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

    10,862
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    82

Posts posted by Haydar Husayn

  1. 9 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

    thanks for reply bro.
    This is a good point but it can’t be made if the husband is still alive or didn’t participate in the war.

    True, but in most cases you would expect the husband to have participated, and if not he probably would have been enslaved anyway.

    9 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

    There is also the case of 4:24 and Allama Tabatabaei permitting men to have intercourse with married slave women and then returning them to their husbands. I wonder if this will take place after they’ve both (husband and wife) have been enslaved.

    This would be after they have both been enslaved.

    9 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

    Also doesn’t make sense to me that anyone in the family or brother could have relations with the slave girl as per the hadiths in the Br Ibn al Hussain’s forum, and it doesn’t look like it’s to protect them or look after them. 

    I didn’t say it was primarily to protect them or look after them. At the end of the day, they have become property. Nevertheless, considering some of the alternatives in the harsh world they lived in, it wasn’t necessarily the worst outcome.

  2. Sure, we you need to prove that your concepts of what an ideal physical relationship is like are derived from Islamic teachings. It seems like you have your preconceived notions of what an ideal physical relationship should look like, and are imposing that understanding on the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

    Personally, I don’t cringe when I read the descriptions in those narrations. I just think these are things that shouldn’t necessarily be discussed between unrelated men and women. I also don’t think the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Imams (عليه السلام) necessarily had a deep spiritual connection with all of their wives and slave girls.

    My feeling here is that in general there might be a slight difference in how these things are viewed between those who are married and those who aren’t (yet).

  3. 7 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

    This is in fact what came to mind when I read the narration, so I looked up the chain, thinking it might have come via a close relative. The narrator from A'isha turned out to be al Aswad ibn Yazid. 

    The narration itself is therefore not the biggest discussion point here, rather what is somewhat unusual is that this would be narrated to an unrelated man. 

    Yes, that is my issue with a lot of these narrations from Aisha. I wonder how many Sunnis would be happy with their wives talking to other men about such things?

  4. 9 hours ago, Ejaz said:

    Unless it has been observed, right? Macro evolution hasn’t been as far as I know.

    Something being observed and the explanation for what is being observed are two different things.

    Macro evolution by its very nature is going to be very difficult to observe, since it’s supposed to take place over a very long period of time.

    Personally, I’m fairly agnostic on the issue. I’m not a research-level biologist, so I take what I know about Biology essentially on trust (and even the researchers have to do this to some extent). Since this isn’t knowledge I can consider certain, I’m not going to throw out my whole belief system just because I took a class on evolution (as an aside the majority of Muslims who are disturbed by evolution generally don’t know anything about it beyond a few high school lessons and what they’ve gleaned from a book or two on popular science).

    With regards to science generally, it’s important to remember that scientists look for the most convincing naturalistic explanation for any given phenomenon. So if you hold to a miraculous explanation, that is never going to be validated by science. The very methodology of science precludes such an explanation (and rightly so in my opinion). This is without even going into the biases of scientists as a group, who these days are in general pretty hostile to organised religion. You can be certain biologists would defend Darwinism to the death even if it did come under serious attack. There is just too much riding on it from a cultural point of view. So it’s not like they have no preference for this or that explanation. Just like philosophically speaking, many scientists had a preference for the steady state model of the universe to the Big Bang. In general, many of them prefer explanations that don’t give ammunition to religious believers. Hence for example, the speculative ‘multiverse’ theory.

    In the end, for most of us, it comes down to trust. What do you want to believe? The Qur’an, or the current scientific consensus (which by its nature is subject to change)? Now, let’s assume the current scientific consensus is essentially the final word on the matter and there will never be a substantial revision of the theory of evolution as it stands, and it is essentially ‘correct’. Event then, can you prove there is absolutely no way of rationally reconciling this explanation with Islam? For example, just as Adam may have been formed with a belly button despite not having had an umbilical cord, he may have been created to appear to conform with the rest of creation, which may have been formed through the process of evolution. I’m not saying this is true, but it’s possible.

    There are just too many uncertainties here for me to reject the things I am certain about.

  5. 5 hours ago, 786:) said:

    I have read that Aqil was on the side of Muawiya’s army during the battle of Siffin. Is this accurate? If this is accurate how does this impact his status of Ahlulbayt as outlines by our Prophet?

    Aqil would have been around 76 years old at the time Siffin. Seems unlikely that he would have been fighting at that age, let alone have gone out of his way to fight his own brother.

    In terms of impacting his status as part of the family of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then even if it were true I don’t think it makes any difference. Nobody claims every member of the Ahlulbayt is infallible. The Imams after all had children who went astray.

  6. 36 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

    Brother - something is either a theory or an indisputable scientific fact.

    The fact that it is called "theory of evolution" means there is plenty of room for dispute.

    Not really. The word theory in science doesn’t have the same connotations as in common language. The fact that this word is used doesn’t indicate any uncertainty on the part of scientists. On the other hand, no scientific theory or fact is proven beyond all possible doubt. Such an attitude is itself unscientific.

  7. 1 hour ago, Haider1234 said:

    I have wondered how evolution, that has been scientifically considered to be fact, can be compatible with the Quran’s words that Allah ‘created’ Prophet Adam and placed him on earth as the first of his kind (49:13: We created you from a single pair of a male and a female). evolution is indisputably a correct scientific theory and has been proven to be so, and it seems that ther eis a split created between God's words and science here...

    What does it mean to you to say that something is ‘indisputably a correct scientific theory’? By that do you mean that it is rationally impossible for it to ever be challenged?

    Could I also ask what your level of knowledge of Biology is? Is it sufficiently high to be able to independently evaluate the theory of evolution, or are you simply trusting the scientific consensus?

  8. 1 minute ago, crashproof said:

    Isn’t Imam Ali insulting the shias?

     No, I don’t think so. He is insulting people who claim to be loyal to him (mainly in a political sense), but have proven themselves to be unreliable.

    But having said that, you can also find statements of later Imams who weren’t very impressed with the loyalty and devotion of those who claimed to be their Shia.

  9. On 8/12/2020 at 9:26 AM, Guest SushiWoman said:

    Salam, I just want to adress your comment. You say nobody has been rude. What do you call your comment? Be aware of your words because they can hurt even though you didn't mean to hurt anyone. 

    Wa alaikum as-salaam,

    I don’t see what was rude about my comment in the context of what the original poster had been saying. You can’t keep making unfounded accusations and not expect some pushback.

    On 8/12/2020 at 9:26 AM, Guest SushiWoman said:

    A public forum doesn't equal rudeness. I respect shia schools but this reminds me of af subreddit r/islam. Rude people everywhere.

    Could you point out some of these other rude comments?

    On 8/12/2020 at 9:26 AM, Guest SushiWoman said:

    You can be respectable and NOT mandate the hijab. Hijab is a fabric to cover the hair not a free ticket to jannah. Personally I don't wear it and there are plenty of sunni thinkers (RESPECTABLE thinkers) who doesn't mandate it because it's simply not to be found in the Quran. You and the major scholars making it compulsory doesn't make it the only right. We should all think for ourselves despite of what the mainstream thinks - both society (the west) and our scholars.

    Who are these ‘respectable Sunni thinkers’? I never said you can’t be respectable and not wear the hijab, but it is a sin according to orthodox interpretations of Islam. Quran-onlyism, which rejects the Sunnah is itself against the Qur’an, and is not a coherent interpretation of the religion. And if someone doesn’t reject the Sunnah, then it’s completely incoherent to reject something as well-established as the hijab, which clearly dates from the time of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

    I don’t disagree with you at all that we should think for ourselves, but we should be objective about it as well. When I was younger, and before I started learning more about Islam, I also believed hijab wasn’t obligatory (for the same reason you cite), and used to strongly argue against it. I didn’t want it to be obligatory, not because it personally would have affected me, but it just didn’t fit in with how I thought things should be. So I can only imagine how much more strongly I would have felt about it had it been something I had to wear myself. Nevertheless you have to be intellectually consistent, and use the same standards of evidence for hijab as anything else. And quite frankly, if we can’t trust the Islamic tradition to be correct about the hijab, then I’m not sure we can trust it on anything. Who knows? Maybe we are wrong about praying five times a day? I don’t think that’s explicitly in the Qur’an either, and it is a hassle.

  10. 2 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    If that is what you mean then well and good. My position is that when we explain or preach to the public about the LGBT (not to any specific individual that is having mental issues with his sexuality), it should be in very strong and hateful terms. As for Muslim individuals that are struggling with their sexual orientation, as I posted earlier, these individuals have to approach trusted Ulama, leaders, or elders within the community discreetly, and the latter shall counsel them behind closed doors. By no means can such individuals publicly broadcast their "dilemma". By doing so, we can assume they want to draw attention to themselves, because no normal person would willingly stigmatize himself and dishonor himself. This is why I am highly skeptical of this new trend of Muslims who are broadcasting their sexual orientation, even if it is for the purpose of trying to reach out to other Muslims that are struggling with their orientation. On the contrary, the feeling of homosexuality MUST be extremely stigmatized and considered something beyond shameful in our community that no sensible Muslim would ever dare to broadcast his "struggle" to the public. We have to eradicate this cancer, not handle it with kid gloves.

    Ok, fair enough, but without some public discussion, how do you propose changing the views of the 'Ulama, leaders and elders', many of whom can be quite backward and bigoted on this issue, and at the same time letting people know that if they are struggling with this, then there are people they can talk to?

    Do you not also think that having examples of people who have successfully overcome this may not be beneficial to other people struggling with the same issue, to give them hope that there is a chance for them as well?

  11. Just now, Cherub786 said:

    These are two separate questions. The answer to your first question is yes, and the answer to your second question is "I cannot say", because in order for me to answer that question I would have to be in their shoes, which I am not والحمد لله. Needless to say, I'm not just going to take their word for it

    Well, I've read enough testimonies of such people to make me believe that they are probably not all lying. The fact that this is a such a massive taboo in Muslim communities and completely haram to act on also leads me to think that there probably aren't that many insane people that would choose this voluntarily. For example, there does seem to be some kind of link between child abuse and all kinds of damaging sexual behaviour, including homosexuality. Although as you say I can't have certainty on this without having experienced it, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Now, if we accept that there are such people, who feel attracted to members of the same sex, but want to be faithful to Islam, then I believe we should do our best to support them. And this is where the kindness comes in. It's not about being soft in our position on it being a grave sin, but in our approach to helping people deal with it. Telling someone that is struggling with this that they are a disgusting animal is probably not going to do much to help them. And if they don't feel like there is anyone they can talk to, then they are more likely to fall into the hands of those who are only too willing to lead them astray.

    On the other hand, when it comes to the LGBT movement or homosexual acts themselves, then I probably agree with you. But I do think we need to make a distinction here, and not conflate all these issues.

  12. 5 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

    Disagreeing with an opinion doesn't mean getting defensive. It just means we have a disagreement.

    Could we spend more time talking about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Sure. but we could spend more time talking about Imam Hadi (عليه السلام) (your reference) or discussing the quran or any topic. Anytime someone says more X and less Y, you are pitting X against Y.

    I agree with you, there are lots of important things we could be discussing, including the lives of the lesser-known Imams, and of course the Qur'an. So why don't we? Why instead to we have to hear the same stories over and over?

  13. 3 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    I partially agreed with your post, because I disagree with this point that we should explain same sex relations are haram in a "kind" manner. Why does it have to be kind? Homosexuality is not like any other sin, it is not simply a sin, it is the worst abomination. Before I read the book Why Homosexuality is Prohibited in Islam my position on LGBT was not that strong and hateful as it is now. That is because this book has done a complete and perfect postmortem on the LGBT movement, exposed their sick and perverted political agenda, and also exposed the disgusting nature of their sexual acts in graphic detail. The tone of the book is very "hateful" and even vicious. But that is what works, that is what converted someone like me to their point of view.

    Are you willing to accept that there may be Muslims who are attracted to members of the same sex, even thought they don't want to be?

  14. 5 hours ago, gayboyanon said:

    It's what I was trying to argue against. The slippery slope goes the other way too, because then surely allowing straight couples to get married could result in incest eventually being allowed. And if the excuse is that straight couples can procreate, well what about married couples for whom that's impossible? The burden of proof is on people to prove that gay marriage is wrong, the burden is not on gay people and allies to prove that it's not wrong.

    There is no slippery slope because marriage being between a man and a woman is the standard in pretty much all places and all times, and isn't founded on the principle that two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want. There is no reason for it to 'slide' anywhere. But once you start redefining marriage to no longer be between a man and a woman, while invoking the principle of 'two consenting adults', then you open the door to questioning all the other restrictions as well, such as why it shouldn't be allowed for two brothers to get married, or for 3 people to get married (why 2 consenting adults, and not 3?). This is a logical conclusion of using such a broad principle to argue for the redefinition of marriage, and as I've said, many gay activists now acknowledge this, even if for tactical reasons they were reluctant to admit it before gay marriage became legal.

    As for having to prove that gay marriage is wrong, you are the ones who redefined a well-established concept, so actually the burden is on you. Had there always been a concept of gay marriage, and then an attempt to restrict marriage to being between a man and a woman, then I'd agree that the burden would be on the ones wanting to restrict it. But it is your side that wants to make the change here.

×
×
  • Create New...