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

    10,420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    73

Everything posted by Haydar Husayn

  1. Quality is more important than quantity. The vast majority of books published these days are pure trash. No doubt that is true of books published in Arabic as well, but just because the West is pumping out a ridiculous volume of books, it doesn't necessarily imply any intellectual superiority among the masses.
  2. Women in Jesus' society covered their hair, so there would be no reason for him to explicitly mention it. Rather, if it was something women shouldn't be doing, then you would expect him to tell them to take their head coverings off. However, he did say such things as: 7 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. Wearing hijab makes it more difficult for men to look at women lustfully. This doesn't absolve men from their duty to avoid staring at women, but it's part of the system that leads to a modest society. Traditionally, women in Christian countries usually covered their hair in public, and it's only as society became more secular that this practice ceased, and many Churches no longer emphasised it (although many still require women to cover their hair in church). With regards to the way some men in Middle Eastern countries stare at women who don't wear hijab, then consider the fact that it's due to the context. Most men in the West wouldn't (blatantly) stare at a women wearing a bikini if she was on a beach, but a women would certainly get stares if she turned up to work at her office in a bikini. This is because we understand that there are appropriate ways of dressing depending on the context we find ourselves in. In the much of the Middle East, it is assumed that in public women should have their hair covered, and hence any women that doesn't will draw attention to herself. The fact that this may not happen in the West is simply a reflection of the different cultural mores.
  3. I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here, but Allah bestowing favour and honour on His chosen servants doesn't negate the fact that they are mortals like us. You yourself quoted this: Surah Ibrahim, Verse 11: قَالَتْ لَهُمْ رُسُلُهُمْ إِن نَّحْنُ إِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُكُمْ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَمُنُّ عَلَىٰ مَن يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ وَمَا كَانَ لَنَا أَن نَّأْتِيَكُم بِسُلْطَانٍ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ وَعَلَى اللَّهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ Their apostles said to them: We are nothing but mortals like yourselves, but Allah bestows (His) favors on whom He pleases of His servants, and it is not for us that we should bring you an authority except by Allah's permission; and on Allah should the believers rely. (English - Shakir) Saying about them what the Qur'an itself says is clearly not denigrating them.
  4. My view is what the Qur'an says: that the Prophet (s) was a human being, just like us, who received revelation. Similarly, previous prophets were also human beings who received revelation.
  5. Why don't you tell us what you understand by this phrase?
  6. Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired. - Jonathan Swift

  7. Who's to say she didn't have the physical and mental maturity needed? Presumably this is why there was a 3 year gap between contracting the marriage and consumation, which would hardly make much sense if Aisha was in her late teens. Unless people here actually think that 16/17 wasn't old enough either.
  8. How do you know this information is accurate? It sounds like you are just picking whatever best suits what you want to believe. The Sunni sources are not unanimous on this issue. From Shaykh Gibril Haddad's response to the arguments against Aisha's age: Which Shia scholars before the 20th century had a problem with Aisha's age?
  9. Nobody would have cared with any of the other Prophets either. It's only people in the 20th and 21st century Westernised world that care about such things. Out of interest, what do you think the minimum age for marriage should be, and on what basis do you think so?
  10. What makes you so sure about Asma's age being correct?
  11. This doesn't actually work in your favour. Since the hadiths on Aisha's age were known during the lifetimes of the Imams, the fact that we have no comment on it from them rather indicates that this issue was not a subject of controversy for them or their followers. Additionally, the fact that we have narrations from them confirming that a girl becomes baligh at 9, I struggle to understand where anyone gets the idea that they would have disapproved of the idea that Aisha was 9 or 10. If anyone here sincerely believes that the idea that the Prophet (s) married a 9 year old is morally objectionable, then they need to explain why the Imams wouldn't have felt it necessary to contradict it, while they commented on far more mundane matters. Additionally, why would they then reinforce the idea that a girl became baligh at 9? This makes no sense.
  12. No idea. Maybe they find it easier to get worked up about situations involving Jews. Apparently Bangladesh, who you think would be helping the Rohingya, want good relations with Burma, and are in fact trying to stop refugees crossing the border. I think another problem is that Burma aren't allowing journalists into the country, so there is a lack of visual imagery that helps stir people's emotions.
  13. What is going on in Burma right now is absolutely sickening. If only most Muslims cared about this even one tenth as much as they care about Palestine.
  14. Have you read the Bible? There may be more full accounts, but are you sure you are ok with accounts that talk about the Prophet Lot getting drunk and committing incest with his daughters? The Qur'an's accounts may be shorter, but they are far more beautiful and respectful. I don't know the reason for your current spiritual confusion, but I'm pretty sure the answers you are looking for aren't going to be found in Christianity.
  15. The problem with the LGBT movement isn't their sexual practices, it's their insistence that everyone else considers their sexual practices and lifestyle to be perfectly normal, and if anyone dares to disagree then they need to be shamed as a bigot. This is something that they feel has to be taught to young school children, and sooner or later it leads to people questioning their religion for its 'intolerant' attitudes, or seeking to rewrite the religion to conform with the new reality. We are currently witnessing a complete rewriting of what has been considered normal and ethical for thousands of years in order to appease a tiny portion of the population, and have reached the point where society no longer seems to be sure what a man or a woman is, whether children actually need male and female parents, or whether we might not all be happier in 'open' marriages (as homosexuals are so fond of practicing). This is a lot more serious than simply being a matter of tolerating other people's beliefs and practices. Christian denomination after Christian denomination has already capitulated on this matter, and it's only a matter of time before more Muslims start calling for 'reforms' in Islam as well.
  16. Another definition is "irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable" (Merriam-Webster). I'd say the Holocaust fits under that definition. The distinction you are trying to make is in any case rather artificial. The point is that people are being punished for expressing views that cause offence. I don't see why it should matter if those views concern religion, or some other topic like history or politics. Although of course, that would then expose the hypocrisy of those who criticise religious blasphemy, while supporting the secular kind of blasphemy. To give another example, in many countries 'flag desecration' is a crime. If this isn't a form of a secular blasphemy law, then I don't know what is.
  17. @Gaius I. Caesar It seems interesting, but The Young Turks are way too biased for me to trust anything they say about the Trump administration without having some other more neutral verification. I don't doubt that these cuts actually happened, since Trump is looking to cut lots of government programs. What I'm less sure about is whether there is this clear pattern in favour of defunding groups that combat White supremacy in particular, or whether they are just being selective with the evidence. Not that it would shock me if they were correct, but on their own, I don't find them trustworthy.
  18. Where is France on they list? In that country you can be punished for blasphemy against the Holocaust. Doesn't that count?
  19. As much as I despise Nazis and their ilk, I think it's worth remembering that what we are seeing is mild in comparison to the reaction there would be in any other part of the world to the social changes that have happened in America over the past few decades. We might think it is terrible that these white people fear losing their majority status in the coming decades, but does anyone think any non-Western country would tolerate such a thing? It would be the majority rioting there, not some fringe minority. So yeah, these people are mostly racist scumbags (although like Trump I allow for the possibility that some decent people may be mixed up in it all), but let's not try to portray them as uniquely racist, when theirs views would be fairly mainstream if put into the context of many of the countries people on this website come from. They are only really racist relative to the rest of the population of their country (or 'the West'), rather than compared to the rest of the world. But then, many these days seem to claim that only white people can be racist anyway... Aside from that, I think this whole movement to remove statues and rename buildings (which has become increasingly common recently) is infantile and needlessly provocative. Most 'great' people from the past in all parts of the world would be judged as terrible by today's standards. It's better to just let the past stay in the past.
  20. Yes, they do. And that is especially the case of chicken that are raised in industrial conditions, where they are pretty much surrounded by it. However, they also do it naturally.
  21. The point isn't whether Tawhidi represents Sayyid Shirazi or speaks on his behalf. Nobody claims he does. The point is whether either of them disassociate themselves from the other. The media really need to press Tawhidi on Sayyid Shirazi's views, which are clearly incompatible with this ultra-liberal version of Islam that Tawhidi is pushing (or pretending to push). Meanwhile, Shias need to be pressing Sayyid Shirazi's office for a statement on Tawhidi, because the silence has been deafening up until now. Those who think this has anything to do with selling out to the West are missing the point. Tawhidi is no Majeed Nawaz. His only objective is to raise his own profile, and to do as much damage to Sunnism and Sunnis as possible.
  22. I don't get it. Who cares if they are a celebrity?
  23. I don't see how this conclusion follows at all, even if everything that precedes it is accepted. And why is evidence from dodgy 'Bakri' books being used?
  24. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. The point that is been made is the fact that people erect a shrine for a holy personality doesn't necessarily mean that they are believers in the sense that we would understand it. So if you want to prove they were believers you need a different argument. Even if it can be proved they are believers, it still wouldn't necessarily prove that we can build shrines, because their shariah could be different to ours.
  25. Just because people 'believe' in someone, it doesn't make them believers. Christians 'believe' in Jesus, but they have the wrong beliefs about him, and so we wouldn't call them believers.
×
×
  • Create New...