Renaissance_Man

Err, what..?
From Tabrisi's Majma` al-Bayan:
{ حتى إذا بلغ مغرب الشمس } أي موضع غروبها أنه انتهى إلى آخر العمارة من جانب المغرب وبلغ قوماً لم يكن وراءهم أحد إلى موضع غروب الشمس ولم يرد بذلك أنه بلغ إلى موضع الغروب لأنه لا يصل إليه أحد { وجدها تغرب } معناه وجدها كأنها تغرب { في عين حمئة } وإن كانت تغرب في ورائها عن الجبائي وأبي مسلم والبلخي, لأن الشمس لا تزايل الفلك ولا تدخل عين الماء ولأنه قال وجد عندها قوماً, ولكن لما بلغ ذو القرنين ذلك الموضع تراءى له كأن الشمس تغرب في عين كما أن من كان في البحر رآها كأنها تغرب في الماء ومن كان في البرّ يراها كأنها تغرب في الأرض الملساء
From Tusi's Tafsir at-Tibyan:
وقال ابو علي الجبائي، والبلخي: المعنى وجدها كانها تغرب في عين حمئة، وإن كانت تغيب وراءها. قال البلخي لان الشمس اكبر من الارض بكثير
So two, pre-modern, classical and authoritative Shi`i tafsirs stating the meaning of the verse is not to be literally understood to mean it's "literally" setting in a pool of murky water. As to the Earth being flat, you might want to go tell Shaykh Mufid that:
أقول إن الأرض على هيئة الكرة
Sure, he thought it was stationary as did many others (but not everyone) in those times, but clearly he thought it was shaped like a ball as you can see above. So if our religion was so clearly teaching a flat Earth, why would an ancient scholar like Mufid say the above, who obviously wouldn't know or care what 21st century century science has to say on the matter to force him into apologetic revisionist mode?

Why would we want to do that when heliocentric view is only a relative one anyway, with the geocentric (or heck any-centric) view being just as valid in this sense? You seem to be stuck in Copernican science for some reason, but science has since progressed past these views and now regards either of these to simply be reference frames that can be used for practical purposed but are not some absolute truths. Here, a layman's view article on it for you:
http://www.universetoday.com/36487/difference-between-geocentric-and-heliocentric/
"The irony is that after all the disputes over these different theories, neither one is necessarily correct. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity upset both models. New evidence has also shown that the Solar System’s center of gravity is not the exact center of the Sun. This means that either model is acceptable regardless of the fundamental differences between the theories. Astronomers use both the heliocentric and geocentric models for research depending on which theory makes their calculations easier. It definitely seems as if some things are relative after all."
In terms of other cosmic type phenomenon hadiths, did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason why those that detail such things tend to be weak in their sources, while the more authentic narrations don't discuss such things much (if at all) might be because from the perspective of teaching the religion these things are not important? Seriously, how does using a geocentric or heliocentric model of the universe make you any better a human being, or guide you in your moral actions? It doesn't, and these are things that man could be let to discover on his own, in his own time over centuries through discovery and the progress of science. Religion gets criticized when it makes decrees in this area, but here you seem to be criticizing it if it doesn't. Religion deals with timeless truths, and gives man the set laws of conduct, that are no dependent on what scientific model of the day is in vogue.

Wow, the people in this thread insisting that men are superior to women must really have some deep seated personal insecurities.  If you really believe this, then would you also claim you are (naozobillah!) superior to Lady Fatima (as), Zaynab (as), or Khadija (as)?  Didn't think so either.
 
People that tout certain hadith supporting these views are short sighted.  Did you ever bother to consider that perhaps those hadith were meant in a different sense and suited to a different time and place than we live in today?  Or even that these hadith may in fact be *gasp* fabricated?  Yes, countless such misogynist hadith were in fact fabricated amongst the early days of Islam and attributed to the Prophet (saw) and/or Ahl al-Bayt (as).  There are plenty of them in the Sunni books and some appear to have found their way into the Shia books of hadith as well.  These go against 'aql, the Quran, and the teachings and conduct of the Imams (as).  
 
Take for example the infamous sermon from Nah al-Balagha attributed to Imam Ali (as) talking about the supposed deficiencies in women.  Many people believe this proves the inferiority of women but guess what?  The same hadith is found in Bukhari and attributed to the Prophet (saw) instead!  Not only does this sermon in Nahj al-Balagha not make sense but it also lacks a chain of narrators.  Ayatullah Saanei (HA) considers this and other such hadith as fabricated and believes they it was done so by the ruling caliphs to justify denying Hazret Fatima (as) her right.  
 
There are other hadith relating to things such as women's testimony and moon sighting that people often point to but it's crucial to understood these in their proper historical context.  Women in 7th century Arabia and in many subsequent centuries were generally uneducated, confined to their homes, and had no role in or knowledge of the outside world.  Accordingly their welfare was entrusted entirely to men and some limitations imposed on them.  Obviously a lot has changed in the past century and you can't impose the same rules anymore.  As Ayatullah Saanei points out, the Quran doesn't consider one gender inferior to another and considers men and women to be spiritually equal.

(bismillah)

(salam)

Good post, mashallah :) IMO, the reason Irani/Iraqi Shi'ahs have more or less made progress is because they dutifully follow the leadership of their olema. In Pakistan people generally distrust the maulvis (sometimes for good reason) so there is no leadership and Shi'ahs are left splintered and disorganized which makes them easy targets for groups like Sipah-e-Sahaba. In order for there to be any change in people's attitudes, it has to start with the olema. Once we get qualified olema, those who've studied at Qom and Najaf not those zakirs who charge exorbitant fees for reading majalis, then people will come to respect them and gather under the umbrella of their leadership which will pave the way for change.

(bismillah)

(salam)

Taken from the book "God of Islam" by Allama Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi ( http://www.sabznet.com/english/rooms/cultu...ed/knowing_god/ )

Chapter 7 and 9 contain a discussion of the Holy Prophet with atheists. It was a part of a great discussion in which thirty-five representatives of five religions (Jews, Christians, Atheists, Dualists that is Parsees, and Poly theists that is mushrikin) came to him and held discussions with him. In the end all accepted the truth of Islam, and became Muslims.

It is the beauty of the arguments put forward by the Holy Prophet that he explained highly philosophical subjects in such a simple language that even a layman could easily understand it. It is a masterpiece of "Wisdom and good preaching."

By the way, there are people who assert day in day out that the Holy Prophet learned from Judaism and Christianity. This discussion is a challenge to them. Let them produce such irrefutable argument from Jewish and Christian literature of early centuries before Islam.

It will not be out of place to mention that these apparently simple arguments hold their ground even today and they are as much valid today as they were 1,400 years ago. The discussion is narrated by Imam al-Hasan ibn Ali al-Askari (p.b.u.h.) in his tafsir (commentary), and al- Allamah at-Tabarsi has copied it in his famous al-Ihtijaj (vol. I); it has been translated (with short comments) into Urdu by Mawlana Muhammad Mustafa 'Jawhar' of Karachi and published twice. All three books are in my library.

The Holy Prophet had started his talks with Jews, then went on conversing with Christians, atheists, dualists and lastly with idol-worshippers.

^
Son of Placid, check the reverts forum for reasons given by various people on this form who've converted. If you want to read detailed reasons about a person's struggles with Christianity and the reasons they left and were convinced of Islam, check out Sister Beatty's story here: http://www.al-islam....tionsnewmuslim/
In my experience, most people who leave Christianity do so for a few common reasons. One very common reason is difficulties accepting the Christian dogmas once they begin to examine the religion for themselves. I think few people take issue with the teachings of Jesus (as) which preach good morals, piety, and other values that all religions share and societies share. But they find it hard to understand or reconcile certain beliefs like atonement and the trinity without resorting to blind faith. Compare to Islam where the tenants are simple - unity of God, prophethood, prayer, fasting, etc - it's much more straightforward and a lot easier to digest. I know Christianity preaches faith without questioning on these matters, but it's hard for inquisitive minds to accept this especially when it comes to essential beliefs. Then when they open the Bible and see problematic verses (some of the OT stuff comes to mind) and discrepancies, the skepticism grows. Some of the stories in the Bible such as the creation accounts in Genesis and stories of rape and murder can be unsettling to say the least. Finally, I think spiritual dissatisfaction is another factor in why people leave Christianity. For many, a religion centered on the belief in a dying savior/diety to atone for your sins and doesn't offer much else beyond that simply doesn't fulfill them spiritually. Religions like Islam and even Buddhism for example which prescribe a way of life and philosophy go beyond just dogma and ultimately a deeper spiritual satisfaction.

A few hings:
1) Sunnis do in fact practice mutah. They called it misyaar which is simply marriage with the intention to divorce. This practice is gaining popularity in several Arab countries particularly Egypt.
2) Zaydis shias are basically Sunnis in terms of fiqh. They follow one of the 4 Sunnis madhabs so it's only natural that they don't believe in mutah.
3) I don't think Ismaili shias consider mutah haraam because by his own admission the current Aga Khan's father himself practiced it:
" In his Will document, Aga Khan wrote: "In the year One thousand nine hundred and eight I was married to CLEOPE TERESA MAGLIANO according to the Muta form of marriage..."

Hmm, sounds eerily similar to what the Nazis used to do. Funny how history repeats itself..

Hmm, sounds eerily similar to what the Nazis used to do. Funny how history repeats itself..

Excellent answer by peace seeker. I too remember reading somewhere that the Prophet (saw) used to go to a cave to meditate before becoming a prophet.
To add to it, there are dozens of different meditative practices and meditation is understood differently depending on religious/cultural context. I think the salient difference between Zen meditation and Islamic practices such as reflection (fikir) and remembrance (dhikr) is the latter centers on Allah while the other is more for self relaxation and stress release.

That's like saying why isn't Malik ibn Anas a Hanafi or Shafi' a Maliki because the Sunni Imams learned from each other.
Imam Jaffar as-Sadiq's (a) taught people from all walks of life. During his time the schisms present today in Islam didn't exist and while differences in belief/practice/faith existed on an individual level, no one subscribed to any particular school of thought. The Imams (a) mission was to uphold the sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and educate all Muslims about the true Islamic teachings.

Um, this is a page about logical fallacies its not an attack on Islam. How exactly does this pose a danger to your faith? Even though the author is an atheist most of his rebuttals are correct because these are extremely weak arguments employed by fundamentalist Christians. Not every argument by a believer is correct and not conversely every argument by a kafir is false either. Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli's book, "A Commentary on Theistic Arguments" in fact criticizes quite a few arguments for God's existence which he demonstrates to be flawed.
I have to ask, is your faith really so shaky that reading an Internet article will shatter it? Why do you need someone to prove or disprove the article to you when Allah has given you a brain to do just that yourself?

It's not clear what you are seeking here. Are you asking for a recommendation of a particular Bible translation? And by Bible I take it you mean the Christian New Testament? The Bible consists of both the Old and New Testaments which include the Torah.
For a casual reading, you can pick up pretty much any copy like the New Revised Standard Version or if you want a Jewish source, the Judaica Press Tanach of the Torah. Both are available online. One warning is Christians mistranslate many Old Testament verses to suit their beliefs as well as spinning other OT verses. I would reference Jewish or other non-Christian translations if you are studying hte OT.

Here's something to consider. If the universe was eternal, matter would not be subject to change. But we know that matter does change into energy. We also know that at some point in time, before the big bang and the creation of time, matter did not exist and was created. Something that changes or varies logically cannot be eternal. Otherwise there would be no big bang and the universe would have existed forever, and could be incapable of being changed. Matter is therefore contingent and it needs a cause or external agent to bring it into existence. This is why a creator or first cause is needed for the universe. And since we are on the subject of Imam Jaffar as-Sadiq (as), let me share another hadith on the same subject by him:
http://al-shia.org/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part3/part3-ch1.htm
H 210, Ch. 1, h 2
A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from Muhammad ibn Ali from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn abu Hashim from Ahmad ibn Muhsin al-Maythami who said that I was with abu Mansur al-Mutatbbib who said the following.
"One of my friends has said that he was with ibn abu al-‘Awja’ and ‘Abdallah ibn al-Muqaffa‘ in the holy Mosque of Makkah and ibn al-Muqaffa‘ said, "Do you see these creatures, pointing towards the location where people walk seven times around the Kabah‘? Of all these no one deserves to be called a human being accept that Shaikh sitting there, meaning thereby Imam abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.). The rest is garble and beasts." Upon this ibn abu al-‘Awja’ said, "For what reason do you call him a human being and not the rest?" Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ then replied, "Because I saw with him what I did not see with the others." Ibn abu al-"Awja’ then said, "We must test your claim." Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ then said, "I advise you not to do so lest you will lose whatever faith you have. Ibn abu al-‘Awja’ then said, "I do not think that is what you mean. I think you are afraid of failing to substantiate what you have just said about this man." Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ then said, "If that is what you think then go to him and protect yourself as much as you can. Be strong as much as you can so you are not harnnessed and note all points against and in your favor. Ibn abu al-‘Awja’ then left and ibn al-Muqaffa‘ and I remained there. When ibn abu al-‘Awja’ returned he said, "Woe is you, O ibn al-Muqaffa‘. This is not a human being even though he lives in this world. He is a spiritual being but appears in the form of man whenever he wants the out world and turns into a spiritual being whenever he wants the inner world. That is the way he is." Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ then asked, "How does that happen?" Ibn abu al-‘Awja’ then said, "I sat near him and when everyone had gone he turned to me and said, "If it is the way they (people walking around the Ka‘bah) say, which is true then they are saved and you are destroyed. If it is the way you say it is, which is not so then you and they are all equal." I then asked, "May Allah be kind to you. What is it that we say and what is it that they say? We all say the same thing." He said, "How can what you say be equal to what they say? They say that they will have a return, a day of receiving their rewards and penalties. They believe in a religion which says that in the heavens is the Lord and that they are habitable while you say that they are in ruins and there is nothing in them."Ibn abu al-‘Awja’ has said, "I then found the opportunity to speak and I asked, "What then keeps this Lord, if it is true the way they say that He exists, from appearing to His creatures and call them to His worship so that no two people would oppose each other? Why is He hiding from them and has only sent messengers? If He would have been in direct contact with them it would have been more helpful to have faith in Him." He then responded, "Woe is you, how someone who is already shown His power within you is hiding from you? He brought you up. You did not even exist. He made you grow when you were so small. He gave you strength and power when you were so weak and will make you weak again after being strong. He make you sick after being healthy and can give you good health after suffering sickness. He can make you happy after you experience anger and make you angry after being happy. He can make you sad after your joy and give you joy after sadness. He can give love after your experiencing hatred and hatred after enjoying love. He can give you determination after your uncertainty and uncertainty after having determination. He can give you strong desires after your experiencing dislike and dislike after having strong desires. He can give you willingness after experiencing fear and concerns and fear after having strong willingness. He can give you hope after despair and despair after having a great deal of hope. He can give you good remembrance of what you had no idea and remove what you may have had as a belief." He kept reminding and counting for me the effects of His power within my soul that I could not deny and I begin to have a feeling that all that is between me and him will all appear in the open."
From the same source the following is narrated from a number of our people in a Marfu‘ manner as additional statements to the above discourse of ibn abu al-‘Awja’ with Imam abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.). That abu al-‘Awja’ came the next day to the meeting of the Imam and sat down quietly. The Imam (a.s.) said to him, "Would you like to review the issues we discussed yesterday?" He replied, "I did intend to do so, O son of the messenger of Allah." The Imam then said, "It is strange that one who does not believe in Allah acknowledges the existence of the messenger of Allah." He replied, "It is only the habit that made me say so." The ‘Alim (the Imam) then asked, "What is it that keeps you quite?" He replied, "It is your excellence and awesome spiritual ability that hold my tongue back from speaking. I have seen many scholars and have debated many theologians but I never experienced such an awesome feeling from them as I feel in your presence." The Imam then said, " It may happen. I would like to open this session with a question to you. The Imam turned to him and asked, "Are you created or uncreated?" ‘Abdul Karim ibn abu al-‘Awja’ answered, " I am uncreated." The ‘Alim then asked him, "Describe for us then, how you might have been if you were created." ‘Abdal Karim remained quiet and confused and began to scribble scrabble with a piece of wood, saying, long, wide, deep, short, moving and motionless all these are the qualities of His creatures." The ‘Alim (Imam) then said, "If you do not know anything other than these as the qualities of the creation then consider yourself a creature because that is what you find within yourself that take place and come into existence." ‘Abdal Karim then said, "You have asked me a question that no one before had ever asked and no one ever would ask afterwards." Abu ‘Abdallah then said, "It is fine. I noticed that you did not ask any thing in the time past but how would you know that you will not ask any thing in future? Besides, O ‘Abdal Karim, what you said is against your notion that from the beginning all things are equal. How then you made them before and after? The Imam then said, "O ‘Abdal Karim let me explain it for you. Suppose if you had a bag with you full of pearls and someone asked you, "Is there a Dinar in your bag?" You then denied and said, "No, there is no Dinar in my bag." The person then said, "Alright, then describe for me the qualities of the Dinar but you had no knowledge of the qualities of the Dinar. Could you deny the existence of the Dinar that was from the bag but you did not know about it?" he replied, "No, I would not deny." The Imam then said, "The world is bigger, taller and wider than a bag. Perhaps in the world there is a creature as such that you do not know in whose case you would not be able to tell the qualities of the created from the non-created." ‘Abdal Karim remained quiet but some of his people agreed to accept Islam and a few of them remained.
He came again to the meeting of the Imam on the third day and said, "I like to reverse the question." The Imam replied, "Ask whatever you like." He then asked, "What is the proof that bodies did not exist and then they came into existence?" The Imam then said, "I have not seen anything small or large that on adding to it something of the same size would not make it bigger and in this there is a change and transformation from the first condition. If it, however, would have been eternal, there would have been no changing and transformation. What may cease to exist or change it may come into existence and may get destroyed, thus, with its existence after its none existence is entering into the state of coming into being and as being eternal this will take it into nothingness but the two qualities of being eternal and nothingness and the qualities of a contingent and something without a beginning in one thing do come together." ‘Abdal Karim then said, "Suppose, I noticed that with a view to the two conditions you mentioned you considered it a proof of their contingency. If, however, things would remain small, despite the addition, then how would you prove their contingency?" The ‘Alim then said, "We speak of this universe that is already there. Were we to take it away and place another universe in its place nothingness would have, certainly, been a stronger proof of its contingency than its removal and its replacing with a different one. I, however, will answer you according to your assumption. If things would still remain small but it would certainly come into one’s thinking that whenever something like it added to another thing it then would be bigger. The fact that it can change is proof of its becoming temporal and in its changing condition is proof of its contingency. There is nothing beyond it for you, O ‘Abdal Karim. ‘Abdal Karim had nothing else to say.
Next year he met the Imam (a.s.) in Makkah again and people from his followers said that ‘Abdal Karim has become a Muslim. The Imam told him that ‘Abdal Karim was blind in this matter and would not become a Muslim. When he saw the ‘Alim he said, "My master, my chief!" The ‘Alim then asked him, "What brings you here?" He then replied, "It is the habits of the body and the traditions of the town to see what craziness makes them shave and throw pebbles." The ‘Alim said, "It seems that you still live in your arrogance and misguidance, O ‘Abdal Karim." He began to speak but the Imam said, "Disputation during Hajj is not permissible. The Imam freed his gown from the hand of the heretic man and said, "If it is the way you say and it is not true, then we as well as you are all saved. However, if it is the way we say and it is true we are saved but you are destroyed." ‘Abdal Karim then turned to his people saying, "I feel pain in my heart. Take me back. They took him away and he died.

Another hadith from Ibn Hanbal:
Anas narrated that the prophet (s) said: "The most excellent of the women of all worlds are: Maryam the daughter of al-Imran, Khadijah the daughter of Khuwaylid, Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, and Asiyah the wife of Pharaoh"
The fact that Khadija (as) made the cut while Aisha didn't shows the Prophet (saw) held her in higher regard.
Also, don't forget the Quranic verses revealed warning Aisha for her mischevious behavior against the Prophet (saw).

When I first began to explore Shia Islam as a non-Muslim, the entire concept of self-flagellation was mind boggling to me. How a religion could literally be defined in the modern day, and the majority of its adherents relate to it in a way, that is not prescribed by the religion itself. It took a lot of curiosity and desire to explore Shia Islam to ignore what a strange dynamic this is. Thinking back on it, I literally couldn't fathom how something that has no explicit basis in religion came to be such an accepted part of it. Without deep intellectual desire to study Shia Islam, I would have definitely called it a day because of this. You cannot expect normal people to have an interest in Shia Islam if they are confronted with this. This is at best.
And, I never related this to Imam Hussein, even when first exposed to it, it simply didn't seem to have anything to do with it. It just came across as an cultish practice--which it is.

Another hadith from Ibn Hanbal:
Anas narrated that the prophet (s) said: "The most excellent of the women of all worlds are: Maryam the daughter of al-Imran, Khadijah the daughter of Khuwaylid, Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, and Asiyah the wife of Pharaoh"
The fact that Khadija (as) made the cut while Aisha didn't shows the Prophet (saw) held her in higher regard.
Also, don't forget the Quranic verses revealed warning Aisha for her mischevious behavior against the Prophet (saw).

From Ayatullah Sistani's site:
1. Question: What is the ruling on copying computer software, movies, audio CDs and other such things, which bear the wording “All Rights Reserved” or “Copyright”? Does this rule apply equally to Muslim made products and those made by non-Muslim individuals or companies?
Answer: Copyrights must be respected; it is not permissible to copy a software product, if it is against the law.

Another hadith from Ibn Hanbal:
Anas narrated that the prophet (s) said: "The most excellent of the women of all worlds are: Maryam the daughter of al-Imran, Khadijah the daughter of Khuwaylid, Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, and Asiyah the wife of Pharaoh"
The fact that Khadija (as) made the cut while Aisha didn't shows the Prophet (saw) held her in higher regard.
Also, don't forget the Quranic verses revealed warning Aisha for her mischevious behavior against the Prophet (saw).

Another hadith from Ibn Hanbal:
Anas narrated that the prophet (s) said: "The most excellent of the women of all worlds are: Maryam the daughter of al-Imran, Khadijah the daughter of Khuwaylid, Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, and Asiyah the wife of Pharaoh"
The fact that Khadija (as) made the cut while Aisha didn't shows the Prophet (saw) held her in higher regard.
Also, don't forget the Quranic verses revealed warning Aisha for her mischevious behavior against the Prophet (saw).

I will not do it any justice because there are introductions [muqadimaat] that must be explained and I must admit my incompetence and struggle to understand them, nevermind explaining them to others.
I will give you a very brief summary and Insha'Allah when I study it further I will explicate more.
The emanation from Allah (swt) is perpetual (ÏæÇã ÇáÝíÖ) and His Mercy and givings are also eternal. To dispute this raises too many issues. Secondly those receiving emanation are not eternal because there is a constant state of renewal and things die out to be replaced by another thing. So there is always something receiving emanation but no one thing is eternal in of itself. Secondly, time itself which is created would also have to be preceded by time itself and this is absurd.
Secondly the world as a whole is dictated by its parts and seeing as every part is not eternal as is preceded by nonexistence the world is also preceded by non existence. There is no one part that has is eternal with Allah (swt)
Remember it is far more detailed and my explanation is not that great but I hope it helped slightly.

God can be envisaged in two respects.
1) God with respect to Himself (The Essence).
2) God with respect to Creation (The Divinity).
These should not be conflated. There are not two Gods or two realities, just two ways in which God can be considered. Two sides of the same Reality (if you will).
1) The Essence of God (Completely unfathomable) = God in Himself (without any relationship with creation). The Essence of God is God beyond all conceivable attributes. In the Essence the attributes are all identical with each other and are therefore beyond our comprehension. These attributes are not distinct from one another and therefore be said to be non-existent. When Imam Ali (as) says in his first sermon that the perfection of tawhid is to deny attributes to God he says that with respect to God in Himself (His Essence). Therefore with respect to God's Essence we say that God is beyond being Knowledgeable, beyond being Alive, beyond being Powerful, beyond being Rich, beyond being Merciful. When The Essence of God is envisaged then nothing but God exists. In fact the creation never existed, and never will exist. There is simply God (not even any Act)
2) The Divinity of God (what is usually meant by the word "God" by most people since it is God inasmuch as He is understood) = God inasmuch as He has a relationship with the world (creation). The Divinity of God is God conceived with respect to all of His attributes and therefore His qualities. God is Powerful (Power), Desiring (Desire)), Loving (Love) , Knowledgeable (Knowledge), All-Merciful (Mercy) etc etc.. Now the Divinity of God is by definition God conceived with respect to His relationship with creation. and God relates with creation through His qualities. So God's quality of knowledge relates a knowing creature with the All-Knowing (this is why the quality is the same in both . God's quality of love relates a loving mother with the Infinite Love of God. God's quality of mercy relates a merciful person with the all-Merciful. All the qualities we see dispersed in the world around us is in fact nothing but a relationship between the the world and God. We know God as All-Beautiful, because we see a beautiful flower. We know God as All-Encompassing because we see the encompassing nature of the ocean. So the knowledge of God we get from the world is knowledge of God with respect to His Divinity (not His Essence).
What the Sheikh was telling you about was with regards to the Divinity of God. He was not talking about God with respect to God Himself (The Essence).
One does not need a hadith to figure a metaphysical and axiomatic and self-evident truth. Attributes (by virtue of their qualities) are eternal and universal by definition. The places however through which the qualities (of the attributes) are manifested in are not eternal! So, a flower (the place of manifestation) manifests the quality of beauty (quality of the attribute Beautiful) the quality of life (quality of the attribute Alive). The flower (the place of manifestation) may wilt, and become ugly and die, but the quality of beauty and the quality of life remain because beauty is always beautiful and is never ugly, and life is always alive and never dies! To perceive these qualities is to perceive what is eternal and constant and always. And to perceive what is constant and eternal and everlasting is to perceive God (his Divinity). And it is only through these places of manifestation (i.e. the creation like the flower) that qualities can be perceived! The Imams have said that God's attributes are not distinct from God Himself. This means that the qualities of God are God himself. God is Himself Power, and not merely Powerful. God is Himself Life, and not merely Alive. This implies that the qualities of Life, Power, Knowledge etc which are found in God's attributes) are eternal and everlasting.
This is true with respect to the Divinity of God. Which is God inasmuch as He is known to us! By that very fact, God can only be God in relation to other than God (creation). God can be known as our teacher inasmuch as He teaches us! God can be known as Alive inasmuch as He is the life of all living things! God can be known as Powerful inasmuch as He is the power in all powerful things. God Can be seen as All-knowing inasmuch as all knowledge of people belong to God. God is known by us as the creator inasmuch as the creation is His act of creation.
God in His Essence is beyond time. The scholar is simply talking about the Divinity of God which is God inasmuch as He is known to us. And God is known to us via His time-bound-creation! He is not saying that God wouldn't be God in Himself if there isn't creation. He is simply saying God would not be a known God (by us) if there was no creation! :)
What is means by "there is always creation" is that the creation is always being created anew. The flower is replaced by another flower. so in this sense there are always flowers! the creation is always replaced with another creation in this sense there is always a creation! In fact at a deeper level, we can say that every moment the creation is being created. Because every moment is a new moment. And creation is bound by such moments. So the creation is new every moment. This is why the creation is not separate from God's activity of creating. God's creation IS His very act of creating. No sooner He creates the creation it is destroyed by its very finitude and its very limiit. and so the Creation is constantly being created to the extent that we cannot even legitimately say there is any creation in itself since every time it is created it self-destructs. So the creation can only be the creation inasmuch as it is simply --nothing but-- God's Perpetual Activity of Creating!
Wahdatul Wujud is simply saying that God exists and the creation inasmuch as it is a positive reality is nothing but God's Act. So everything is ultimately God. either it is God in Himself or it is God's Act. nothing else. So there is only One Existence and that existence is God's. There isn't something which is separate or acted upon by God's Act or God's Activity. There is simply God's Activity and this Activity is the creation inasmuch as it is positive or real.
.................................................
Less philosophical and in order to use a different conceptual approach:
If you don't understand what the scholar said then just be satisfied with the following. ^ If you agree with the following you probably agree with what the scholar said (I am SURE).
Just think of God in three respect:
God's Essence (eternal) : What God is NOT. Beyond this and Beyond that (Beyond anything we understand positively)
God's Attributes (eternal): What God IS. Everything positive (Infinitely). God is All-Living, All-Powerful, All-Merciful, All-Loving, All-Knowing
God's Act (over and over, temporal, comes and goes, renewed): Creation (creatures): God is Giver of Life, God is Giver of Sustenance, God is Provider, God shows Mercy to people. God forgives Sins.

Brother Isa Abdullah,
I see neither proof nor reason in your post. Fringe rulings like these result from flaws in the application of the principles of fiqh. The science of usul-e-fiqh is not perfect and in a few cases gives outcomes which may be tenable from the point of view of fiqh but flagrantly violate common sense or ethics. A number of possibilities exist as to how this fatawa was deduced.
For example, there is a rule of fiqh that says something to the effect of whatever is not explicitly forbidden in the shariah is allowed. This works fine for deducing rulings about many everyday things such as what is permissible to eat and drink but may not work so well for others. Lets say a mujtahid has a hadith in front of him which states its haraam to have intercourse with a girl before the age of 9 and nothing more . Can you see how it might be concluded that touching a child without penetrating is permissible if he applies this principle to said hadith? Though the conclusion may be valid in terms of fiqh, it is obviously not in harmony with Islamic teachings and human ethics. This was an oversimplification of course but the point is that not all laws can be formulated through cold, hard reasoning and scholars do on rare occassion make mistakes.

I for one lament the demise of the Mutazilah school of thought in Sunni Islam. The Asharite victory led to the anti-intellectual tendencies that we see in Sunni Islam today. By closing the door of reasoning, it led to the birth of the extremist movements in Sunnism like the Wahabbis/Salafis. The Mutazilah were closer to the Shia in many aspects of religion and had they prevailed, there would be lesser divide between Sunnis and Shias and Muslims overall would be better off.

No matter how people try to spin this, it's a blatantly sexist policy and certainly not one that has any basis in Islam. Why shut the gates of knowledge to women? This is what the Taliban and Wahabbis do, not the followers of Ahlul Bayt (as).
The article claims the Universities have taken this decision to "restore balance." But if the imbalance is due to Iranian women excelling their counterparts in studies, why should the former be punished for their success? Shouldn't Iranian men work harder to compete with women? By barring qualified people from studying these subjects, the end result will be mediocre students will take their place and water it down.