Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Lanatin reacted to eThErEaL in Life does not really exist
the writer has made a good observation (regarding how there is no fine line between living and non-living) but his conclusion ( "because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented") does not necessarily follow.
His confusion comes from conflating quality with quantity (or if I can say, his confusion comes from his reducing quality to mere quantity). A materialist presupposes this reduction and believes in the primacy of quantit over quality. For the materialist is is the aggregates or parts that come together that ultimately constitute the essence of a thing. The apple is nothing but atoms arranged in a particular fashion (same with a stone, a tree, a human, and a mountain). And, if I may add, most people, even if they call themselves religious, are materialists by default... unfortunately this just has to do with the times we live in, more specifically the end of the Kali Yuga.
Getting back to the apple, the materialist would say that the qualities that are immediately experienced from the apple (like as sweetness, redness, freshness, smoothness, roundness etc..) are just epiphenomena (which means that these qualities are in themselves nothing and that their reality is found in a combination or an arrangement of molecules or atoms or energy (or whatever parts there are). So if one has this assumption then it will necessarily be the case that he will reach this conclusion: "because such a property (life) does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented"
Then you have dualists who believe both are real.
I am of the view that it is in fact the reverse that is true (matter in itself doesn't exist or exists only in a relative sense). Unfortunately I have to butcher this topic because I don't have any more time to continue this fascinating discussion. I will have to end here for now.
Lanatin reacted to mesbah in Only 1.4% of Iranians attend Friday Prayers
One point is missing in this perspective.
Iran is mostly Shia, it can't be compared to Sunni countries in terms of Friday Prayer, why?
Because in Shia Fiqh, friday prayer is not obligatory during the time of Ghayba, in contrast to Sunni fiqh.
There was saying; in a sunni country, if you don't attend daily prayers in Mosque, it's ok, if you don't attend friday prayers, it's suspicious; and if you don't attend Eid prayers, you are a real disbeliever!
But this standard cannot be applied to Shia communities, due to the essential difference in Fiqh.
Lanatin reacted to Marbles in are politics counted as ibadah?
If politics were central to faith, we'd have at least one example of an Imam starting a rebellion. But we have none. The circumstances of the two Imams who did come to power are instructive. Imam Ali waited for years without claiming his right to rule until the Medinaties came running to him and begged him to take up the reins of government, whilst Imam Hassan resigned when the same people did not side with him. Neither clung to power, or sought it, as a matter of faith or principle.
Imam Hassan was the legitimate ruler for six months or so after the death of Amir al-momineen. If Islam depended on his being in power, he would have died fighting than to resign and retire to an ordinary life. Yet this is just what he did and according to the terms of agreement, did not seek to undermine the government of Muawiyah. It is not true to say that Imam Hassan, after he abdicated, strove to return to power.
The case of Imam Hussain is most well known. He was driven out of his house and Medinah after Yazid's people started hounding him. Imam followed his brother's line until the ruler demanded allegiance. Prior to that the Imam had neither declared rebellion nor put forward his name as a candidate for power.
The other Imams were poisoned because they were a threat to the ruling class, you're right about that. Imam Kadhim and Hassan Askar were even held captives for years, but not because they had started a revolt or supported one, but because of their position as the leaders of the Ahlebait, and hence with the strongest claim to rule.
I'm not a Neturei Karta type of Shia, who believe that establishing an Islamic state in the absence of the Mahdi is haraam. We can have an Islamically run state in any number of variations if it's socially and politically beneficial for the community (eg having the Iranian state fight the anti-Shia forces in the Middle East), but I don't see how our belief and salvation depends on having one. We had never had one for the most of our history and we survived.
Lanatin got a reaction from Hameedeh in Why Cussing Should Be Avoided
There's a hadith from Imam Sadiq (as) about not insulting sacred personalities, bringing Sura Al-An'am's admonition against insulting pagan gods as proof (i'll look for the hadith next time). I think its fair to say from our narrations and your narrations that Umar did institute bid'as, however he is exempt from the general rule as he is a sacred personality for sunnis.
By the way, takfir is not sabb :) .
Clearly you dont know what the parameters of sabb are:
والمراد بسبهم الاتيان بكلام يوجب الاستخفاف بهم، قال الشهيد الثاني رفع الله درجته: يصح مواجهتهم بما يكون نسبته إليهم حقا لا بالكذب
"And what is meant by insulting them is bringing words that degrade them, Shahid Al-Thani (may God raise his degree) said: 'It is allowed to confront them with what is rightfully attributed to them, not with lies'" Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 71 pg. 204 بحار الأنوار - العلامة المجلسي - ج ٧١ - الصفحة ٢٠٤
Lanatin got a reaction from dragonfly in Divorce- Iranian Style
I'd just like to add, mashallah at the qadi; he's settling disputes in a truly islamic fashion, trying his best to cement the fabric of society. This truly represents a (nearly) ideal islamic society, and it's pretty ironic when you consider the video probably wants to exert negative vibes from the viewers against the Islamic Republic.
Lanatin got a reaction from Ali Musaaa :) in Why Do Some Muslims Hate Jewish People?
Ah I knew it! Typical missionary parasite coming on this website, using partial quotations and misleading others on what Islam's teachings are! I could do the same with Jesus' namecalling like 'vipers' and 'hypocrites', but I don't lie and take out of context like you missionaries.
In the full quote the Prophet was referring to the Jews and Christians who took the graves of their saints for places of worship by assigning some divine power to them, besides regularly giving offerings at the burial site. Here's the hadith in full:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, "One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, 'May Allah fight the jews and the christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.' " (Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45:5:17)
He didn't want them expelled, in his last will he called for the expulsion of pagans. Nowhere will you find a quotation where the Prophet ordered their expulsion. In fact he made many treaties with them and allowed the bishopry in Yemen to remain so long as they paid a poll tax called 'Jizya'. 'When The Moon Split' was an edited version Mubarakpuri's biographical account, and the latter made a mistake in his writing by including the jews and christians as 'the pagans' who were to be expelled. This was a fault on his part, as the Quran clearly distinguishes between the pagans and the 'people of the book' (jews and christians). And here's the actual will in its originality which Mubarakpuri didn't quote directly:
"Ibn Abbas said: '...And he left in his will prior to his demise three items: to get the pagans out of the Arab land, to reward the envoys the same way he used to reward them and I forgot the third one.'"(Bukhari, Vol.2, Al-Jihad Wal Siyar, page 118)
Some Jews and Christians were condemned that is true, but the upright who kept true to their divine scriptures are praised in the Quran:
"They are not alike; of the people of the Book is a group upright that they recite the signs of God all along the night, and prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day and enjoin goodness and forbid evil, and hasten to do good deeds; and these are of the righteous ones" (Quran 3:113-114)
If you merely copy and pasted your claims from a missionary website, well those guys have been exposed for forgery and deceptive polemics time and again. I wouldn't take my polemics from them.
Oh and a bit of relevant history for you, the pagans were expelled immediately following the Prophet's death but the Jews and Christians remained in their habitations until the second caliph Omar had them expelled.
Lanatin got a reaction from Ali Musaaa :) in Why Do Some Muslims Hate Jewish People?
http://english.farsn...p?nn=9007100028 - this is specifically for those who believe what this preacher is saying as I already showed it to her in another thread.
Really now? Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said in the gospel of Matthew that he never came to abolish the Law and fulfill it, further emphasizing that: "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teaches of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. " (Matthew 5:17-20)
And if you really wouldn't want a contradiction with the abrogation of imperatives like 'an eye for an eye', we can reasonably say these abrogations were 'exceptions' to the Law that was meant to be fulfilled. Did Jesus ever specifically abrogate the law of stoning apostates in the Pentateuch? Never, in fact with regards to capital punishment prescribed in the Torah Jesus has condemned the pharisees for holding on to traditions and not executing insolent children as per the laws of the Torah:
"Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honour your father and mother' and 'anyone who curses his father and mother must be put to death'. But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God', he is not to 'honour his father or his mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." (Matthew 15:3-6)
And lo and behold Deuteronomy 17:2-5...
"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives...has worshipped other gods...take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death"
Why do you think the Roman Catholic church was burning heretics at the stake during the medieval period? A sudden misinterpretation of scripture? Please, your weak example of Jesus being abandoned by his followers is meaningless as Jesus had no political power and John's commentary alluded to Jesus' foreknowledge of the hypocrites who had never believed in the first place (Judas Iscariot).
The canonical scripture of Islam, the Quran, never mentioned a death penalty for apostates. Don't get me wrong, I love much of the bible's content and very much admire the resplendant wisdom found in the book of Proverbs and the Gospels. I just don't want you misinforming unsuspecting muslims on this forum in the hope of proselytizing.
Lanatin got a reaction from Zulfiqar-e-Ali in Who Ever Banned Satyaban - That Was Super Lame
It was the worst decision our super intelligent admins took, satyaban is one of the oldest and most unique members of shiachat and he is also very resourceful when it comes to learning more about the various sects in Hinduism and their beliefs. Sure he has an obvious bias against Iran and sharia law, but he's one of the few americans who are actually very tolerant of not only muslims but Islam itself. Santaana Dharma believes there is a common truth that all religions share, so techically all creeds out there are correct in one form or manner. It's not something that I fully believe myself, but God help me it's certainly what we need now to live in peace with each other.
Lanatin got a reaction from Hameedeh in Iranian Regime Fears Christianity
I dont know, it's not as weak as your christian religion which the secularised west has abandoned.
It baffles me as to why anyone would fear christianity, if a more philosophical approach was introduced to society as in the case with buddhism then that would be truly something to be feared. But Christianity is like most other religions - it has plenty of noble and beautiful teachings but is trapped by its own peculiar dogmas no freethinker would bother accepting.
Lanatin got a reaction from Hameedeh in Husbands, Love Your Wives! :)
I just realized Gypsy's post, apologies, I see why you said what you said...
Sub-human? Utter rubbish. You once said you dont have a comprehensive knowledge of christianity, so why are you judging based on some biased hate sites? From the old to the new testament, the virtues of women are extolled. Paul says to love your wives, be amicable with them, that both sexes share in the kingdom of God. Proverbs talks about the gift of having a righteous wife. If there's any patriarchal laws, pretty much every religion out there that allows marriage has some; and this is something we have as well. It's nothing abhorrent considering the differences of the two sexes (biologically, psychologically , etc.). It's only the damn feminists of today that are bringing the new goddess cult into this world that rebel against natural law.
The spiritual equality is still present in both our faiths, afterall. Why else would paul say "there is neither man nor woman...for all are one in Jesus Christ" (something along the lines of that anyway).
Lanatin got a reaction from Hameedeh in Husbands, Love Your Wives! :)
It's a tragedy, there ain't no regulations at all regarding this issue. It neither contains an explicit command denigrating physical admonishment nor does it set a procedure for when it should be done.
The Quran on the other hand is very direct on this issue, it condemns any injury in general and only makes an exception to striking a corrupt wife as a last resort. There's regulation, organization. Complete guidance.
Couple of verses to clear the issue:
"And when you divorce women and they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or release them according to acceptable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm , to transgress [against them]. And whoever does that has certainly wronged himself." - (2:231)
"Lodge them [in a section] of where you dwell out of your means and do not harm them in order to oppress them. And if they should be pregnant, then spend on them until they give birth. And if they breastfeed for you, then give them their payment and confer among yourselves in the acceptable way; but if you are in discord, then there may breastfeed for the father another woman." - (65:6)
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what God has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what God would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear rebellion - advise them; [then], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you seek no means against them. Indeed, God is ever Exalted and Grand." - (4:34)
Can you stop bringing up that strawman about wife beating? You already know fully well muslim scholars since the beginning of the faith's inception (starting with none other than the Prophet's statement about miswak) said it never goes as far as injuring and beating your wife. I already brought up the law of diyah, so why would you bring abusive beating up? Carrying strawmans is digging your own grave.
Lanatin got a reaction from GreyMatter in What Is Your Favourite Quote(s)?
"Who, in their right mind Kevin, could possibly deny the twentieth century was entirely mine?" - Al Pacino as Satan
"I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" - Vito Corleone
"And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then would you compel the people in order that they become believers?" - Holy Quran 10:99
wa laa tutti' kulla hallaafin maheen
hammaazim meshaa'im binameem
mannaa'in lil khairi mu'tadin atheem
uttullin ba'da thaalika zaneem
an kaana thaa maalin wa baneen
"And do not obey every worthless habitual swearer
(and) scorner going about with malicious gossip,
A preventer of good, transgressing and sinful,
cruel, moreover, and an illegitemate pretender,
because he possesses wealth and children." - Quran 68:10-14