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. Yes, it was addressing the polytheists of Mecca, who had been trying to destroy the Muslims, and had broken their treaties (in other words, enemies of Allah). This is clear from the context. I don't see where you get the idea that all these verses apply to all unbelievers. If you think the whole surah applies to unbelievers in general, then that must mean you also think the following verse applies to all unbelievers: And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [9:5]
  2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4609414/amp/Liberal-fascism-man-hounded-moral-pygmies.html
  3. 3000 photos and videos in three years? Who cares? Not all of those videos and photos are even of Iranian women, and the Iranian female population is roughly 40million as far as I know. So (at best) 3000/40000000 = me not having to care.
  4. I don't think his problem is that he doesn't understand it, but rather that he rejects the idea that it is obligatory to pay khums to a scholar.
  5. That's my point. In the verses that were quoted it was made clear that those people were enemies of Allah, or people of the Hellfire, and so shouldn't be prayed for. I don't think we know that because it appeared that someone's parent was a non-Muslim, then they are an enemy of Allah. And if we don't know, then maybe we should assume the best.
  6. Notice that these verses mention it being made clear that the polytheists were people of Hellfire (probably because they fought against Islam), and that in the case of Nabi Ibrahim's father it was made clear that he was an enemy of God. I'm not sure that applies to your average non-Muslim, for whom it has not been made clear that they are enemies of God. How do you know on which beliefs someone died anyway? Who's to say they didn't believe in Islam on their deathbed? And if they had, without anyone knowing, should they be deprived of prayers? Conversely, someone else might have disbelieved on their deathbed.
  7. I don't think there is anything you can do about it. If he knows so much more than you, then you probably have no hope of convincing him. If he has researched this and come to a certain conclusion, then that's between him and Allah. I'm sure he is more than familiar with any argument someone on here is going to bring up, and if it hasn't already convinced him, then I doubt it will now. Nobody is perfect, and nobody can always please others. So just accept what you consider his flaws to be, and be grateful for all the positive things you see in him. It sounds like you don't have any complaints about his belief and practice on the fundamentals of the religion, so I wouldn't worry so much about these other side issues. Again, I would encourage you to try to get a better understanding of his positions by talking to him, but if he isn't willing to talk about this stuff, then do a search for these topics on this forum. You will find plenty of discussion, which might give you a better insight into your husband views. You might then find it easier to talk to him about them. For example, you could just type in 'ShiaChat khums' into Google, and that will bring up some relevant threads.
  8. This is a very restrictive view of freedom of conscience, which seems to view the state as the only power that is capable of restricting someone freedom of conscience, when the media is arguably a much more powerful force. The reality is that he is only being asked these questions because he openly identifies as an evangelical Christian, and if he were to answer honestly, his career would be finished. In fact, he has now resigned, citing this witch hunt as the main reason he feels he can no longer continue. Here is one possible definition of freedom of thought: http://iheu.org/oxford-declaration-on-freedom-of-thought-and-expression/ I'm not sure how it could be argued that he is not being pressured into conforming with a certain ideology, unless you want to believe that only state pressure counts. I don't remember the last time I saw the media attacking anyone for having far-left social views. It seems that pretty much anything goes now. I agree, but he shouldn't have been asked the questions in the first place, since they were completely irrelevant to his role as a politician. I don't remember any Muslim politicians (such as the London mayor Sadiq Khan) being asked about their views on various sins in Islam. It would be one thing if he was voicing his views, but he did his best not to. It was the media that insisted he reveal what his views were.
  9. The recent election in the UK has shown that as far as the media are concerned, there is no place for politicians that hold conservative religious views in British politics. Tim Farron is the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, and generally has a track record of voting in favour of 'LGBT rights', and has voiced his complete support for LGBT causes. However, he also happens to be a self-professed evangelical Christian (i.e. someone who takes his religion seriously), and as such his personal views have been subject to a lot more scrutiny than those of other politicians who have 'worse' voting records on these issues, even if they are Christians, but who don't take their religion so seriously. One example would be the prime minister Theresa May, who claims to be a Christian, and who has a record of voting against a lot of pro-LGBT legislation (until recently anyway). So rather than being judged for his voting record, Tim Farron has been judged for his private religious beliefs, and has essentially being asked to disown them: For the media, it's not enough for him to say that homosexuality isn't a sin, he has to say that gay sex isn't a sin. Sadly, in the end he had to cave in: What happened to freedom of conscience? It's a shame he couldn't just come out and defend his right to have personal religious views, and argue that what he considers a sin or not is irrelevant. If we apply the standard held against him to Muslims, it would be impossible for any Muslim to be involved in British political life. Aside from a Muslim's views on social issues, what about simply believing that drinking alcohol is a sin? Would that be allowed, or would it put in question whether a Muslim politician could be impartial in matters concerning alcohol? This whole situation just shows how far to the left Britain has moved on social issues that it is not even possible for a Christian to run for public office without being questioned on their personal moral views.
  10. Tawhidi's Twitter and Facebook accounts are interesting. It seems he is now condemning Islamic 'scriptures' (he doesn't explicitly say the Qur'an, but this is the impression he wants to give his army are extreme right-wing fans), and is also busy pretending to support the LGBT cause. His followers then asked the obvious question: "Why then be a Muslim?", to which he obviously offers no reply. Talk about irony.
  11. If it's true that they are good friends, then that would raise serious questions about Nakshawani. I don't know if they are friends, but there was a picture taken of them together not that long ago and there is no way that Nakshawani isn't aware of the controversy around Tawhidi. If nothing else, he must have come across this thread by now.
  12. That's for believers, and if Tawhidi is a believer, then the word has lost all meaning. He is actively working to harm Muslims and the image of Islam, and there is no possible context, poetical or not, in which any beliver in Islam should be writing 'Ali = Allah'. The fact that people like to find excuses for such heretical statement is one of the reasons the likes of Tawhidi get away with saying them in the first place. It's interesting that he got more heat from some for criticising scholars than for his blatant heresy.
  13. I agree. I'm just responding to what you said about viewing racism as negative being a Western concept. It sounded like you were saying that they originated it.
  14. The Prophet (s) spoke out against racism didn't he?
  15. I doubt this is the reason, since this phenomenon is not limited to Muslim countries. And I would imagine most people would assume the Qur'an is talking about faces being white or black due to skin colour, but rather as a result of noor (or lack of it) coming from the person's face.
  16. I don't know under what pretext we should take one version of liberalism as authoritative over the other. Liberals in the mould of John Stuart Mill are the small minority in the current liberal movement, and these modern liberals do very much seek to limit freedom of speech through legal means, usually under the guise of labelling anything they don't like as 'hate speech'. Modern liberals also actively seek to stop people from expressing themselves through the means of tactics such as protests that seek to prevent people attending lectures or debates, disturbing those events through noisy interference, the use of violence, and 'no platforming'. The double standard here is that the same people claim to be upholders of free speech. As for Islam, it certainly does seek to limit freedom of speech in some areas, such as blasphemy, but is liberal with respect to other issues that are illegal in some Western countries.
  17. I agree with this. The best outcome would be for the Conservative majority to be reduced, or have a hung parliament. There is no way of making a success of the Brexit negotiations, and whoever is in charge at the time is going to get the blame. It is also very likely that there is a oncoming economic crisis (probably one of the reasons the election was called), and if Labour are in charge they will be blamed for a second financial crash. Unfortunately, due to Corbyn's perceived weakness on terrorism and national security (which he has to take at least partial responsibility for), I think it is now very unlikely that a solid Conservative majority can be averted. Perhaps his only chance now would be to go on a full-frontal attack against May's record as Home Secretary and the governments links with Saudi Arabia. I seriously doubt he will do this though.
  18. I don't give people a free pass on saying dumb stuff just because their overall point may just about agree with mine. At best, the writer can be said to reluctantly concede that conservatives should be able to speak to private audiences on college campuses. It's hardly a ringing endorsement of the right to free speech though, or a strong condemnation of those that seek to limit people's freedom of speech. I didn't claim that in general she is saying that only liberals have rational statements to make, even if it wouldn't surprise me if that's what she did think. What I said was that she believes that only her side has valid statements to make on the issues she is referring to. This would seem to be the clear implication of statements such as: "I share this instance not to toot my own horn, but to suggest that when conservatives are intellectually confronted by principled opposition, they often fold." "Odious conservatives like these should be protested in an orderly way, debated and debunked. There is no way they should be prevented from speaking. When they talk, it becomes quite clear that they are wrong, misguided and narrow-minded" The modus operandi of BLM is to shut down debate, not engage in it. There are many examples of this. For example: Maybe you can point me to where the BLM leadership has condemned such actions, and has instead offered to rationally debate the issues. I don't know, other than I'll have to take her word for it. It doesn't seem to me that there is any shortage of other people who would have been willing to debate it though, and given that the case for affirmative action is hardly a slam dunk, I don't see why anyone who run away from such a debate. I don't know what's unclear about it, and anyway, they are not the first on the left to advance such ideas. It seems to be a fairly common perspective among feminists and racial theorists in particular. I gave a few more examples in a previous post, but there are many others. Ok, but it's a method that relies on intimidation, rather than rational argument. Im not claiming that protests occur each and every time, but they are becoming more common. I'm not sure how it's the speakers that are encouraging the problems. It seems to me that it's those protesting that are doing that. You are right. I should have checked the video for foul language, and at least put up a warning. The point of the video is clear before you get to most of the bad language anyway. I don't disagree that he's a provocateur, but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion we are having here, which is about free speech. Again, the blame should primarily be put on those protesting. If people want to listen to a clown, then that is their business. I don't understand why anyone else should care. He wouldn't be 'provoking harmful responses' if those who opposed him were more grown up themselves. As for why he is (or was) so popular among a certain type of conservative, then I think that's obvious. People are sick of being told what they can and can't say, and as usual this has pushed them to the extreme of wanting to listen to someone like Milo. This probably also partially explains why some people voted for Trump. Campus security show a strange reluctance in dealing with the likes of BLM. Perhaps they fear being accused of racism? Obviously there are still debates that take place between liberals and conservatives, especially if they avoid certain hot button issues such as race, gender, or sexuality. Again, I never claimed this. What I am claiming is that they don't typically try to stop people from speaking to private audiences. Perhaps you can give me some examples of where this has happened. Are you comparing these college kids, and those who support them, to Neo-Nazis and KKK members? Obviously you expect such behaviour from fringe elements of society (although I don't know if even they ever demonstrated in order to prevent someone from expressing themselves to a private audience). The difference here is that these people are not supposed to be fringe elements, and they are supported by supposedly respectable members of society. Who is objecting to you being treated like human beings? What I was referring to is primarily all the insanity that we are now seeing on issues such as gender and sexuality. Liberals like the writer simply seem to think that those protests aren't the most effective way of responding, rather than actually condemning the protests. They also seem more interested in attacking the speakers for expressing for their views or the conservative students for inviting them, rather than the protesters for trying to shut the event down or for inciting violence.
  19. I more or less agree with your analysis, but I think you missed out an important factor, which is that while there is very little chance of Muslims en mass adopting the views of the right in Western society, due to their general hostility towards Muslims, there is a real and present danger of Muslims adopting left wing ideologies, which constitute a serious danger to their identities as Muslims. It is already possible to see the effects among some of the youth that have bought in to the liberal agenda on social issues, and now find themselves morally conflicted over many aspects of their faith. At the very least, this pushes them in a direction of seeking a more 'liberal' interpretation of Islam, which, as we've seen with Christianity, quickly leads to the destruction of the religion. Conversely, Muslims actually have more in common with social conservatives, and in particular the religious ones. It's only really the latent racism and historic hatred of Islam that makes any mutual understanding difficult. There are however some exception, and I do think Muslims could do worse than trying to build bridges with the more sane elements among the Bible-believing Christians. An example would be Yasir Qadhi's dialogues with Christian apologist James White: Finally, I would also add that it's much easier to argue with someone that at least has some kind of standard by which they can be held to account. Whether that is the Bible, or the US constitution. On the other hand, it's impossible to argue with someone for whom truth is a relative concept, and who doesn't believe in an absolutes. For them, anything goes as long as it advances their cause. For that reason, I think Muslims in the United States should join with those on the right in defending the First Amendment like their lives depended on it. Because if the left manage to water it down, as they are seeking to do at the moment, then Muslims will be the ones to pay in the future.
  20. This is how you interpret the following? Seriously? “Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of ‘subjectivity vs. objectivity’ as a means of silencing oppressed peoples,” they explain. “The idea that there is a single truth–‘the Truth’–is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples.” I don't understand this. Why do people need to protest against someone speaking to an audience that had invited them? These speakers aren't forcing their views on anyone who doesn't want to hear them. I like how this is worded as if Ann Coulter and 'activists' on the right and the left share equal responsibility for the threat of violence. How about people grow up, and let invited speakers address the people who have invited them? No need for protests, and hence no need for counter-demonstrations of support, let alone violence. Deserve to be protested? On what grounds? For having unpopular opinions? Maybe all these crazy liberal types should have been protested more back in the day when they first started spouting their garbage, which might have saved us from the situation we are in today. As it was though, they were allowed to speak freely. Maybe they should extend the same courtesy to others. If liberals aren't afraid, why are they always trying to stop people from speaking, or holding views they disapprove of? You don't see the same kind of behaviour from conservatives (whatever their other faults may be). This would all require a degree of maturity that the average college-age liberal is completely incapable of. They live off emotion and outrage. I think the obvious answer to that is no. Good questions. 'Implicitly deny their very right to exist'? Lol. Talk about hyperbole... How deluded to you have to be to think that only your side are capable of making intellectually valid arguments? It's this type of attitude that is behind these ridiculous protests in the first place. What's the point in letting someone speak if they have nothing valid to contribute anyway? Ironically, these attitudes are more akin to those of intolerant religious fundamentalists (which is what these people amount to), than those of the 'children of the enlightenment', that they like to style themselves as (well, aside from those who have come to realise that the enlightenment was just as a massive racist conspiracy, obviously).
  21. I've never heard of this Jila ul-A'yoon book, but what is supposed to be in it doesn't represent any Shia beliefs I'm aware of. If you are concerned, why not just ask your fiancée what she believes.
  22. Sadly most of the somewhat sane people left in Western public life tend to be critical of Islam. I don't really have a problem with that as such. What is disappointing is when you realise how little they know about the subject, and yet feel so free to talk about it. In the long run, it's clear that the Social Justice Warrior types are more dangerous for Muslims though, precisely because they tolerate no dissent. They may identify with Muslims as a fellow 'oppressed class' at the moment, but if and when the battle is ever won against the 'cisgender white male heteropatriarchy', you can bet any Muslims that haven't yet succumbed to their propaganda will immediately be targeted for 'reeducation'. At least those on the right believe in certain values that allow you to argue your case (which is how these liberal lunatics were able to spread their beliefs in the first place).
×
×
  • Create New...