Haydar Husayn

Hi, This question is aimed at Trinitarian Christians. Do you believe Jesus still has a physical body, and will have one for eternity? If so, wouldn't this mean that God has changed, since pre-incarnation the Godhead was made up of 3 person, none of whom had a body, and post-incarnation one of the 3 persons now has a body? And if not, what happened to the human part of Jesus?

Why do you assume that the battle was won through intellectual arguments? And I'm not sure it is quite correct to accuse the Akhbaris of not using the intellect, unless you mean that in a very specific way. That seems more of a caricature of their approach. May eventually have, perhaps. But how much has actually changed since the time of the Imams? What percentage of a marj`a's risala actually deals with 'modern' issues? It seems quite small to me. And this would have been even more the case back when the Akhbaris and Usulis were having their major disputes, so that obviously can't have been the major factor. You mean like allowing a married woman to get pregnant by another man's sperm on the basis that it can't be proven to be haram? I wonder who is more likely to make that ruling, an Usuli or an Akhbari? If you employ a logical and cautious approach of staying away from doubtful things, then it's not that hard for the texts to stay relevant to our beliefs and practices. For example, the issue of fasting in Norway during the Summer is often brought up as a 'modern' problem, and all kinds of weird solutions have been invented including fasting according to the times of the nearest 'normal' country (which seems completely subjective to me). Can anyone have full confidence and certainty in such a ruling? On the other hands, without straying from the texts, you could take the approach that either you should migrate during the summer months (or just not live in Norway at all), since living without darkness is unnatural, or if that's not possible take the view that fasting is impossible, and make them up at a later time when it is (like you would if you were ill). If we can't practice our religion properly due to political constraints, then we would certainly consider moving, so I don't see why it should be any different when it's natural constraints that make it impossible to properly practice the religion. Can you ask them why they left?

He's taking hujjah to mean a Messenger/Prophet/Imams here, when it just means argument (against Allah). What does he think 'against' means here? Is the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) an argument against Allah, or for Allah? The point of the verse is that without having been sent guidance people could complain on the Day of Judgment about it. That would be their argument against Allah. Ask him to provide a Sunni tafsir with his weird interpretation, which like I said is already refuted by the fact that there are Prophets who were not Messengers. Here is what Sunni mufassir Ibn Kathir says (and notice how the verse has been translated): http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-An-Nisa/The-Reason-Behind-Sending-the---- Your friend is reading something into this verse that just isn't there.

Any Nabi that wasn't a Rasul (so didn't come with a book). For example, Harun (عليه السلام).

I would be interested in seeing those ahadith from our books. Up to now, I haven't come across them, and assumed that they were only found in Sunni books. We can discuss this more then insha'Allah. As for the salaam on the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then we have authentic narrations that tell us our salaams are conveyed to him from afar, and he hears them from near his grave. The narrations are specific on this being about salaam, rather than anything more general (although of course this hasn't stopped people extrapolating). The fact that a distinction is made between being close and afar must be significant, and would appear to refute the idea that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is in some sense all-hearing.

Wa `alaikum as-salaam brother, I'm glad we (mostly?) agree on the knowledge of the Imams. Of course they are not meant absolutely literally in this sense, and I doubt it would ever come to anyone's mind to ever take such an obtuse reading, which in any case would be refuted by the Qur'an itself. However, there is a perfectly natural reading, that everyone understands, which is that you shouldn't call on other than Allah for the types of things that one calls out to deities for. We all understand the difference between the help we receive through natural means, and the help we receive through supernatural means. When we are thirsty and sitting in a restaurant, we don't ask Allah to provide us with a glass of water, we ask the waiter. Or, if we are at home and want a pizza, we call for a delivery rather than raise our hands in supplication, to give an example of a natural means of calling someone technically not physically present. But when we want a child (for example), we ask Allah. Everybody in the world understands the difference between these two categories of natural and supernatural, and this is the obvious way of reading the verses of the Qur'an under discussion. So whether or not one believes the beings we are calling out to are dependent or independent of Allah, the point is that they aren't the ones we should be addressing our dua to. Allah gives arguments in the Qur'an about why this shouldn't be done, and those arguments apply in both case (dependent and independent). It is also the case that du`a is a form of worship, as the Qur'an and the hadiths make clear, so making du`a to other than Allah is a form of worshipping other than Allah, which is clearly not allowed. Of course there is always a primary context, but you could apply that to almost everything in the Qur'an. It wouldn't be much good as a book of guidance if it was only relevant to the context it first appeared in. Why would Allah use so many verses in His last message to mankind to deal with an issue that wasn't even going to be relevant within a few decades of the first revelation? In the Qur'an there are statements that are general and others are specific. The verse Whatever Allah has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you, and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil): [59:7] had a specific context, but we take the statement within this verse "whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back" to be a general statement about shari`a. The statements Allah makes in the Qur'an about not calling on other than Him are far more clear, explicit, and numerous than this one. Now, as for the Arab polytheists, I don't believe they had a particularly developed or consistent theology. Polytheism tends to be quite fluid, and it's likely that they held a variety of beliefs about those they were calling out to. I don't think you can use any one verse to make a blanket statement about the beliefs of all the mushrikeen the Qur'an is addressing throughout the book. But even if we grant what you are saying, the fact that the people being addressed believed that the ones they were calling on were independent of Allah doesn't mean that the command only applies to that exact situation. What would you say to a Western Trinitarian Christian who argued that the verses in the Qur'an addressing Christians don't apply to them, because the Qur'an was addressing the type of Christianity that was present on the Arabian peninsula, which doesn't properly represent their beliefs? This would obviously be absurd. There are all kinds of different Christian beliefs about what calling Jesus the Son of God means, but Allah just tells them to stop saying it, full stop. Similarly, I don't think Allah particularly cares what you believe about those you are calling out to, it's just something that shouldn't be done, and for good reason. We have been created to worship Allah, and one of the main ways of doing that is to remember Him. Constantly calling out on other than Him goes against that objective. As before, I simply take it to mean that Allah is our only helper when it comes to supernatural help. So for example, when someone wants help to move a heavy object, they could ask for natural help from a friend, or supernatural help from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to give them extra strength. What I am arguing is that help of this second type should be asked from Allah. And this seems to me to be a far more natural interpretation than the rather academic 'dependent' vs 'independent' one that the defenders of istighatha have concocted. Honestly speaking, which one do you think it is more likely the Arab polytheists understood? Do you think when they heard these verses they slapped their heads and said "Of course, we need to stop calling out to beings with the belief that they are independent of Allah. Instead, what we need to do is call out to them with the belief that they are dependent, and everything will be good!". I mean, if Allah wanted to make that argument, I think He could have done so a lot more simply than the way He is alleged to have done. What also refutes the idea of istighatha is that Allah virtually implores people to call on Him. Why do that if in fact what He really wants is for us to call on intermediaries? And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls on Me, so they should answer My call and believe in Me that they may walk in the right way. [2:186] And your Lord says: Call upon Me, I will answer you; surely those who are too proud for My service shall soon enter hell abased. [40:60] Would your interpretation of these verses also be that Allah means call on those who you believe are dependent on Him? Notice also that when it comes to addressing the situation of people calling out when they are in grave danger, Allah reminds them that they call out to Him, not that they call out to intermediaries with the correct intention. Say: Tell me if the chastisement of Allah should overtake you or the hour should come upon you, will you call (on others) besides Allah, if you are truthful? Nay, Him you call upon, so He clears away that for which you pray if He pleases and you forget what you set up (with Him). [6:40-41] In the numerous verses where Allah mentions calling to Him, or not calling to others, or seeking His help, or relying on Him, etc, etc, the supposedly pivotal point about intention could have been made, but it never was. In all the many examples of du`a in the Qur'an, at least one example could have been given of someone calling out to a previous Prophet, but none ever is. I just think there is way too much evidence to simply dismiss under the rug on intention, and then start doing exactly what the apparent meaning of the Qur'an argues against. I would be interested in hearing your argument for why it should be avoided. The more arguments against, the better!

My 2 cents that I admit are not based on any real thought or study: Why does the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) need to publicly announce something for it to be part of the Shariah? He didn’t gather all the Muslims around every time he said something new. I’m not sure why it couldn’t simply be that this was a matter pertaining to rulership, which is essentially the ability to levy a tax, that he only told Imam Ali (عليه السلام) about, since he was the only one who needed to know.

There are a few problems though. First of all, there is no objective test for this, so it's purely subjective and based on the feelings of the individual. Secondly, operations and hormone treatment cause more or less just superficial changes that in no way change the essence of what they are. If they died and were dug up hundreds of years later, they would still be recognised as the gender they were born as. To all appearances, if you ignore all the massive amounts of pro-transgender propaganda at the moment, this just seems like a mental illness, like other forms of body dysphoria. And how do you suggest determining what the actual gender is? And deciding who is 'deluded' and who isn't? For all we know, they are all deluded. Of course, I'm talking about transgenderism here. The case of intersex people ('hermaphrodites') is different. There they usually do have a dominant gender, and operations can be helpful in helping them lead a normal life.

You might enjoy this:

I tend to believe that numbers such as 73 are not literal (a bit like the 73 sects hadith). So although in theory the 1 remaining part could be a lot greater than the 72 other parts, I think what we need to think about is the message being conveyed (this will be something I come back to later). Obviously when you tell someone that you have 72 out of 73 parts of Allah's knowledge, the impression being given is that you have most of it, but there is one part you don't (in order to maintain some level of difference between the Imam and Allah). If the intent is to convey that Allah knows a lot more, then it would be worded in a less confusing way. So yes, what you say is possible, but since in any case I don't think the numbers 72 and 73 are literal, I don't think it's a very plausible explanation. This is an interesting attempt at explaining away the verses, similar to the one used about all the verses that say not to call on other than Allah. However, again I would ask you what impression is conveyed from the Qur'an? If you weren't already committed to the belief that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) knew the unseen, would this explanation come to your mind from reading those verses? Because remember, the Qur'an had a primary audience, and I don't see any way that they would have understood your explanation from what they heard. In fact, if you read a lot of those verses in context, what is clear is that the Arabs were impatiently asking for signs from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and Allah is telling him what to respond to them. So clearly they didn't believe he had all this knowledge or power. So in that context it doesn't make much sense to suggest that Allah was trying to make some subtle point about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) not being independent of Allah. That would only hold some weight if the Arabs were on the point of worshipping the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and they had to be calmed down. The reality is this whole discussion about 'independence' is not a Qur'anic one. I don't know of anywhere in the Qur'an where Allah makes this argument. Rather, it's one that people have come up with to explain away awkward verses. For example, Allah clearly says in the Qur'an not to call on other than Him, but people want to do it, so they say that what Allah meant was don't call on other than Him while believing that those you are calling on are independent of Him. But then you have to ask why Allah would repeat something so frequently, without any qualification, while never explaining that Himself. In fact, I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any hadiths that explain this either. This is something theologians seems to have come up with. Remember what the Qur'an says: He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive [muhkam], they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical [mutashabih]; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding. [Qur'an 3:7, Shakir] This is an important principle when interpreting the Qur'an. I would suggest that the repeated verses about the Prophet not knowing the unseen are decisive, while the others that tend to get used to support the alternative view are far less clear in their meaning, and usually rely on outside sources to interpret them. Remember as well that the Qur'an repeatedly refers to itself as clear. How can it be clear if even straightforward statements that are repeatedly made mean almost the opposite of what they say? Like I said earlier, I'm not denying that with a lot of mental gymnastics you can just about make this work, but is it worth it? Being honest with yourself, do you really not feel you are stretching to come up with these interpretations? No, I don't think this quite make sense. Remember that according to popular belief he is supposed to know everything that has ever happened and will ever happen. Occasionally Allah would make him forget something, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Also, he is supposed to have control over all the atoms of the universe. All these things are of course given to him by Allah. However, given all that knowledge and power, that is more than sufficient to be able to say "I would have had much of good and no evil would have touched me". Again, think about what message is actually conveyed in those words, rather than how far you can stretch the meaning while still making it fit what you already believe. Of course, but then why not just say 'had I know all the unseen'. Notice that the impression given by the verses is actually that he knows quite little of the unseen (relative to what there is to know), rather than the opposite. And it's not necessary to know all the unseen to have much good and avoid evil. I bet you could think up a very short list of things from the unseen that would give you a very easy life. Ok, but think about what the verse is saying. He can't even tell for sure who the hypocrites are, and that's with meeting them. How can someone with all this supernatural knowledge not be able to figure out who the hypocrites are? This isn't exactly asking for the numbers of grains of sand on a beach (which allegedly he would know). Right, but it also emphasises that Allah gives knowledge when He wants, and makes the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wait for it, which refutes this idea that he has access to it whenever he wants. In fact, it's clear from the Qur'an that he was being mocked or doubted for not producing miracles or immediately answering some of the questions he was asked, so he is made to tell the questioners to wait, just as he waits. Nobody doubts that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has been given knowledge of the unseen. That's what revelation is. The issue how much he has been given. And I'd suggest that the Qur'an gives the impression that the amount is relatively small compared to the amount most Shias assume he would have. There is also this interesting verse that I quoted at the end: And your companion is not gone mad. And of a truth he saw himself on the clear horizon. Nor of the unseen is he a tenacious concealer [81:22-24] This seems to imply that he doesn't as a rule conceal the knowledge he has of the unseen, which is problematic if we are supposed to believe he knows even large amounts of the unseen. I don't believe his light was Allah's first creation, but that's another story (again, why is none of this stuff ever in the Qur'an?). Of course, he is the best of creation, and may therefore know more than any other creature. I don't think it's a given though. For example, Musa (عليه السلام) has a higher rank than Khidhr (عليه السلام), but there were things from the unseen that Khidhr knew that Musa (عليه السلام) didn't. In any case, none of this requires him to know the future, which was the premise of this thread. I'd refer you back to the verse about taking decisive verses over ambiguous ones. Given the number of clear-cut verses that tell me the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) didn't know the unseen (other than what Allah gave him), I'm not going to override them based on an interpretation of this one particular verse, which is fairly obscure in that there are a lot of unknowns about what exactly is going on here. To be fair, I will admit that this is one of the strongest proofs for the other position, given that there are ahadith from the Imams (عليه السلام) that interpret this verse in roughly the sense you are trying to give it, and I don't believe those narrations can just be dismissed without explanation. I'll be honest, and say that as of yet, I haven't sufficiently looked into these ahadith to determine their authenticity, or thought through what the most plausible interpretation of this verse would be. For know, I'll just say that it's not clear to me what book is being referred to. A tentative explanation, which I emphasise I haven't fully thought through, is that someone who has knowledge of the book could be a way of saying someone who had some religious knowledge, and that this was just a one-off miracle that Allah performed for this person (who's origins are very unclear). This verse also doesn't imply anything about the unseen. At best, it implies that this individual had some knowledge that allowed him to travel long distances very quickly. We can't necessarily extrapolate that if he knew this, then someone who knew more would have to know the future, for example. Overall I still feel that if Allah wanted to communicate the beliefs that you are defending, then He would have done it in a much clearer way than this very indirect manner, and on balance the evidence against the Prophet knowing the unseen is much stronger than for. I can quote dozens of fairly clear verses, which don't need much interpreting, while you only really have this one, that isn't even about the Prophet, and requires a specific interpretation, when others are possible. I don't know why Allah would choose to communicate such an important reality about His messenger in such a roundabout way. But as I've said, I don't deny that this is a firmly-routed strain of thought within Shi'ism, that is now the dominant one, and has some support in the narrations for it. I just don't think it's very well grounded in the Qur'an, history, logic, or the bulk of authentic narrations.

I'm sure he used to read and probably also post here, but I doubt he still does.

Not just that, but in many cases the blame is put on the girls for having loose morals, or the parents for allowing their kids out unsupervised (or not bringing them up properly). Apparently the morals and upbringing of the men in question is not relevant.

I'm the last one to play the racism or victim card, but the way the announcement of the restrictions was made was disgraceful, it is fairly clear that it was linked to Eid. Had the made the announcement earlier, it wouldn't have been a problem, but to announce it the night before Eid, after everyone's preparations had been made, in a way that suggested that Muslims were to blame for not respecting the rules, was as bad as it gets. The isn't much doubt that this government contains elements that are contemptuous of Muslims, so it's no surprise that this kind of thing happens.

The reference to Wasa'il leads to the following hadiths: [ ١٣٤٥٤ ] ١ ـ محمد بن يعقوب ، عن محمد بن يحيى ، عن محمد بن أحمد ، عن السياري ، عن محمد بن إسماعيل الرازي ، عن أبي جعفر الثاني عليه‌السلام قال : قلت له : ما تقول في الصوم [١] فانه قد روي أنهم لا يوفقون لصوم؟ فقال : أما إنه قد اجيبت دعوة الملك فيهم ، قال : فقلت : وكيف ذلك ، جعلت فداك؟ قال : إن الناس لما قتلوا الحسين عليه‌السلام أمر الله تبارك وتعالى ملكا ينادي : أيتها الامة الظالمة القاتلة عترة نبيها ، لا وفقكم الله لصوم ولا فطر. [ ١٣٤٥٥ ] ٢ ـ وعن علي بن محمد ، عمن ذكره ، عن محمد بن سليمان ، عن عبدالله بن لطيف التفليسي [١] ، عن رزين قال : قال أبو عبدالله عليه‌السلام : لما ضرب الحسين بن علي عليه‌السلام بالسيف فسقط ثم ابتدر ليقطع رأسه نادى مناد من بطنان العرش : ألا أيتها الامة المتحيرة [٢] الضالة بعد نبيها ، لا وفقكم الله لاضحى ولا لفطر ، قال : ثم قال أبو عبدالله عليه‌السلام : فلا جرم والله ما وفقوا ولا يوفقون حتى يثأر بثار الحسين عليه‌السلام. Both of these are from al-Kafi, and here are Muhammad Sarwar's translations: H 6611, Ch. 27, h 1 Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad ibn Ahmad from al-Sayyariy from Muhammad ibn Isma‘il al-Raziy who has said the following: “I once asked abu Ja‘far, the 2nd, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, ‘I pray to Allah to keep my soul in service for your cause, what do you say about fasting? It is narrated that they never unite in the matter of fasting.’ He (the Imam) said, ‘It is because the prayer of the angel is answered about them.’ I (the narrator) then asked, ‘How is that, I pray to Allah to keep my soul in service for your cause?’ He (the Imam) replied, ‘When people murdered al-Husayn, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, Allah, the most Blessed, the most High, commanded an angel to announce, “O nation who has done injustice to itself, the killer of the descendents of its prophet, Allah will not unite you in the matter of fasting and al-Fitr.”’” H 6613, Ch. 27, h 3 Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from those whom he has mentioned from Muhammad ibn Sulayman from ‘Abd Allah ibn Latif al-Taflisiy from Zurarah who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said, ‘When al-Husayn, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, was hit with the sword and his head fell, he (the killer) rushed to cut off his head, and an announcer announced from the depth of the Throne, “O straying nation in confusion after its prophet, Allah will not unite you in al-Adha’ and al-Fitr ‘Id.”’ He (the narrator) has said that abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, then said, ‘Thereafter, by Allah, they did not unite and will not unite until justice about the case of murdering al- Husayn, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, is done.’” Both are graded as Da`if (weak) by al-Majlisi in Mir'aat al-`Uqul.

@Oskar I don’t see how this verse contradicts our beliefs. We don’t believe that the Imams fulfilled the same role as a Messenger or Prophet. They don’t bring a new message, and they aren’t openly preaching either. Maybe you can expand a little more on what your Sunni friend is saying, because maybe I’m not properly understanding the argument. If he’s claiming that this verse means that there are no hujjahs of Allah apart from the Messengers, then I think he’s misunderstanding the verse. To start with, what about non-Messenger Prophets?