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. EDIT: As a matter of fact, he was not banned at all. He decided to leave the site. I apologise for the misleading information I gave previously.
  2. Being vigilant is one thing, but you are making specific claims that don't have a shred of evidence to support them other than your perceptions, and which as a matter of fact I know to be completely untrue. Stating that fact isn't abuse. The abuse is in you making claims about people adopting dishonest tactics or being nawasib and khawarij. It's incredible that after making such accusations you can then complain about abuse. As for the videos themselves, they are out there for everyone to see, and I don't see the point in making them off limits to discuss. If a Sunni site prevented its members from discussing videos that show Wahhabi scholars talking about Allah having a body and moving in space, then I think most Shias would say that they are scared of the truth. So why adopt double standards? If the videos are just lies and propaganda then it should be a simple matter of proving that they were dishonestly edited. But the problem is that what the videos show is real, but doesn't put the best possible spin on things, as you all like to do in debates on forums. I don't know what 'doubts' these videos are supposed to cause either, since they don't touch on any essential elements of Shia doctrine (which is interesting in itself). Yes, I would assume they may cause some to rethink whether they should be calling on other than Allah, but that isn't a condition to being Shia. To be honest, I have usually refrained from posting these videos, even though I thought they were worthy of discussion, because of the commentary that comes with them, which I think makes Shias less likely to take them seriously. So ironically if the videos were less obviously 'anti-Shia', then they would be far more 'dangerous' from your perspective. As it stands, most people are going to be turned off by the manner in which to content is delivered and by the knowledge of who made them. So I don't think you really have much to worry about.
  3. You have a talent for seeing things that aren't there.
  4. Ah, yes. Allah calls His book clear, but then confuses the issue by telling them not to call on other than Allah, and by giving all the examples of supplications to Him alone, rather than using a single example of this type of 'tawassul' in the whole book. I would love to know the reason why Allah couldn't have included a dua from a follower of Musa [a] where he calls on Allah through Musa. Or, since some of you people apparently believe that all the previous Prophets used the ahlulbayt as intermediaries, why this wasn't included either? It's all very strange, but personally I prefer to stick to the obvious explanation, which is that stuff isn't there because it's not true. If others want to disregard that, then I look forward to their excuses on the day of judgement if they turn out to be wrong.
  5. If I had to choose, A. But simply 'God, help me' would be sufficient for me. After all, is that not how all the duas in the Qur'an are worded? Why is it good enough to be in the Qur'an, but not good enough for us? http://www.islamawareness.net/Dua/rabbana.html Now, after making dua I would send blessing on the Prophet and his family, which is always a good thing to do of course.
  6. You really are paranoid. The admins can tell if anyone is using multiple screen names, and as far as I am aware that has never been an issue in these types of discussions. Maybe just accept that there are more people that disagree with you than you think (which is still not a very large number), rather than coming off as a paranoid lunatic who is obsessed with conspiracy theories. Reality is a lot more boring than you think it is, and sadly there is no 'infiltration' of ShiaChat, let alone any attempt at 'psychological warfare'. What you've got is people questioning whether constantly calling out to other than Allah for one's needs really fits in with the message of the Qur'an. You can disagree, but you don't need to start making all sorts of crazy accusations, let alone calling people nawasib or khawarij. Get a grip. Also, could you all kindly stop with your copy and pastes? Either link to the source, or at least to the last thread in which you posted your the same thing. It makes the thread very hard to read when you have to scroll through whole chapters of books that you have copy and pasted from elsewhere.
  7. People can attack the 'sheikh' all they want, but the same logic he uses is seen in every discussion about tawassul and istighatha. The only difference is he has the courage to speak about it in plain terms and take it to its logical conclusion. I'm not sure on what basis most people would disagree with him. As for the 'stubborn' thing, this is essentially what people are saying when they claim that Allah won't answer if you ask Him directly, but will if you ask through a member of the ahlulbayt. Someone else would perhaps be more careful in how they present their argument, but the logic would remain the same.
  8. Haydar Husayn

    Bruce Lee

    I often think many Shias spend too much time focusing on the finger that points to the moon, and miss all the heavenly glory.
  9. No, and certainly not the kind of 'tawassul' that is being shown in those videos.
  10. As bad as that was, I don't actually think it was one of their more effective videos. Partly because the analogy they make with Jesus isn't so strong, when Christians consider him to be God, so from their point of view they are not calling on creation. But anyway, this video is far worse in terms of kufr, and much better in terms of making its point:
  11. The analogy with a mechanic isn't a very good one. A better one would be in asking someone to recommend a good judge. For example, in the case of the American president wanting to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court. Clearly in that case, the answer you get will very much depend on what the political views of those who ask is, and which type of approach to the law they favour. In such case, a liberal legal expert is more likely to chose a liberal judge over a possibly more qualified conservative judge, and vice versa. Do you honestly not think that personal opinions, connections, and biases play a huge role in the answers you are going to get? This has nothing to do with seeking perfection. It's simply that following the first marja that gets recommended to you by two different people is no better a way of picking a marja than of picking one at random. There is not a shred of objectivity in the whole process, and the recommendation you get will probably say more about which circles you mix in than who the most qualified is. If it we weren't talking about religion here, I'm sure you would see this immediately.
  12. No, this is not common sense at all. If 98 mechanics out of a hundred would recommend a particular garage, but two of the first three you ask happen to recommend another garage, then your method has completely failed. This is without even going into the fact that people are most likely to recommend marjas they are either following or connected to in some way. There is obviously going to be a strong bias in the recommendation. You wouldn't expect someone affiliated with the Shirazi camp to recommend Sayyid Khamenei as a marja, would you?
  13. What if they give you two different answers? This method is completely useless, from many different points of view.
  14. Can you give some examples?
  15. Apart from his slightly extreme views on women, I like the sound of your husband. He seems like a good person, although perhaps he rolls his eyes a bit too much at what you say. I would suggest that you try to understand your husband's point of view, and don't just assume he is wrong. You don't have to agree with him on everything, but don't assume from the start that he is wrong about everything either. At the moment you sound very far apart in your views, but although he may be a bit too extreme in some respects, I also think, without meaning any disrespect, that you may also have a slightly naive view of Shia Islam, and perhaps could learn from your husband, who you have said yourself is intelligent and does he own research. Perhaps if you can understand him better, and develop more respect for his approach to religion, then he may be more willing to take your views into consideration.
  16. There are also those who were enemies of Allah, such as Firawn, who were not enemies of the ahl al-bayt as such, simply because they weren't around then. It doesn't mean the ahl al-bayt don't hate Firawn, but he was not an enemy of theirs in any meaningful sense of the word (and certainly not in the sense that it is usually understood). So even though the set of enemies of the ahl al-bayt is contained in that of the enemies of Allah, they are not identical, and so it would make more sense to put the emphasis on being an enemy of Allah. It's not a big deal, I know, but the difference in emphasis still seems important to me.
  17. What Sayyid Sistani says is not binding on everyone, so it is absurd to try to end an argument by making reference to his rulings.
  18. It's those who claim that Sayyids are only allowed to marry Sayyids who need to bring their proof, and the idea that Sayyid men can only marry Sayyid women is even more absurd than the usual claim involving Sayyid women. The Imams marrying Sayyid women seems to have been the exception rather than the rule. Most of the mothers of the Imams were not Sayyid. As for other examples, I don't think any of the mothers of any of the Imams after al-Baqir Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã were Sayyid. The most famous examples would be the mother of Imam al-Kadhim and the mother of Imam al-Mahdi, who were both slaves.
  19. Shouldn't that be from the enemies of Allah, who in particular may be enemies of the ahl al-bayt?
  20. Ok, so he should just change it to 'what he appears to have done', and then there is no problem. Better to tell someone to change their wording, which isn't going to make much difference to them, rather than to get into an endless discussion about how it's not proven Islamically.
  21. Why should it have anything more to say than it does on animal incest or cannibalism, both of which are also quite common in the animal kingdom? What animals do is not any kind of standard for human behaviour.
  22. As you yourself admitted in the thread, you don't need to be able to Islamically prove something in order to take precautions against someone. The evidence against him is certainly sufficient for someone to conclude that there is a strong chance that he may be a morally corrupt person, and hence choose to avoid his lectures, and to warn others against going if they do choose.
  23. I wouldn't worry too much sister, unless you have noticed him practicing Islam in a way that you think is incorrect. I'm sure he reads the rulings of scholars. And you never know, maybe he is right about certain things. Out of interest, does he attend majlis?
  24. No, the Qur'an doesn't say that. What it is saying is they there are some people who have taken Mary as a deity, separately from anything to do with the Trinity.
×
×
  • Create New...