rotten_coconut

Thank you! Guess I have to post more often now

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of translating al-Kafi since it'll just make it easier for the non-Arabic speaking Wahhabi to attack us, especially not all of al-Kafi is mu'tabar based on the sanad (which if I'm not mistaken, according to Shahid ath-Thani is less than 50%).

Considering the persecution they are receiving, I'd say I understand why they want to keep their doctrine as secret.

Probably they do this because they feel safer under the Zionist regime instead of an Islamic or Arabic one. History teaches this to them.

Trinity is indeed complicated. I've just created a thread which you can see the debates regarding the status of Jesus (including its divinity vs humanity) which was discussed in the 7 early ecumenical councils in Christianity:

For those who's interested, here's the summary of the 7 early (and also the most famous) ecumenical Councils in Christianity that I've created some time ago. In here, you can see the gradual process of how orthodoxy was stipulated. Sorry if it seems to be abbreviated a lot since it's initially made to be a personal note. Another note is that the councils actually discussed other things apart from what mentioned below. I've only mentioned some here since the note was made initially to understand how the councils shaped the orthodoxy of Christianity in the area of theology:

Salam bro @Islamic Salvation What's the authenticity status of this hadith?

Additionally, Ebionim (an extinct early Jewish-Christian sect) also rejected the virgin birth. Why Paul didn't mention it is certainly interesting. Gospel of Mark (the earliest one from the 4) also didn't mention the nativity. Based on the two-source hypothesis, the source of the virgin birth narrative would be Q. And yes, were it not stated in the al-Qur'an or mu'tabar ahadith, then Muslims would have thought the virgin birth narrative as myth.

Bro Qa'im, What do you think of this line of reasoning used by Reza Aslan in Zealot to prove the supremacy of James over all apostles? 1. James and the apostles understood Jesus as Jewish and did not form a separate religion from Judaism. Or, we can say that Jesus was to purify Judaism from corruptions, especially done by the priests. The facts on how James upheld the Jewish Laws (including conflict with Paul over this issue) and how the Jewish community revered him very highly at the time (even perhaps higher than the reverence they gave to the High Priest) can be considered as proof that Jesus didn't create a different religion. 2. At the time of James until the destruction of the Temple, Judaism was very much a Jerusalem-centered religion, which meant that the control and leadership of Judaism (including Jesus-inspired Judaism) came from Jerusalem for the whole world. We also know for fact that Jerusalem "church" was headed by James. 3. In Acts, we could see even Paul obeyed to be summoned to Jerusalem to meet James when there were reports that Paul taught a different teaching, especially on the status of Jesus and the Jewish Laws. Paul was even asked to repent openly in the Jerusalem Temple which he (reluctantly?) obeyed. 4. James was said to send envoys to different cities to disseminate the correct teaching of Jesus, including to Rome. On the other hand, we know that Peter departed to Rome (which eventually became the 1st Pope). We can infer here that Peter was acting on James behalf. 5. Therefore, eventhough Peter was a Bishop of Rome, James was a Bishop of Bishop. This would mean that the head of Jesus-inspired Judaism after Jesus was most probably James the Just (Ya`aqob ha-Tzadek).

Salam bro Qa'im, Regarding the debate between James (Ya`akob) vs Paul, one thing to add is what James said on what the Goyim (Gentiles) should obey are basically the Noahide Laws. I tend to agree with Reza Aslan in this case that James always thought that what Jesus brought is Judaism so no need for Gentiles to follow this since according to Torah & Talmud, Gentiles are only need to follow Noahide Laws and Judaism is for Jews only. If a Gentile wants to convert to Judaism, there are certain procedures that need to be done. But, due to insistence of Paul to proselityze Gentiles which lead to their ongoing debates, somehow according to Acts, James agreed that Gentiles could follow them as long as they uphold the Noahide Laws. But somehow I doubt without full conversions, such Gentiles were viewed by James as brothers in faith.

Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji`un. Big condolences to the victims & their loved ones. Condemned are the ISIS, their followers, and their backers! Hope for their termination as soon as possible. Here's the live update of the Paris Attacks from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates Here's the latest update from it: Afternoon summary - what we know Police have raided a Brussels neighbourhood where three of the attackers are believed to have lived, and made a number of arrests. One of the attackers at the Bataclan is understood to be a 30-year-old French national, who was known to French police because of links to Islamic radicals. A Syrian and an Egyptian passport were found on the bodies of the two suicide bombers who targeted the Stade de France. The Syrian passport belonged to a refugee who passed through Greece, according to a Greek minister. German authorities say they have ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ a man arrested in Bavaria earlier this month, in a car loaded with explosives, may be linked to the Paris attacks. David Cameron has said the UK must be braced for British casualties, without going into specifics. Romanians, Tunisians, Belgians and a Swede are among the dead. A 41-year-old man from France is being questioned by police after “what appears to be a firearm” was discovered at Gatwick airport, Sussex police said. Islamic State has released a statement claiming responsibility for Friday night’s attacks and has threatened further attacks against France. The group says the killings were in response to airstrikes against its militants in Syria, adding France would remain a “key target”. President François Hollande also said Isis was to blame for the terror attacks across Paris that killed at least 127. Hollande has said the attacks were an “act of war … prepared and planned elsewhere, with outside involvement which this investigation will seek to establish”. He added that France will be “ruthless in its response” and declared three days of national mourning. The death toll stands at 127, while about 200 are believed to have been wounded, 99 seriously. World leaders have voiced outrage, with many pledging to help France with the ongoing investigation. Barack Obama says America stood shoulder-to-shoulder with France. The Vatican has also condemned the attack as “mad terrorist violence”.

So what is the mu'tabar Ziyarah Ashura?

The same thing happened in Indonesia. The anti-Shi`ah movement are escalating quite rapidly. Perhaps Saudi funds are increasing due to the intensified proxy war with Iran and the 2 hajj tragedies. And as bro Tawheed313 said, the tathbir done by some Shi`ah make things worse by providing the Wahhabi the ammunition to attack the Shi`ah. What also made it worse was the arrival of Tawhidi on `Id al-Ghadir. Although the majority of Indonesian Shi`ah rejected him including the 2 biggest Shi`ah Indonesian organization, he got help from a handful of his followers so he could still sneakingly performed the event.

I don't think that's accurate. If we read historical accounts such as Abu Mikhnaf, it's evident that what caused Karbala was the insistence of Yazid that Imam Husayn must give the latter's bay'ah to the former at any cost. For example, were Imam Husayn allowed to go back to Makkah in Karbala, then the tragedy would not have happened.Historical accounts also provide the reasons why Imam Husayn refused to give his bay'ah to Yazid: Yazid was an oppressor and a great fasiq or even a kafir (even some of the Sunni scholars said so) who posed a grave danger to the relatively young ummah since he was the leader. Sunni articles such as this one http://www.ahlus-sunna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=130 mentioned what kind of person Yazid was, who even deemed the alcohol to be permissible. So, the `amr ma'ruf nahi munkar aspect of the jihad of Imam Husayn was quite evident. What's also interesting here is the question of were Yazid quite decent, whether Karbala tragedy would have happened.

Salam bro Qa'im, From what I understand from your posts is you try to find meaning in the tragedy of Karbala by consider this as sacrifice & islah. Nevertheless, there are underlying issues that I think you haven't touched or sufficiently answered: 1. Why Allah asked the sacrifice of Imam Husayn? Why was it necessary at all? 2. If the reason of Imam Husayn was islah, why he rejected God's offer to make him victorious and opted to be killed instead? Isn't the best way for islah to be the leader of the ummah?