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. @Qa'im Coincidentally, I was just watching another video of his:
  2. Say the socially liberal morons who have lost touch with reality. http://claremontindependent.com/students-demand-administrators-take-action-against-conservative-journalists/ Well, there you have it. The idea of objective truth is now a racist concept. How brainwashed do you have to be to come out with this kind of nonsense? Apparently there are quite a few loonies on the left who buy into this stuff. Here are a few more examples: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/04/the-science-march-sparked-a-big-argument-about-objectivity.html See also insanity such as:
  3. You are supposed to do taqleed in matters of fiqh, not everything related to Islam, and even then nothing stops someone researching a topic themselves. It's not haram. Neither is it haram to tell people what your opinion is. He's not opposing them on everything. He's opposing (most of) them on some issues that are generally not related to fiqh, and hence on which scholars don't tend to be so strict. Arguably this has opened the door to certain fabrications becoming widespread. Anyway, the point isn't whether he is right or not. The point is that is being slandered for nothing more than having unpopular opinions, and this is a disgraceful thing to do, particularly when the only argument against him is that most scholars disagree with him, which isn't really much of an argument at all. Are you sure they are obscure and the scholars are nobodies? Is it possible that it's simply that you haven't heard of them. Would you also say that the compiled of the hadith books, like Shaykh Kulayni, also 'defamed' Imam al-Hasan Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, by preserving these narrations? And what about those narrators who transmitted this, were they defaming him too? First of all, he wasn't banned. He left of his own free will. Secondly, I'm not defending his views per se (although I do agree with him on many things), but rather I am defending him against slander. I, and other people I know and respect, have spoken to him on several occasions, and whatever differences I may have with him about the way he publicises his views, I can tell you that he is certainly no 'anti-Shia agent'. It's rather sad and pathetic to see the way so many Shia respond to anyone questioning some of the less firmly established (in terms of evidence) aspects of their religion, and the lengths they will go to in order to defame anyone who dares to point out that lack of evidence. If people are so sure that these things can be backed up with solid evidence, then they have just reason to be concerned if someone questions them, and if they can't be backed up with much evidence then tolerance should be shown for those who chose to have a different view. I would really urge everyone to carefully consider whether it is worth potentially committing the major sin of slander for the sake of defending some duas and rituals that are not essentials of the religion, and don't seem to be backed up with that much evidence. Is anyone seriously arguing that questioning these things takes you out of the religion?
  4. I don't think anyone can tell you not to fast, as this is a decision you have to make for yourself. Maybe try doing more work earlier in the day when you are less hungry, and then do shorter amounts, with breaks in between, as it gets later. You can then try to do a bit more after breaking your fast. It's obviously not going to be easy, and is a real test for those who have to go through this. Of course, if the fasting makes you feel unwell then you can break it. This is an individual decision though, and not one that someone can make for you. I wish you the best of luck for your exams though, and pray that Allah makes things easy for you.
  5. As far as I remember, he was fed up with the moderating policies at the time. I think several people have asked him to come back, but he has refused. He probably doesn't see the point.
  6. It's a two minute video, not a photo. Too bad there isn't any sound.
  7. Nobody is claiming that anyone thinks the Imams are equal to God. I think this is a problem some of you have, where you want to make ghuluw identical to believing that the Imams are equal to God, which is not at all the case. The mufawida, who were mentioned earlier, believed that the Prophet and Imams were created by God, and there is no indication that they thought they were equal to Him. Its perfectly possible to exaggerate about the Imams without saying they are equal to God, or independent of Him. This was clearly the view of Shaykh Saduq and Shaykh Mufid (amongst others), or else they would have defined ghuluw in such simple terms, rather than listing various other signs that have nothing to do with being equal to God. By the way, I don't believe that a doctor heals anyone. A doctor recommends a certain treatment. Whether that works or not is in the hands of Allah, which is why no treatment is ever 100% effective. I also don't believe that Isa (as) raised anyone from the dead. Rather, he asked Allah to raise the person from the dead.
  8. You should have included an 'other' option.
  9. I think they are stupid, and it's sad to observe the sheep-like manner in which people follow the latest fads, no matter how pointless they may be. As for 'killing time', wouldn't it be better to do something productive rather than mindlessly play with this toy? The month of Ramadan is a time for reflection and focus on religion, not an ordeal to survive by wasting time.
  10. Never despair of the mercy of Allah. The fact that you know you have done wrong, and regret it is a good sign. It's when people no longer care that they are really in trouble. Just focus on cutting out on these sins, and whatever you do try not to neglect your obligatory prayers and fasts. All of us sin to some greater or lesser extent, but sinning isn't a reason to make things worse by neglecting our obligations, and if you are strict about things like hijab, praying, and fasting, then you will find it much harder to sin. And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, he shall find Allah Forgiving, Merciful. [Qur'an, 4:110] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.[5:74] Whoever brings a good deed, he shall have ten like it, and whoever brings an evil deed, he shall be recompensed only with the like of it, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly. [6:160] And keep up prayer in the two parts of the day and in the first hours of the night; surely good deeds take away evil deeds this is a reminder to the mindful. [11:114] Yet surely your Lord, with respect to those who do an evil in ignorance, then turn after that and make amends, most surely your Lord after that is Forgiving, Merciful. [16:119] Say: O my servants! who have acted extravagantly against their own souls, do not despair of the mercy of Allah; surely Allah forgives the faults altogether; surely He is the Forgiving the Merciful. [39:53]
  11. If you delegate powers to someone then you authorise them to act on your behalf. By delegating religious authority to the Prophet, Allah allows him to declare things halal or haram without specifically receiving revelation to that effect. At other times, Allah will send down revelation that makes something halal or haram. I hope you think there is a difference between statements the Prophet made that were revealed to him by Allah, and statements he made otherwise. What Shaykh Saduq is saying is they although such powers over religion were delegated to the Prophet, power over creation was not delegated to him. So he cannot decide to perform acts that are beyond human power without Allah performing these miracles for him. In other words, rather than raising the dead in the way that he would perform any other action in his daily life, he would need to pray to Allah to raise the dead. If you have an alternative way of reading his statements then please let me know. The proof is provided in the statement by Shaykh Saduq that I quoted, where he quoted the ayah that tells us to take whatever the Prophet gives us and to refrain from what he forbids us.
  12. In order for this to be a valid argument you would need to prove that the type of tawassul that exists now, or that ibn Taymiyya may have been addressing, is found in the classical books, or was performed by people in those times. I'm not aware of any such evidence. You can't expect scholars to argue against something that didn't exist at the time. As usual with defenders of istighatha, you are trying to conflate all types of tawassul in order to defend the weakest form of it so as to allow its strongest form. As it happens, ibn Taymiyya changed his view on tawassul, but remained against istighatha.
  13. A building doesn't need to be decorated with gold and silver in order to be beautiful. In fact, generally I'd say that doing such things is in bad taste, particularly if in the proximity of poverty. The Prophet (s) built the first mosque in an extremely simple way. The Kaaba itself was built in a simple way. I think we would be better off taking inspiration from those examples, rather than of shallow materialistic ideals of beauty.
  14. I haven't addressed it, because I don't see how it's relevant. Whether or not ibn Taymiyyah was the first to use these verses to attack istighatha doesn't have any impact on whether he was correct or not. To think otherwise would be a logical fallacy. Anyone with half a brain can easily see that I'm not a Quranist. However, the Qur'an does take precedence in how I form my beliefs. If something contradicts the Qur'an then I reject it, rather than look for some ridiculously convoluted way of reconciling it with a set of beliefs that are nowhere to be found within it.
  15. No offence, but he provided evidence for his views, and mostly his view is simply given by the choice of the title in the article and what he has chosen to translate. Most of what he writes is just translation of hadiths or the writings of a Shia scholar. Meanwhile, your criticisms of him are just assertions or logical fallacies. This is an argument from authority. The whole world can call something authentic, but if there is no evidence to back it up, then someone has to right to point out that there is no evidence. You can't criticise someone for that. Not to mention that all he did was quote Ayatullah Hobollah. Is he an anti-Shia agent too? Knowledge of everything there is to know in the world was not necessary for their role. They only need to know about matters of religion. The fact that schoolchildren know things about non-religious issues that perhaps the Imams didn't doesn't seem important to me. School children know lyrics to nursery rhymes that I'm guessing the Imams didn't know. Does that make them 'better' than the Imams? Of course not. He presented his evidence. What part of it do you object to? What Sunnis say doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Again, it comes down to evidence. It's also what Imam Ali said, who he quoted directly. Do you think he fabricated the hadith, or mistranslated it? Be honest, did you actually read those articles with an open mind? I find it strange that you are attacking someone for holding beliefs that he has provided evidence for. He may be wrong, but why does he have to be an 'anti-Shia agent'? Isn't it supposed to be Wahhabis that make takfir over differences of opinion? Its amazing how much importance some of you place on this or that dua, or things like arbaeen. These aren't exactly fundamentals of the religion.
  16. How is it possible that such a big budget film hasn't been released yet? Do they not want to make any money? And wasn't the point of making the film to give the world a positive image of the Prophet (s)? There must be some sort of explanation behind this, but I'm really struggling to think what it is.
  17. Who says it equates to retiring Allah? Did delegating religious authority to the Prophet and the Imams retire Allah in that sphere? It's my opinion, based on facts. Many Shias do believe that Allah has delegated powers over creation to the Imams. What else is wilayah takwiniya? Because, as hard as it may be for you to understand, not everyone blindly follows their teachers, and people are capable of disagreeing on things while maintaining respect for each other. Who is claiming they are originators of 'everything'? The mufawida clearly didn't believe that since they said that Allah created the Prophet and Imam Ali. Its noticeable that you need to use these straw man tactics though, because you know how close modern Shia beliefs actually are to those ones. There is a difference between believing that Prophets or Imams ask Allah to perform miracles, and that they perform the miracles themselves (even if it's with the permission of Allah). As so often with you, the verse you are quoting has nothing to do with the topic. Being capable of forgetting things doesn't make you unmindful of the remembrance of Allah. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. It's possible that Shaykh Saduq would have thought him a ghali, but more likely would simply be that he would think him to be in error, and that he didn't mean his statement literally. Either way, it's not exactly relevant what they thought of each other.
  18. It's very simple. You are claiming, without evidence, that certain verses only apply to idol worshippers or pagans, and you have here an example of such a verse being used in a different context. Whether it deals with tawassul or not is besides the point. If such a verse can be used against people calling themselves Muslims, then so can the others verses that have been brought up.
  19. Shaykh Saduq used the following hadith against those who believed in tafweed, which is a belief that is pretty close to that held by a lot of Shias today: And it is related from Zurara that he said: I said to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq that a man from among the descendants of Abdu'l-lah b. Saba' is a believer in (the doctrine of) delegation (tafwid). And he said: And what is tafwid? I (Zurara) said: According to him Allah, the Mighty and Glorious, (in the first instance) created Muhammad and 'Ali, and then delegated the matter (of creation) to them, and these two created and gave sustenance, and caused life and death. The Imam said: He, the enemy of Allah, has lied. When you return to him recite to him the verse of the Chapter of The Thunder: "Or assign they unto Allah partners who created the like of His creation so that the creation (which they made and His creation) seemed alike to them? Say: Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Almighty" [13:16]. Then I went to the man and informed him of what Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq had said: And he becameas if I had forced him to swallow stones or as though he were struck dumb. So according to this hadith, Imam as-Sadiq [a] used a verse that was originally meant for the pagans/idol worshippers/polytheists, to refute the beliefs of those who believed that Allah had delegated creation and sustenance to the Prophet (s) and Imam Ali [a]. Shaykh Saduq then makes the following comment afterwards, which makes clear what his beliefs are: Now (undoubtedly) Allah has delegated matters concerning religion to His Prophet and He, the Mighty and Glorious, says: "And whatsoever the Messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it) " [59:7]. And this (that is, religious authority) has also been delegated to the Imams. Notice the distinction that Shaykh Saduq draws between being delegated religious authority and being delegated power over creation. Had Shaykh Saduq actually simply meant that the Imams weren't 'independent' of Allah, or some other such nonsense, then he would have clarified it there, instead of simply saying that the authority they had was in matters of religion. To further reinforce the point, his student, Shaykh Mufeed, while writing a correction of the work of Shaykh Saduq from which the previous quote was taken, says the following: Indeed, it is a sufficient sign of excess to claim that the Imãms are not created beings, and that they are divine and eternal, since the only logical conclusion of this assertion is excess; that the Imãms are the creators of bodies, originators of substances, and bring into existence accidents which are beyond human power. We need no more than this to judge or to ascertain their position without the signs which Abū Ja‘far (i.e. Shaykh Saduq), holds the marks of excess. So to Shaykh Mufeed, if you believe that the Imams bring into existence accidents which are beyond human power, then you are a ghali, and hence a kafir. Meanwhile, according to Shaykh Saduq's teacher Ibn al-Waleed, if you deny that the Prophet (s) could forget, then you are already at the first stage of ghuluw. And to Shaykh Saduq, if you then called Ibn al-Waleed a muqassir based on this belief, then you became a ghali! Shaykh Mufeed objected to this, since he didn't believe that the Prophet (s) could forget, but at the same time clearly wasn't a ghali. Does anyone seriously imagine that these scholars, for whom believing the Prophet (s) couldn't forget already made you suspicious, let alone believing that they had power over creation, would have thought it perfectly fine to supplicate to the Imams for your needs? So please, enough of this nonsense about Wahhabis and ibn Taymiyyah being the only ones to object to such beliefs. And as for engaging in 'verse warfare', then we have already seen Imam as-Sadiq [a] doing the same. The references for the above quotations can be found in this thread: See also:
  20. I think the question for all of you is, what does the Qur'an mean when it says that it is clear? Because what I'm getting from you is that the Qur'an is only clear when it agrees with your beliefs, and when it doesn't seem to agree then we need to look at the 'deeper meaning' (which you seem to come up with yourselves) and not take it at face value. I don't really see the point in debating with people who are going to ignore context and apparent meanings, in favour of their own batini tafsir, because there is no way of resolving anything like this. No matter what evidence is brought, it will be dismissed, while their own weak evidence is defended as being part of the 'deeper meaning' of the Qur'an.
  21. The context of the verse shows that it has nothing to do with tawassul in the sense of what is being discussed in this thread: 1. When the hypocrites come to you, [O Muhammad], they say, "We testify that you are the Messenger of Allah ." And Allah knows that you are His Messenger, and Allah testifies that the hypocrites are liars. 2. They have taken their oaths as a cover, so they averted [people] from the way of Allah . Indeed, it was evil that they were doing. 3. That is because they believed, and then they disbelieved; so their hearts were sealed over, and they do not understand. 4. And when you see them, their forms please you, and if they speak, you listen to their speech. [They are] as if they were pieces of wood propped up - they think that every shout is against them. They are the enemy, so beware of them. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? 5. And when it is said to them, "Come, the Messenger of Allah will ask forgiveness for you," they turn their heads aside and you see them evading while they are arrogant. These verses are talking about hypocrites who are plotting against the Prophet (s), not random people who want to ask for their needs. The verse after this is even worse for you, because Allah says that even if the Prophet (s) were to ask for their forgiveness then it wouldn't be given. 6. It is all the same for them whether you ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them; never will Allah forgive them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people. So yeah, this has nothing to do with tawassul, and it's hilarious that you are reading such things into it.
  22. Can you name some of these 'big time Shia scholars'?
  23. I think the most convincing Sunni proof for tawassul is the 'hadith of the blind man'. There is a Salafi response to it here https://islamqa.info/en/97600 It seems to be that the response isn't absolutely convincing though, and if I was a Sunni seeking to defend tawassul then this would probably be the proof I would rely on.
  • Create New...