaar that I have only collected these hadiths I have not authenticated them (that is why he is called a Muhdaith, the person who COLLECTS hadiths). Shi'as dont consider any book Saheeh as the sunnis do. Out 'ulema teach us that every single hadith must be scrutinized by THE NEW GENERATION OF ULEMA. Otherwise our religion will become stagnant. But on the other hand, Moderrasi might be right in the sense that there are people (non-mujtahids, like ourselves) who reject hadiths purely on the basis of our own judgement which is dangerous. So we, those who cannot evaluate a hadiths authenticity, should give it the benifit of the doubt but let the doubt remain, so that if in the future we do find out that it was not authentic we might not find ourselves following some hadith that was not authentic. I apologize that I didnt use any sources to explain any of my points. I will inshALlah look for sources and post them. I will also maybe talk to my teacher who might be able to translate some Arabic books for me, so that I may be able to present those sources. Allah knows best wasalam
×
×
  • Create New...