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

Haydar Husayn

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Haydar Husayn

  1. It may be a minority, but I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying it's the exception. At least not among the liberal crowd. Here are some related examples: The whole 'shout your abortion' movement: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShoutYourAbortion Another crowd applauding someone saying that had an abortion: Celebrating women who've had abortions: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5915d68de4b0bd90f8e6a47c
  2. I'm not blaming all of America. Plenty of Americans oppose abortion. However, the dominant culture in America, and the Western world, is one that views abortion as a social and moral good.
  3. It's one thing to consider that abortion may be a necessary evil, which I think a lot of people assume the pro-abortion crowd believe, but these people actually think it is something to celebrate, to cheer, and to applaud. And this is the culture that pretends to be the world's moral authority?
  4. You need not have been shocked. It's quite common. I doubt attending more lectures would have helped much. As for praying harder, what exactly should you have prayed for? To not be exposed to alternative viewpoints? Since it's the prevailing view in the Western world, you would need to really go out of your way not to consider it. Woah there. 'There may well be'? You make it sound like there is some kind of evidence for this, when the reality is that this theory exists solely because otherwise the chances of things working out in our universe the way they do are so incredibly remote that it looks like a miracle. There is zero evidence for any other universe other than our own, and your question is basically backwards. It's not the fact that there are an infinite number of universes that make life so mundane (there is no evidence for the premise of this statement), rather it's the miraculous existence of life that almost necessitates inventing this purported infinitude of universes in order to keep up the pretence that life is due to random chance. There are many reasons. One of which being the fact that life loses all meaning without God. My belief is that all of us recognise deep down that God exists, and Islam is simply a reminder of this. When we choose to not believe in God, we have to suppress this knowledge of God. I'm not sure how this is overly relevant. The fact that there are false religions, or that people use religion for nefarious purposes doesn't invalidate the existence of a true religion. Or maybe all these attributes are similar because they stem from the same origin, and that deep down everyone has that innate knowledge of God imprinted on our souls? As for the Romans adopting Christianity because it better suited their imperialistic needs, I'd be really interested in seeing some evidence for that. It seems to me that they did much better under their pagan religion than they did under Christianity.
  5. @Sindbad05 I think you are confused about what a transgender person is. It is someone who is biologically male who is convinced that they are a actually a woman (or vice versa), and want to be recognised as such. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender The people you are referring to are usually called intersex these days: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
  6. So Allah has created a type of person with an illness that could only be 'cured' in the 20th/21st century? What about all the transgender people before that? Where is Allah's mercy for them? Gender dysphoria is certainly an illness, but it is a mental one, not a physical one, and needs to be treated as such. How can people be expected to believe that men who have fathered numerous children, and have had many relationships with women, are actually women themselves, and have been all their lives? This is ridiculous. Unsurprisingly, the success rate for gender reassignment therapy is not particularly high, perhaps because even after the hormones and surgery, they still know that they are not actually what they are pretending to be. They have just been made to look like it. Fixing someone's teeth and performing major surgery along with hormone treatment in an effort to make them look like the opposite sex are hardly in the same category. However, by your logic, I would assume that if someone had a mental illness that convinced them that one of their limbs didn't belong to them, and wanted it cut off (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder), that you would be in favour of indulging them in their mental illness and cutting it off?
  7. Its not clear to me who thinks this exactly, but in any case what would be the problem with it? What is usually emphasised is the importance of acknowledging that the Imams are not independent of Allah, and are not equal to Him. Well, the belief that Allah has 'retired' from the affairs of the world doesn't contradict these principles. Neither is it very clear why saying that Allah has retired is a horrible statement, but saying that the Imams share in running the world is perfectly fine. After all, it could simply be argued that the world is only a small part of Allah's creation, and there is no problem in Him delegating the running or it to His highest creations. I don't personally believe this obviously, but I'm not sure what the counter argument is from someone who believes the Imams can create and provide sustenance. In any case, it's always difficult to know whether to trust answers such as these from scholars. Some people don't believe in openly talking about certain things, due to people's different levels of 'maarifa' (the famous hadith about Salman and Abu Dharr could be used as justification), and that taqiyya is required on certain topics.
  8. Wa alaikum as-salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh. Welcome to ShiaChat! What sources are you using that tell you that science is saying this? I think you'll find that science is nowhere near as unambiguous about the role biology plays in determining sexual orientation as you seem to think. Certainly, there is a general consensus that biology plays a role, but to what extent, and how exactly it plays a role is not at all clear. The whole concept of an identity centred around a person's sexual preferences is a very recent phenomenon. Why should religious literature mention this man-made concept? I don't think we 'must' accept scientific research unless conclusive counter-evidence is provided, for a number of reasons. Firstly, a lot of things that get published in scientific journals are based on dubious studies. There is so much pressure on academics to publish new results that they often fudge the data. When you factor in the social and political biases surrounding a topic such as homosexuality that becomes even more likely. Secondly, often it takes time for counter-evidence to come to light, so if you keep changing your views based on what recent studies show, then you will be in a constant state of flux. Obviously, solid and settled scientific evidence needs to be taken into account, but you can't keep changing your religious views based on recent studies that are open to all kinds of biases. Now, like I said, I don't believe that in this case, the purported scientific studies even are that clear. You could just as well ask the same question of people born with certain severe physical or mental abnormalities who have very little chance of being able to get married. Or people born into cultures where forced marriages are commonplace. It's unfortunate, but people have different challenges in this life. The important thing is to remember that it's the next life that is most important, not this one. But if we decide to forget about the next life, then of course nothing makes any sense any more. This whole concept of the most important thing in life being romantic love also needs to be challenged. Most people in human history probably had romantically loveless lives, but there are plenty of other forms of love and happiness. Yes, but the two are not equal. Sexual desire between two people of the opposite sex is natural, and produces life as a result. Men and women are made in a compatible way for this purpose, unlike two men or two women. Not to mention that homosexuality tends to lead to disease. It is only through artificial means such as condoms and drugs that this disease is controlled, but even then there are still very high rates of STDs among the homosexual population. What would the purpose of this be? How can you explain the reason for something when you start the discussion by pretending the principle reason doesn't exist? Reasons can be given as to why homosexual acts are not a good idea, but we now live in a society where the guiding principle is to do whatever makes you happy as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else. As such, there is no argument you can give against homosexuality, or transgenderism. However, there is no argument against incest either. So when society gets round to ironing out that inconsistency and decides to accept it, are we going to start discussing that as well?
  9. Haydar Husayn

    attempt 2

    I don't see what is unfair. People have free will, so of course they can do whatever they want. But yes, if you want to be a Muslim, then you need to follow certain rules. There are no good reasons. The only real reason people want to do it is that they have 'fallen in love' with a non-Muslim, but this isn't a good basis upon which to select a spouse, and in any case a Muslim should avoid putting themselves in that position in the first place, that they have developed such a deep relationship with non-mahram. I don't know anyone who says this is a good thing, and many scholars actually forbid it under many conditions. However, it should still be acknowledged that there is a difference between a man marrying a non-muslim and a woman doing it. In theory, a man should have more influence within his family, especially in regards to the religion of the children. Anyway, people can always find things to complain about. If women were allowed to marry men from the ahlulkitab then we'd get questions about why it's not allowed to marry Hindus or atheists. And if you can live life without marrying them, then why not Christians and Jews, especially when it's very hard to find practicing Christians and Jews these days, let alone ones that would want to marry someone of a different religion. When most people talk about marrying Christians and Jews, they are talking about marrying people who are functionally atheist.
  10. Christianity contradicts Judaism in a far more fundamental way than Islam does. The examples you have given are heretical according to mainstream Christian denominations. The H2O analogy actually describes modalism, which is not mainstream Trinitarian doctrine, since it implies the Father took the form of Jesus. Its interesting you should bring up Mathematics, because Isaac Newton, who was one of the greatest Mathematicians and Physicists of all time made a deep study of the Bible and couldn't bring himself to accept the Trinity. Rather, he had a Unitarian view of God. Like what? Wrong. Who has ever claimed this? Erm... You do realise that there are numerous contradictions even within the four Gospels, right? The Qur'an doesn't affirm that whatever is in the Bible is correct. Rather, it says that the Bible contains guidance and light, but that the Qur'an is the criterion with which to judge what is correct or not. Clearly if the Qur'an explicitly denies that Jesus died on the cross, then clearly it can't affirm everything in the Bible. Since you believe Jesus is God, then you believe that Jesus ordered all the killings that happened in the Old Testament (for example the slaughter of all the Amalekites). I don't know what so many Christians try to run away from this obvious consequence of their beliefs. It doesn't seem to me that Jesus spent much time preaching to the Gentiles. That seems to be Paul's work. Jesus seemed primarily concerned with the Jews: 'He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."' (Matthew 15:24) In his earthly ministry Jesus also failed to live up to Jewish expectations of what the Messiah would accomplish, which is one of the reasons they don't believe in him, so I don't know how much appealing to those prophecies helps you. In case you hadn't noticed, this is equally true, if not more so, of Islam. No, we claim that God never abolished the Law, even if He may have modified it. As Jesus said: 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5) Arabic is at least another Semitic language, like Hebrew and Aramaic, unlike Koine Greek, which the New Testament is written in. As for killing people, it seems to me that a lot less people died to establish Islam than died to establish God's people in the Holy Land. And as you say, since God doesn't change, why should there be an issue? Again, you need to address all the killings that happened in the Old Testament if you are going to use this line of argument. Not to mention that much of Christianity's spread happened at the hands of the Roman Empire, which did kill people. Not to mention European colonialism. Paul ordered women to cover their hair, and Jesus never told women to take their veils off either. That's good, but I think you still have some way to go if you want to convince Muslims that you understand their faith.
  11. Haydar Husayn

    attempt 2

    You can marry whoever you want, but if you want to be a Muslim, then yes, you are limited to Muslims. But I don't understand why a Muslim would want to marry a non-Muslim. This is even more then case for a woman. Why would you want to head of the household and the father of your children to not be a Muslim? To me, the idea that someone would even consider this shows an immaturity of mind and a deep confusion about what their priorities should be in life.
  12. Haydar Husayn

    attempt 2

    God doesn't force you to sin, and if you do sin you can repent and be forgiven. As for being 'gay', just because you are attracted to people of the same sex, it doesn't mean you have to act on it (and it's the act that is sinful, not the feelings). And in any case, even among secularists, female sexuality is thought to be much more 'fluid' among women than it is among men, so there is a decent chance that you should be able to get married to a man one day, even if you still find yourself attracted to women.
  13. Haydar Husayn

    attempt 2

    There are no shortage of threads on this forum questioning everything from the existence of God to the necessity of hijab. Why would you assume that just because for whatever reason your post didn't get through that it is due to 'close mindedness'? I'm not sure what the question is here. Maybe try rephrasing it. Men and women are different. Why is it acceptable in Western countries for men to walk around topless, but not women? You can marry whoever you want. But if you are a Muslim why would you want to be married to a non-Muslim? We have people in the West getting married and divorced over political affiliations. For example, Hillary supporters divorcing Trump supporters, and certainly they wouldn't marry each other, because they would disagree on what they consider to be important issues. So it's a little baffling when Muslims attach less importance to religious affiliations than secular people do to political affiliations. Because you aren't an animal? In civilised societies, the lawful outlet for sexual desires has always been marriage between a man and a woman. It's only in severely decadent societies that there has been a kind of free-for-all. And the only reason it has been possible in the West to the extent that it has is because of artificial means such as birth control, abortion, and drugs to treat STDs. Without those things, the consequences of what is happening in the West would be almost unimaginable. Nevertheless, we are still left with severe societal problems such as high rates of single parent families and fatherlessness, which has serious knock on effects. Anyway, this is all rather besides the point. You shouldn't decide to believe in a religion based on how much you like it's teachings, but rather whether you think it's true or not. If you think God has asked you to live by certain rules, then you should follow them, regardless of how much you personally like them or not.
  14. I think you'll find that Jews would say they have more in common with the Muslims view of God than with the Christian one. So although you may try to group yourself with them, I'm not sure they would agree. Jews do not believe in a trinity of persons making up the Godhead, or in God becoming man. They don't have anywhere near such problems with what Muslims claim about God. It's a little ironic for a Christian to claim this, when Christianity abolished the Law of Moses, and turned a Unitarian view of God into a Trinitarian one. Just because you incorporate Jewish books in your Bible, it doesn't mean there is continuity of beliefs. This is historically illiterate. Christians have persecuted Jews far worse throughout history than Muslims ever had. And much of this hatred of Jews can be traced directly back to the New Testament, that contains several passages that many Jews deem anti-Semetic. While it's certainly true that many Muslims today unfortunately do have some pretty terrible views about Jews, much of this is due to political reasons in regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Prior to that, Jews were safer in Muslim lands than they ever were in Christian ones. Where does God say that what you call the Bible is His Word, and that he had protected it from corruption? If the smallest letter to change is such a big deal to you, then doesn't it bother you that the Gospel writers often misquote the Old Testamebt because they relied on a corrupted Septuagint version, rather than the original Hebrew? That is why you get issues such as this: Luke 4 16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Jesus here is meant to be reading from Isaiah 61:1-2, which says: 61 The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, There was nothing in the original about recovery of sight for the blind. However, that is what is found in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which the Gospel writers relied on when quoting scripture. Because of this, there are several instances where the passage quoted in the New Testament is a bit different from the one found in the Old Testament. I agree that we don't have the same God in the sense that you worship a triune God, one part of which is a God-man (who apparently still has his human body, so how's that for an unchanging God?), while the Jews and Muslims worship a unitarian God, no part of whom is human.
  15. Well, if you kill everyone who doesn't worship you, then I think it's a little bit hard to argue there is compete freedom of choice. And as you point out, ultimately anyone that doesn't believe in Jesus is going to Hell. I don't have a problem with that, but that does indicate a certain level of compulsion. I'm sure if the government told you to do something or else you would be executed, then you would say they were compelling you. Wasn't the point that they were changing money in the temple? As far as I remember, he wasn't attacking every Pharisee that he came across. As for the laws that you seem so keen on denigrating, allow me to remind you once again that according to your beliefs Jesus authored those laws, so clearly he must have felt they were important. No, the concept of God Muslims have is not to be found in a man, or in a confusing doctrine of three divine persons in one divine being. I doubt this is anyone's idea of God who doesn't feel compelled to accept the authority of the Bible on this matter. Yes, I've read these passages, but I don't get your point. As a Muslim, I don't disagree that Jesus did great things, and performed mighty miracles. It doesn't prove to me that he was God. I read the Bible for many reasons, the least of which is to 'debate', as I have neither the time nor the interest to go looking to debate Christians or convert them. But obviously, if approached by a Christian, I'm not going to shy away from quoting the Bible in my discussion with them. On the other hand, almost everything I know about Christianity, I've learnt from Christians. I enjoy listening to their perspective, without feeling any need to try to debate with them or convert them. Sadly, I don't get the feeling that you are here to learn, or that your primary source of information about Islam has been Muslims.
  16. Yes, and since you believe Jesus to be God, then you believe he issued those commandments, don't you? Since according to the Gospels (especially the synoptic ones), Jesus didn't claim to be God, then of course he didn't command people to worship him. I'm aware of stories of people worshiping him, but there are different levels of worship. It seems unlikely they were worshiping him as God. When Jesus asks his disciples who people say he is, nobody responds by saying that they think he is God: Matthew 16 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist;others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Well, that may be your interpretation, but it is clearly not the only one. What do you do with this: Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. (Revelation 19:15) Sounds pretty harsh to me. For now, it would seem, in light of the above.
  17. Really? Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' (Matthew 4:10) There are numerous passages in the Old Testament where God commands His people to worship Him, to love Him, to worship no other than Him, and that He is a jealous God. Meanwhile in the Book of Revelation, Jesus comes back and kills all his enemies, presumably in order to bring in the state in which 'every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess to God' (Romans 14:11). So it seems highly questionable to say that God doesn't need to command people to worship Him.
  18. Im not sure what you mean by a 'performance based religion', but in Islam faith is more important than works (although both are necessary). Anyone that believes has a chance of being saved, even if they don't pray or fast. On the other hand, someone that prays and fasts but doesn't have faith won't be saved. Works are the way in which we show our obedience to God. As it says in James 2:14-17: What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
  19. No offence taken. It seems we share the same frustration then, just from opposite sides. I'm not sure which prayer you are referring to, but although there are reference to God not having a son, and Muhammad being a prophet of God, I'm not aware of those statements being combined in anything that could be referred to as the 'main prayer'.
  20. I wouldn't doubt that you feel more love towards your conception of Jesus than most Muslims feels towards their idea of who Jesus was. But just as you would know doubt say that you can't claim to love Jesus without truly knowing him (as Lord and Saviour), we would say that ascribing what from our perspective are blasphemous attributes to him is not the correct way to show love towards him.
  21. The problem is none of these arguments apply to me. I consider myself more Western than Eastern, have great respect for Western intellectual tradition, and am at least as critical of Muslims as I am of 'the West' (see my numerous posts on the gullibility of Muslims, their blind adherence to tradition, their racism, etc). I am under no illusions about the current state of the Muslim world, but neither am I blind to the serious moral and intellectual issues (of a mostly different nature to those in the Muslim world) that are currently blighting the Western world. Wahdat on the other hand barely ever has any criticisms to make of the West, so grateful does he seem to be that they allow him to live here. He talks about the more advanced state of the Western world, without ever acknowledging the massive role played by the exploitation of other nations, both in the past and in the present. This is a issue if he is going to constantly bleat on about how morally superior the West is. What good is it to be nice to Muslims at home, if you are busy bombing, oppressing, and enslaving them abroad? How can anyone look at, to take one of many examples, what is going on in Yemen, and have the nerve to talk about Western moral superiority? How can any Muslim, particularly one 'confident in their Islamic skin', look at the direction Western culture has taken in the past few decades, and see anything other than moral decay? Plenty of Christians (and others) can see it, but apparently Wahdat is blind to it, or at the very least doesn't think Muslims have any right to comment on it. Wahdat's issue is that he has no balance, and worse, is openly hostile to any moral or intellectual critique of the West, even when it agrees with what many non-Muslim Westerners themselves say. His attitude seems to be that Muslims should just shut up and be grateful. This is the attitude of a slave, rather than that of a free man. Many of those who post on here were born in the West, and/or have parents born in the West. They have just as much right to offer criticisms of their society as anyone else, and have no need to live in a state of eternal gratitude.
  22. He seems to have a major inferiority complex when it comes to the West.
  23. Your post is a massive non sequitur. Germany had one of the most advanced and sophisticated cultures in history at the beginning of the 20th century, and that didn't stop the rise of the Nazis.
  24. Yes, I perfectly understand that you wouldn't want to be seen to be imitating Muslims. In Islam, we also have a principle of not imitating unbelievers. This is a very important principle in the Old Testament, and one of the reasons for some of the laws given the Israelites that now seem so strange to us. However, I don't think this principle should override doing what you believe God wants from you. So it really depends on you, and how you see things. After all, plenty of Christians do cover their hair in a variety of ways, which don't necessarily resemble the ways in which Muslims cover their hair.
  25. There is nothing inherently wrong with a Western Islam, but there would be a major problem with an Islam that fits in with modern Western values, that have nothing to do with traditional Western values, let along Islamic ones. The West has collectively taken leave of its senses over the past few decades, and Muslims would do better to open their eyes and realise that, rather than trying to follow this self-destructive trajectory.
  • Create New...