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 Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tahasyed

  • Rank
    slave of Allah
  • Birthday 09/24/1984

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,725 profile views
  1. hey..if you get this message...shoot me an email. much thanks.

    your brother fink

  2. Assalamu Alaykum brother,

    Can you maybe mail me at zhulfiqar@hotmail.com

    I have some questions if you don't mind.

  3. La ilaha ilallah. I'm not even going to bother with some of the posts above. A shia person brought this thread to my attention so I thought I'd throw in my two cents. I really don't have any more time to waste here. I will just repeat what I said before: We sunnis do NOT consider control over people and wealth by the hakim as being 'greedy' and something negative. On the contrary, where the aim is political stability, it is extremely praiseworthy, and Ali earned that. That is what Ali fought for, and that is what Ibn Taymiyya is clearly acknowledging for him. But there is no doubt that Abu Bakr's move was more critical in saving Islam, and more praiseworthy. You are seeing it as a criticism, Sunnis see it as a statement of a fact: a praiseworthy move by Ali, and a more praiseworthy move by Abu Bakr. Then again, a shia will see everything as a 'nasibi point of view' where anyone's action is held above Ali's. Since I've addressed this already, as well other objections raised above, I'm not going to bother explaining myself further. There was one question that was asked, and I will address that: There were different types of people that fought in the battles.There were those who fought due to incorrect (but justified) ijtihad. There were those who fought due to incorrect (AND unjustified) ijtihad. And there were those who had the correct ijtihad. The latter was the side of Ali. As for the previous two, part of them fall under the condemnation legislated by the Prophet (pbuh), and part of them were mistaken but still get the ajr of a justified-yet-incorrect ijtihad. And they fall under the ayah: [49:09] "And if two parties of believers fall to fighting,..."
  4. Ummmm, he is addressing Amili or Hilli (the Shi'ite scholar who Ibn Taymiyya is refuting in this book). So what he is says is "how can this [i.e. Ali's fighting] be considered [by Amili/Hilli] fighting in the way of Allah, while Abu Bakr fought those who apostatized from Islam [while you, O Amili/Hilli ignore this] and .....". i.e. Abu Bakr's fighting was for the sake of Allah, and Amili/Hilli is NOT acknowledging it, while he is acknowledging it for Ali. The point being: Amili/Hilli is biased and subjective, and Ibn Taymiyya in his refutation is trying to make him realize that he has double standards. Moreover, I will remind you that Ali's fighting to gain control over the people is NOT criticism of him. The Sunnis do NOT consider it a fault, rather they consider it something praiseworthy, and part of Ali's wisdom, and the reason why his ijtihad is correct and Muawiya's was wrong. Finally, a reminder that this is all enclosed in an "IF/THEN" clause. So if he is criticizing Ali, then the criticism should fall on Abu Bakr and Umar too.
  5. ÝÅä ÌÇÒ Ãä íØÚä Ýí ÇáÕÏíÞ æÇáÝÇÑæÞ ÃäåãÇ ÞÇÊáÇ áÃÎÐ ÇáãÇá ÝÇáØÚä Ýí ÛíÑåãÇ ÃæÌå ÝÅÐÇ æÌÈ ÇáÐÈ Úä ÚËãÇä æÚáí Ýåæ Úä ÃÈí ÈßÑ æÚãÑ ÃæÌÈ æÚáí íÞÇÊá áíØÇÚ æíÊÕÑÝ Ýí ÇáäÝæÓ æÇáÃãæÇá ÝßíÝ íÌÚá åÐÇ ÞÊÇáÇ Úáì ÇáÏíä æÃÈæ ÈßÑ íÞÇÊá ãä ÇÑÊÏ Úä ÇáÅÓáÇã æãä ÊÑß ãÇ ÝÑÖ Çááå áíØíÚ Çááå æÑÓæáå ÝÞØ æáÇ íßæä åÐÇ ÞÊÇáÇ Úáì ÇáÏíä Now. Take off the spectacles of bias, and reflect. Noticing the parts I highlighted. And realize that he has set up a hypothesis statement, to counter the shia attack. That statement about Ali is enclosed an 'IF/THEN' clause. If we are to take the part about Ali as an attack on him, then we must accept that Ibn Taymiyya also attacked Abu Bakr and Umar, and believed that they fought for money. The truth, in fact, is that he attacked none of them. Rather, he mentioned the outward action (fighting for money in the case of Abu Bakr and Umar, and fighting for control in the case of Ali), and then says, "O Shi'ite (don't remember whether it was Hilli or Amili), why is it that you accept Ali's action as religious in nature, while criticizing Abu Bakr's and Umar's actions?" Ali's fighting to gain control over the people is in NO way a criticism of him. Everyone knows that the best course of action during the fitna right after Uthman's murder was to get social and political stability. So Ali did that, and Ibn Taymiyya's acknowledgment of that is NOT something negative. May Allah be pleased with them all.
  6. If you have any honesty in your query, then you can read the context here: http://islamport.com/w/tym/Web/3420/2755.htm Since you brought up this 'quote', the least you can do is have the decency to translate the context so people can see what he actually meant.
  7. 'Traditional Sunni view'? Rubbish. Anyone who criticizes Ameer Mu'awiya () is not a sunni. The real 'Traditional Sunni view' can be found in Sunni books.
  8. And the soul is also a created thing.So if Allah can be perceived by one thing that He has created (the soul) He has every power to give that to another created thing (the eyes). Unless Allah has to abide by a checklist of things you say He can/can't do.
  9. I'm glad someone brought up the howness as the main issue, because that is precisely the issue. With all due respect, you have made a hasty conclusion, a false assumption, and a logical fallacy the name of which slips my mind right now.Your hasty conclusion: that we believe that vision of Allah is 'like we see normally with our eyes'. But that's not what we believe. Your false assumption: only the heart has the capability to 'see' Allah in a certain manner. We say: just like the heart can perceive Allah in a certain way different from other things, then Allah has the power to allow that for other organs as well, like the eyes. The fallacy: Your premise is that vision of Allah with the eyes *must* be like the vision of created things. We say this is not the case. And if you can make a special exception for the heart, which is a human organ made of blood and muscles, then it is equally likely for the eyes - another human organ. The howness would be things like: saying we see Allah in a certain direction, or that vision will be through the bouncing of light particles into our eyes, that our vision will be 'all-encompassing', etc. Yep.And that is why I am only trying to show the fallacy of the shia/jahmi/mu'tazili argument against the Sunnis, because it is based on a logical fallacies, false premises, unnecessary assumptions, and words insisted on being added after the sentence has been ended with a period. Thank you. And likewise.I am not here to debate. I am only trying to present the Sunni view, and trying to show that many assumptions are unnecessary. And I will say the following: If we were to adhere to the shia/jahmi/mu'tazili assumptions, then the Sunnis would agree with them. That is because their assumptions necessitate tajseem and tashbih. That is because the assumptions would necessitate resembling Allah to His creation. One example is the assumption that the vision will be perception of Allah by the lens, retina, etc.. through the entering of light into the eyes. Our message is simple: remove those assumptions, and you are left with a Sunni creedal point that does not entail tajseem or tashbih.
  10. That's a fabricated narration.Subhanallah, how can you sleep at night knowing that you have based a point of aqidah (contradicting the authentic narrations) on a lie against the noble imam? And you mention the Sufis. Instead of going to those philosophy websites and seeing what they claim the Sufi beliefs are, why not read the earliest records, and their own books about their beliefs? Why not see what the great Junaid said? It's in the Risala. Or what Al-Sulami said? Or Abu Nu'aym? It's in their books. Or Al-Tustari? It's clearly recorded. Or Al-Nasrabadi? It's in his writing. Or Abu Hamza Al-Baghdadi, Or Fudayl bin Iyad, or, or... or... If these weren't Sufis, then there are no real Sufis. Rather, these were the pillars, the giants of Tasawwuf. And they contradict what you claim about the Sufi beliefs.
  11. This hadith is talking about seeing Allah in a dream, and not in reality.I know a person who has seen the Prophet (pbuh) without a beard in his dream. I have seen Allah in a dream too - but does that mean that's what I believe Allah to look 'like'? No. I do not believe Allah 'looks like' anything, astaghfirullah. In visions/dreams, things can be seen in various forms. Be it light, be it forms. The Sufi imams have written about this, and you can refer to that if you want. So that's that for the hadith about the 'beardless man'. In no way is it suggesting that Allah looks like a beardless man. As for the actual topic at hand, then I have already responded to it elselwhere:
  12. The crux of what I'm trying to show is that if the heart, which is a human organ, can 'perceive' Allah (but not like perception of other created things) then Allah has the power to also give the eyes the power to perceive Him in some way, but not like perception of other created things. Mu'tazilis/Jahmis/Shias make the error of taking the thought beyond what the Sunni position simply states: they insist that the perception through the eyes MUST be corporeal in nature, while the Sunnis keep insisting that they don't believe that. We believe that if Allah can give power to the heart to perceive Him in a manner befitting Him, then He can (and will) give that power to eyes as well. Not like seeing physical objects. And again this is something Sunni scholars have clearly stated, insisted on, and pronounced heretical to believe otherwise.
  • Create New...