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

    10,544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

Everything posted by Haydar Husayn

  1. Sorry, I'm a bit tired, so it might be me, but I'm still not getting it. Let's say I become an apostate in my heart for whatever reason, and stop practising the religion, but then decide that actually I want to address some of these issues that caused me to leave the religion in case I'm wrong, so I go to talk to some scholars. Why would I need to say to them 'I'm an apostate'? I would just say 'I've got an issue with x, y,z', and have a discussion about it. The chances are also that even if I told them I was an apostate, the very fact that I came to talk to them might indicate that matters weren't so clear, and it would be worth having a discussion. People aren't bloodthirsty maniacs, looking to get people executed for apostasy at the drop of a hat. That's not how the religion works. It's a religion of making excuses for one another, of covering each others sins, of keeping things private, of minding one's business, of giving advice in private, ... That's why the problems occur when people draw attention to themselves in public, because it is no longer possible to keep things private. Again, they can bring forth as many questions as they want. You don't need to tell anyone you are an apostate to bring forward questions. You can just say that these things are causing you doubts, or that you don't understand how to resolve these issues. I think you have an overly simplistic way of looking at this, because this is just not a realistic scenario. First of all, Y can just say 'no thank you' and leave it at that. No need to tell random people that they've become an apostate. Secondly, it's very unlikely Z would react that way. What's he going to do, drag in front of the qadhi? Call the police? Even if that happened, what do they do when you deny everything? This is why it's impractical to go after members of the public who have become apostates and are more or less just getting on with their lives. It's when you start openly proselytising that you are going to draw serious attention to yourself and are likely to get in trouble. So for example, if you start publishing books mocking the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). I'm pretty sure that nobody in Islamic history has ever been executed for telling their friend that they have left the religion. That just seems completely unrealistic. Remember as well that Sayyid Sistani is not a mufti in an Islamic state, and things tend to work differently on the ground. Perhaps he's right that this is what 'should' happen, but it doesn't mean that is what would happen. We even see that in the example you brought up from Iran. Why haven't they executed the guy yet if things are so simple?
  2. I'm sorry, I don't understand. Why would they need to openly address their community members? If they want to debate aspects of the religion, then they can go to scholars. How would he find himself in a position to be executed unless he was making his apostasy known to people, and making such a big deal about it that it was brought to the attention of the state? Believe it or not, there were apostates in the Islamic world back in the day, and they mostly didn't end up executed, because they didn't go around shouting about it in the market place. Why do you consider it so necessary that apostates should have the right to be as open as they want to be about their apostasy or blasphemy? The issue here is you keep saying 'leaving the religion', when what you mean is 'leaving the religion and telling the whole world about it'. Nobody is going to come and execute you for leaving the religion, because nobody is going to know unless you tell them. It is also highly unlikely that if you tell your friends and family anything is likely to happen. If someone did question you, you could always deny it after all. I doubt any Islamic state every had a network of spies out looking for apostates. So again, this comes back to why you think it's so important to have the right to be shouting about your apostasy from the rooftops. You seem to have a very worldly perspective on this. Do you think it's ok to peacefully advocate for the drinking of cyanide? What's more important for a Muslim? This world, or the hereafter?
  3. Western 'foreign policy' is inextricably linked to its progress. You don't think it's a little coincidental that the West started making all this progress just when it started colonising the rest of the World? Do you know how much wealth was accrued by the West as a result of colonialism, pillaging of resources and slavery, and it was this wealth allowed it to create the kind of society that produced all its great thinkers and innovations? It is also what allowed it to dominate other civilisations and keep them behind. Without these aspects that you think are against 'Western values', there would be no West as we know it. Even to this day, they are still at it, albeit in more subtle form, and with some competition from China. But look at the wars in the Middle East. What do you think all that's about?
  4. Interestingly I could only find one more example with all the later Imams, which makes me wonder if the possible later lack of popularity of the name didn't have something to do with the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate. This is just a theory, but possibly the name Yazid was more in fashion during the Umayyad era, and became less popular during the time of the Abbasids. You could also make the case that perhaps for taqiyya reasons Shias wouldn't change their name from Yazid as it might lead people to ask questions. So it's not to say it's impossible that the name Yazid was tainted, but clearly not so tainted that nobody was naming their son Yazid as the OP implied, or that the name was such an embarrassment that you couldn't be a Shia while having that name.
  5. Quickly looking through Tusi's Rijaal, from the companions of Imam al-Baqir (عليه السلام), I count at least 6 Yazids, from the companions of Imam al-Sadiq (عليه السلام), 7, and from the companions of Imam al-Kadhim (عليه السلام), 4. Given that Imam al-Baqir was 3 or 4 years old at the time of Karbala, I doubt all these Yazids were born before it. And notice that they didn't change their names, despite being companions of the Imams. So you might want to reconsider this argument of yours.
  6. I think there may be some misunderstanding here. Here is an example of how the theory works: if a white person makes an argument based on genetics for why black people are inferior, that is considered racism, because the white person belongs to the 'oppressor' group, while if a black person makes a mirror image argument, then that wouldn't be racism, because they belong to the 'oppressed' class, and axiomatically can't be called racist. See for example: http://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism What is incorrect? I didn't claim that Jews in Europe had it as bad as Blacks in America (although the medieval period was pretty brutal, and the threat of persecution was always real even during the better times). The point was simply that a shared history of oppression doesn't necessitate that the bonds of trust break down. I would be interested in hearing a causal argument for how that would happen.
  7. You are starting to stray from the original premise of the thread now, by bringing in examples of clearly flawed countries, who don't even properly implement the Shari`a. Assuming we can trust the reporting here (which is by no means certain given the source), look at the charges: “propaganda against the state” and “insulting the sacred and the supreme leader”. What's this got to do with leaving Islam or committing blasphemy? These are secular charges, not religious ones. They could just as well occur in North Korea.
  8. Nobody is stopping anyone reaching whatever theological conclusions they like, and nobody is dictating anything to anyone. The issue is what is allow to be said in the public sphere, and the manner in which it is said. If someone wants to become a Christian, or an atheist, then can. They don't need to tell the whole world about it, and try to proselytise their new-found beliefs. How do you know he would have been executed? You are assuming that had he lived under some idealised Islamic state that he would have reached those same conclusions that made him briefly convert to Christianity, and that even if he had converted, that he would have made it public enough to draw the attention of the state (which in practice would have meant he was trying to convert others). Further, you would need to assume that when questioned, you would openly admit to having left the faith, and not taken any opportunities to recant. Now, I admit all of this is possible, but it seems fairly unlikely. Leaving Islam isn't a death penalty. People are free to believe whatever they want, and if they really feel the need to tell the world about their conversion, then they are perfectly welcome to leave, as the Qur'an advises Muslims themselves: Surely (as for) those whom the angels cause to die while they are unjust to their souls, they shall say: In what state were you? They shall say: We were weak in the earth. They shall say: Was not Allah's earth spacious, so that you should have migrated therein? So these it is whose abode is hell, and it is an evil resort [Qur'an 4:97, Shakir] No Muslim advocates doing anything like what China is doing. Muslims in China want to right to simply go about their lives peacefully and practice their religion. China on the other hand wants to forcibly make them leave their religion. I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. Muslims don't believe in setting up some kind of inquisition and interrogating people on what they believe, whether they are fasting during the month of Ramadan, or whether they pray five times a day. Everyone is free to believe whatever they like, and will be left alone, as long as they aren't seeking to recruit others to their cause. And ultimately, if the rulers of the state believe that there are better ways of dealing with the issue, giving the current circumstances, and changes in society etc, then they aren't forced to carry out the harshest penalties.
  9. Could you explain what you see the merit being? Racism is a pretty commonly understood concept, and most people don’t understand it as having anything to do with power structures. For example, the sense in which you use racism below isn’t predicated on that. Personally, I don’t understand why it would be sensible to define racism as only being possible if done by an ‘oppressor’ group against an ‘oppressed’ group. If for no other reason than you would need to start by ranking all racial and ethnic groups in order of ‘oppression’ to decide who can and cannot be racist (can a Chinese person be racist towards a Pakistani?). It is also the case that power dynamics are very localised. Even if the majority population is white, you tend to have areas which are predominantly non-white, and where a white person could be at a disadvantage (think of a single white kid in an all-nonwhite school). Yet the upholders is this new orthodoxy would tell us that this single white kid is still not capable of experiencing racism. I don’t really see the issue with this. It seems like normal human behaviour to put more trust in people you have more in common with, and makes a lot of rational sense. And as you yourself say, it’s not necessarily anything to do with race. It’s not clear to me why that would be. After all, it could just as well be argued that the common experience of oppression would be a powerful binding factor. The very long history of antisemitism in Europe didn’t seem to do much to break the bonds of trust between Jews after all. Generally I find that too much weight is put on this idea of the effects of the long periods of slavery, without it ever being precisely explained how exactly these effects are supposed to be felt today.
  10. Nobody here is talking about Saudi Arabia, and if you had learnt anything in your time here, you would realise how ridiculous an example it is to use, for many reasons. But even then, what is the point of making an argument that rests of what ‘could’ happen, what would ‘most likely’ be the result, and how it would ‘presumably’ be considered? If you don’t have any actual facts, it’s best to not conjecture.
  11. Hate speech is hate speech is a no more meaningful statement than blasphemy is blasphemy. Blasphemy is essentially hate speech against God or people, or objects, of reverence. You may think it’s ridiculous to criminalise insulting God, while I think it’s ridiculous to criminalise using the pronoun ‘he’ for a biological male who thinks he is a woman, whether or not that is called hate speech. It all depends on what you consider important in life. If a society forms around the idea that their religion is true, and there is such a thing as heaven and hell, then it would be more irresponsible to allow people’s afterlife to be compromised than their health in this world. Additionally if you have formed around the idea that your religion gives the best way of organising a society, then again it wouldn’t make sense to allow that to be disrupted. Obviously none of this makes any sense for another society that doesn’t share those presuppositions, and vice versa. Your problem is you don’t seem to be aware of what your presuppositions are, and why it doesn’t make sense for everyone else in the world, and through history, to share them. You just assume that everyone else must swim in the same water you do, which is secular liberalism, because you don’t even appear to notice the water. You take for granted that it’s ‘understandable’ to restrict free speech in the case of so-called hate speech, but in the same manner many other people throughout human history took it for granted that it’s ‘understandable’ to restrict free speech when it comes to blasphemy. This is because they thought, and think, differently to you. What allows you to say that their way of thinking is wrong, but yours is right? As for the freedom to state your beliefs, what is the use of you aren’t seeking to influence others, some of whom may be easily manipulated? Otherwise just go about your daily business. Nobody is going to come and interrogate you as to what you believe. What is this pressing urge to tell people what your personal beliefs are? It actually makes less sense than in the case of the historian who may believe that aspects of the Holocaust were exaggerated, but will be put in jail if they publish their research. At least in that case the historian is seeking to, as they see it, correct the historical record, rather than narcissistically wanting to let everyone know what they believe just for the sake of it (allegedly).
  12. The idea that all the Imams were Sunnis is an academically bankrupt theory, and forces you to have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to reconcile all the known facts. Here’s another one: Imam al-Rida (عليه السلام) is considered a righteous, knowledgeable Imam by the Sunnis, and yet they don’t narrated much from him. Why? Because most of the people that narrated from him are Shia, so those narrations can’t be trusted! It’s weird how generation after generation of these allegedly Sunni Imams kept being surrounded by these Shias, despite supposedly disassociating from them, and in turn that these Shias kept trying to attach themselves to Imams who wanted nothing to do with them! It’s the weirdest cult in history.
  13. Yeah, although I think it’s only fairly recently that people have openly tried to force this redefinition in everyone else. They claim that you can’t call it racism unless it is done by a more powerful group towards a less powerful one. To most people this has nothing to do with defining racism, but these far-left academic types are obsessed with power imbalances. It’s the only lens through which they are able to see the world.
  14. Sorry brother, I don’t understand. Why would harsh punishments result in more insults in a Muslim country? France puts people in jail for Holocaust denial, which is extremely harsh by American standards of free speech, but I’m not aware of any evidence that open Holocaust denial is more widespread in France than the US (it might be, but I’m not aware of it being so).
  15. That's nothing compared to what he did to the Native Americans.
  16. No society that I know of actually believes in freedom of speech. The issue comes down to what type of speech you restrict, which depends on the type of society you want to have. So in the West for example, since religion no longer holds any special place, they have no problem with people saying anything they want about God or religion, hence there is freedom in that area. On the other hand, they generally restrict what you can say about certain classes of people, hence the 'hate speech' laws (under which I would also include laws against Holocaust denial which exist in certain countries). In Islam you can generally say whatever you want as long as it's not blasphemous, which actually allows for quite a wide range of freedom in expression. That's not necessarily how Muslim societies are run though. They are generally very sensitive about any criticism of the state or the rulers. With regards to something like insulting the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), we should ask what the intent is. It's not so much that people want to be able to directly insult, which is rarely effective. What they really want is the right to mock the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and make him the subject of satire, which is unfortunately very effective, as we can see from the history of the West. The ultimate aim is of course for people to no longer hold him in reverence, and to undermine the religion. Given that an Islamic society is premised on the idea that Islam is true, why would you want to make it easier for people to endanger the population of Muslims in this life and the next? I agree that so-called Islamic governments should allow themselves to be subject to criticism, although I do think the form the criticism takes is important. And certainly people should have the right to 'criticise' Islam if it is done in the right way, with academic arguments. But the right to insult, mock, satirise, lie, that I don't agree with, because it is a means of persuasion that seeks mainly to bypass the intellect and appeal to the worst aspects of human nature. Just as we see a big concern in the West about 'fake news' when it comes to conspiracy theories, health issues, and politics, there is no reason that an Islamic government shouldn't be concerned about 'fake news' when it comes to Islam. Not everyone has the time to do years of research, or even to read the research of others. So why allow them to be bombarded with lies about Islam that will cause damage to their faith, when most people won't have the means of refuting it? There is a good internet adage about this, called Brandolini's law: “The amount of energy necessary to refute bulls*** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” ― Alberto Brandolini And that's for people who are actually in a position to be able to refute it. A key factor to keep in mind is that no society is made up of scholars or 'free thinkers'. You are always going to have a large percentage of people who just want to live their lives without having to think to much (either out of choice or circumstances). Then you have another large group of people that like to think of themselves as scholars and/or free thinkers, but are just a more educated version of the previous group. Allowing people to just saw whatever they want can be quite dangerous for these groups, so if you actually care about them, then in reality you need some restrictions of what can be said in certain forums. However, I do believe there should always be outlets for genuine and sincere criticism and alternative scholarship. I don't believe anyone should be barred from asking certain questions or pursuing certain lines of enquiry. But that doesn't mean everyone needs to be exposed to those ideas, when they probably don't have the tools to critically evaluate them.
  17. Is it any more ‘effort’ for Allah to create a whole universe than it is to create a grain of sand? I don’t personally believe that all non-Muslims will go to hell, but I respect that Allah has the right to do whatever he wants with His creation. The fact that He created us doesn’t give us ‘rights’ over Him, anymore than a pot has a right to complain if the potter throws it in the bin. Overall, I don’t think there is any clear-cut proof for what happens to non-Muslims. They may be destined for Hell, but then saved by various forms of intercession on the Day of Judgment (as will probably be the case for most Muslims). I don’t think it’s very productive to spend much time thinking about this as nobody will be complaining in the afterlife. The only reason I think this merits any discussion as all is because some people have non-Muslim friends and relatives, and understandably are concerned about what will happen to them. All we should say is that Allah has told us He is Merciful and Just, and we can trust He will do what’s right. But I don’t think we should be making any definitive statements one way or the other, since we don’t know what the final decision will be. What I think some Muslims should be concerned about is what our excuse is going to be on the Day of Judgment when we were given so much light but did such a bad job of living a life that was pleasing to Allah.
  18. https://thepostmillennial.com/blm-toronto-leader-believes-white-people-are-sub-human-calls-them-genetic-defects Keep in mind that according to the lunatics now running the asylum, this doesn't classify as racism. At most, you could call it bigotry.
  19. Probably in large part because many of the leading Sunni countries are in the pocket of the USA and Israel. For example Saudi Arabia depend on America for protection and Egypt are paid huge amounts of money by America to stay on good terms with Israel. I’m sure there would be anti-Imperialist Sunni countries if they weren’t all ruled by Western-backed dictators, but that’s the position they find themselves in. No in regards to killing and taking possessions. As for taqiyya, that is for protection when there is a fear of persecution. You don’t have to support them, but you should be disgusted at what Saudi Arabia and their allies are doing in Yemen at the moment. Does any of what they are doing conform to Islamic ethics in warfare? Many do hate her, yes. For others, it ranges to indifference to string dislike. As for why, it is because of her hated of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), culminating in waging war on him for absolutely no valid reason. It’s a long story, but in a nutshell it revolves around who the rightful successor to the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was supposed to be. The Shia believe that Imam Ali (a) was the designated successor, while Sunnis believe that Abu Bakr was appointed, or in any case the most deserving. Unfortunately some do, yes. It’s a sad state of affairs. Mut’ah was practiced during the time of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). Do you believe the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) allowed zina? As for the difference between mut’ah and zina, then they have nothing is common. Mut’ah is almost identical to permanent nikah, except that it’s temporary. By the way, do you even wonder why haram meat isn’t ok but halal meat is? After all, there is hardly any difference... I hope the responses you receive are useful to you.
  20. Is there no way of limiting the length of posts on this website? It ruins a thread when you have someone copy and pasting enough material to fill a small book into a single post. At the very least, I think there should be a site rule on this, and moderators should issue warnings. The same goes for people who use ridiculously big font (usually because they have copy and pasted from somewhere else).
  21. Ok, in that case I agree with you. I think the so-called ‘thighing fatwa’ is an even clearer example. Even though there I believe a good argument could be made for it being haraam based on all kinds of evils they would result from it, even if someone were to want to argue it is permissible from a strictly legalistic standpoint, it is completely irresponsible to issue such a verdict without giving any further clarification. So yes, religious authorities need to do a much better job in communicating that even if some things maybe be permissible on the basis that there is no explicit evidence to declare them forbidden, that doesn’t mean that this is something that is necessarily ok to do, and in fact may be morally reprehensible depending on the circumstances.
  22. You don’t need to. Just make several posts in the same thread. So have part 1, part 3, etc. People are much more likely to read something that is broken down into manageable chunks.
  23. On what do you base the distinction between something not being haraam and legally valid? What do you suggest is done to prevent men doing this? I don't think anyone believes this is ethical behaviour, and I would assume that this person will have to answer for it on the Day of Judgement, but it doesn't seem that this is something Islam can legislate for.
  24. Takfir? Wow... What do you say about the following verses from the Qur'an which explicitly say that the Prophet (s) didn't know the unseen, except what Allah revealed to him? Say: I do not say to you, I have with me the treasures of Allah, nor do I know the unseen, nor do I say to you that I am an angel; I do not follow aught save that which is revealed to me. Say: Are the blind and the seeing one alike? Do you not then reflect? [Qur'an 6:50] Say: I do not control any benefit or harm for my own soul except as Allah please; and had I known the unseen I would have had much of good and no evil would have touched me; I am nothing but a warner and the giver of good news to a people who believe. [7:188] And from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement [9:101] And they say, "Why is a sign not sent down to him from his Lord?" So say, "The unseen is only for Allah [to administer], so wait; indeed, I am with you among those who wait." [10:20] And I do not tell you that I have the depositories [containing the provision] of Allah or that I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel, nor do I say of those upon whom your eyes look down that Allah will never grant them any good. Allah is most knowing of what is within their souls. Indeed, I would then be among the wrongdoers." [11:31] That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you, [O Muhammad]. You knew it not, neither you nor your people, before this. So be patient; indeed, the [best] outcome is for the righteous. [11:49] And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, [O Muhammad], you guide to a straight path [42:52] Say: I am not the first of the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you: I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me, and I am nothing but a plain warner. [46:9] Say: I do not know whether that with which you are threatened be nigh or whether my Lord will appoint for it a term: [72:25] And your companion is not gone mad. And of a truth he saw himself on the clear horizon. Nor of the unseen is he a tenacious concealer [81:22-24] I would love to hear the interpretations of these verses that make them mean the opposite of what they clear say.
  25. Nobody is going to read that. You would be much better off splitting it into smaller posts.
×
×
  • Create New...