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

Khadim uz Zahra

Moderators
  • Content Count

    3,934
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Khadim uz Zahra last won the day on April 6 2018

Khadim uz Zahra had the most liked content!

About Khadim uz Zahra

  • Rank
    The Dark One

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://therecurrent.wordpress.com/

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shi'a Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

15,608 profile views
  1. To add to that, there's also Ali Raza Rizvi, who's pretty famous these days. Jan Ali Shah Kazmi is a rare gem, though after his exile from Pakistan he's become less well known. But my favourite, by far, is Ali Murtaza Zaidi. He is the best Urdu speaker I've come across when it comes to building one's spirituality. His lectures are actually that: lectures. He literally starts every ashra by saying he's not interested in khitabat (making speeches). So, his style of speaking is quite different to what most Indians/Pakistanis are used to but if you can get over that, his lectures have a really high degree of quality to them. Aqeel ul Gharavi is aca lly also very good. I've only heard a few of his lectures but if you want a more philosophical lecture, he's very good in that regard.
  2. I believe there is a hadith which says if you wish to know who is on the right path, look toward who is opposing them. If you look at the first video in the OP, you can see that the man brought to contrast Aqeel ul Garavi - and set him correct, as it were - preaches a wanton disregard of our fiqh and is openly preaching bidaat. Whoever said the blood discharged from tatbir is tahir? Which marja' has issued fatawa saying you can pray with that blood? Even Imam Hussain would wash his own blood for prayers. That he did not do so on the day of Ashura is a result of the fact that there was no water to clean the blood, not to mention the fact that it was literally in the middle of War! He then goes on to claim his blood is like that of the blood of the Shuhada of Karbala?! Who is the real muqassir here? How can you even claim that the blood of a normal person like you and me is equivalent to the companions and family of Imam Hussain? I am not a scholar but even I can tell that the man opposing the scholar in question is no scholar himself and is distorting the religion of Imam Hussain in his own name. To determine the righteousness of a person, look at who opposes him. Secondly, the whole thing about krishna is his personal opinion - again, read the above - and he never definitely claims it. He said it's very, very likely in my opinion. And he makes a sound argument to justify only the consideration of the possibility. Lastly, how can someone say XYZ aalim used to recite the majalis at this mosque before and we want another scholar of that caliber. That implies that we have the capability to judge either scholar's caliber. Except maybe 5-10 people, I don't think most of the people on ShiaChat have even gone to hawzah for any significant period of time, let alone being capable of determing the caliber of a man who was termed Ayatollah by other respected scholars. We must learn and understand that many of our respected scholars from the past have had severe differences of opinion amongst themselves. But they treated each other with respect and as fellow scholars. The best example I like of this is Shaykh Mufeed, who was Shaykh Saduq's student but disagreed with him on a subject as sensitive as sahw an nabi. If he was like how Shias have unfortunately started acting, he'd probably be issuing fatwas of kufr against his own teacher. Thank God, he wasn't like us and hopefully we can all learn from his example. If Aqeel ul Gharavi opposes tatbir and you believe in it, that's fine. But don't say he does not deserve to sit on the mimbar - any mimbar - and learn to respect him despite the difference of opinion. That's the difference between an educated nation and an emotional one. Don't throw away a scholar's boat loads of knowledge because he said one thing you don't like.
  3. I'm replying a year late but, man, she was something. There's actually a cheat in the game where you can fight her right after the dog knight (so much earlier in the story than you'd normally fight her) by killing the woman who's in the dancer's chamber. I actually did that. I played a bunch further than the dog knight but saw the exploit on the internet so decided to try it. Man, she was impossible to kill. I don't know how many hours I spent just trying again and again to do it. The advantage of the exploit is that you can immediately proceed to Lothran Castle after killing her so you can farm t much higher XP from this region then go back to where you were in the story again super strong compared to if you played linearly.
  4. Aww, I like Asus, too. Though, their customer service isn't necessarily the best so it's better for HS to stick with Dell, HP or Lenovo.
  5. The description in the OP isn't entirely correct. It doesn't use pictures of a female body to guess what the person would look like unclothed. It's designed to take one face and transpose it over another in a video. That is, you could take a video of one person (naked or not) and put someone else's face over one of the people in the video. Whether you have a tight dress or a loose one won't really matter much to the AI, as all it really does is learn how to 1. replace one person's face with another and 2. recreate the expressions of the original face on the second, inserted face. It's basically like the video version of Photoshop, and if the person in the original video was smiling, it will attempt to produce an image of you smiling. While I'm not familiar with the exact specifications of how it works, having part of your face hidden by the hijab (e.g. your forehead) would present some issues for the AI as it would be hard for the AI to learn how to map another face's expression on your face without having access to your whole face. Still, most of our expressions come from the region below the eyebrows to a little over the chin, and those parts are usually visible even with hijab (unless you go for the full niqab). In conclusion, the AI is designed to replace one face with another. It doesn't really try to guess what you look like naked; it just figures out how to replace one face with another. You could also use it to potentially replace, say, Trump's face in a speech and put yours on top of his body, with no nakedness involved. Of course, this technology isn't actually perfect. You can actually often guess if the face in the video isn't real, but it all depends on how much data the computer has to generate its results (the more the better the results) and even things like how close the original face is to the inserted one. Given a lot of data to work with and at least a similar original face, it can do relatively quite well. There are samples of people replacing actors in famous movies with other actors. At least, that's my understanding from the news I've read about it, unless we're talking about different technologies. Though, on second thought, I would imagine training AI to learn to guess naked forms from tight clothing would rely on the same principles and could be achieved. Similarly, I imagine AI could also do well enough these days in taking millions of naked forms of random people and be able to slap your face over someone else's naked body and adjust the details so that the image is realistic enough, without actually needing to guess what your own naked body looks like through tight clothing. I'm not a machine learning engineer, but if it isn't possible now, we are at least somewhere around there in terms of the technology where it could be achieved soon.
  6. Well, if you really do want to know, instead of asking are you a virgin, you should try and approach the matter with more subtlety, perhaps? Instead of asking that, ask if she was ever interested in another guy before you. And even this is supposed to happen after a little while, when she trusts you enough to tell you things she considers to be private. Don't go around asking about her romantic past (even if she hasn't touched another man, but was just in love or something) the first day you meet. First, just talk to the girl normally and see if you like her and she likes you back. Once there's some trust between you, you can inquire about her romantic past. If she says she was never interested in anyone before you, then you can easily assume she's a virgin. Now, I'm sure you will now ask, "What if she lied?" Well, isn't a prerequisite of asking her if she's a virgin that you trust her answer? If you'd trust her answer if she said she's a virgin, then trust her when she says she has no romantic past. If she says yes on the other hand, then you can again indirectly enquire about it (you should want to enquire anyways, regardless of virginity, because it's a pretty big detail about her life that you should know before marriage). Ask her about the relationship, what happened, why did it end, how serious was it and these questions will likely give you an indication of if something happened between them. And, again, you need to be respectful and subtle about these questions. If she has a past, it is your right to know about it, no doubt, but if you come in with a sense of entitlement, she'll likely just be too uncomfortable or scared or ashamed to open up. She might even end up lying, but not necessarily because she's a bad person or a liar. It's because you didn't make enough of an effort to make her feel comfortable opening up to you. Moreover, even if she answers truthfully, just blurting out, "Are you a virgin?" will probably not leave much of a chance for a relationship with her afterwards, because you'd be showing her you don't have very good people skills and that when you ask her something, you just want your own answers. You don't really care about making her feel comfortable or care about how she feels. And she be quite justified in asking whether you'd be a supportive and caring husband in the future if you are so rash in your enquiries right now. So, you might very well get your answer, but you would have shown her you're not kind or gentle towards her, which immediately reduces your prospects with her. It's not exactly rocket science to know that women, generally speaking, want someone who cares about their feelings and makes them feel safe. So, even if you do want to ask, just remember to do it in a way that doesn't make you come off as a self-obsessed jerk. If she did have a past, she'd probably feel very ashamed, afraid or concerned about it, especially if she's from a religious background. What happens if she tells you the truth, you don't like her, and you tell her parents and she gets in trouble, for example? All of these are concerns that she'd have and you'd be showing yourself to be a good potential husband if you put yourself in her shoes, consider all of these things, and then ask in a way that her fears about these things are allayed. Tell her whatever she says will always remain between you and so on. Then, you'll have shown yourself to be an understanding person, regardless of whether virginity is or isn't a deal breaker for you. I also recommend you read this post in its entirety:
  7. There are, I believe, some Hadith that say that when the Imam reappears, people will see him and say, "Oh, we saw this man before (e.g. during Hajj, which the Imam attends every year). Thus, some of us may have seen him, but not recognised who he is. Though, as far as I know, these narrations don't specify if only the Shi'a will make such a claim, or if any Muslim who attends Hajj might have seen him. I think this is what you're referring to. On the other hand, there are, of course reports of famous scholars and pious people allegedly meeting the Imam. The difference here is that these people would also be aware of who they're meeting so it's a different case than above.
  8. @Propaganda_of_the_Deed It's been 8 years since you joined the site? Damn! Any updates on the evolution of your beliefs since you wrote this thread?
  9. Once again, not true. She didn't take it back. She apologised for the language, but even in her apology, she insisted that she wanted to "reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry." She kept to her principles, which is that lobby groups like AIPAC need to go. Even in her apology, she did condemn AIPAC's influence in American politics so I don't see how she took anything back. She apologised for the language, and how some might have been offended; that's it.
  10. That claim is entirely unfounded. She did not marry her brother or break the law: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/
  11. Well, even if the US would find out, it's not like they'll take Pakistan to task about it publicly. If it did happen, on the public stage, I'd Pakistan would deny it and the US would remain mum while chastising Pakistan privately. And that more or less corroborates with what we've seen on the diplomatic stage so far. Either PAF didn't use one or didn't lose one and are now denying its use. Anything else, and India could reasonably have a case against the US as to why they didn't stop the F-16 from being used. All these diplomatic considerations do also suggest PAF's claims of not using any F-16s is highly plausible. If we know about the trackers, I'm sure the PAF does, too. Unless some generally got too gung-ho, or really wanted to ensure air superiority via their use, they'd stick to other aircraft to avoid all this mess. The Taiwan thing is interesting. Perhaps Pakistan bought them from Taiwan at a later date? Is the IAF that incompetent that they're submitting Taiwanese missiles as proof? How'd they even get pictures of a spent Taiwanese missile? This one is just bizarre. It raises a million questions in my head.
  12. The only 'proof' India has given so far is some kind of missile. If Pakistan used an F-16 in the dogfight, there will obviously be missile cartridges (if any were used). That doesn't mean the jet was also downed. Why would Pakistan then lie about F-16s being used at all if they didn't lose one? Maybe because the US would be furious it used an F-16 without its permission? Either way you look at it, there's maybe some possible evidence an F-16 was used, but none whatsoever that one was downed. In the age of social media, it's also nearly impossible to hide this kinda stuff. If we have people in a village capturing video of Abhinandan, surely there would be video of the Pakistani plane/pilot? These things aren't easy to cover up these days, and Pakistan's army is no NSA. If nothing, the Indian army could release a snippet of the cameras on their own planes just to prove their point. The fact that they're willing to take a massive hit in the media and on the international stage shows that likely have no proof, because I'm sure the Modi government would be quite willing to override concerns about security just to release a few seconds of footage if it would help them save face. That, to me, makes it highly probable that the PAF lost no jets. Either way, this whole thing about my country shot down your plane while yours couldn't do anything to us seems naive and childish to me. It reeks of pride in war. What is relevant, from an analytic standpoint, is that India will continue to suffer from negative PR if there's no real proof provided of a lost bird.
  13. If you go with that logic, why did the all knowing Imams not just correct all of humanity (they are teachers to us all, no?) about all the incorrect scientific theories people have in the 7th century and make 7th century Arabia a nuclear power that could harness the energy of the sun and use advanced AI to automate everything? Surely, the Imams could have done that. Firstly, the Imams are not all-knowing. There are many debates on the matter, but the Imams are generally not aware of ilm al-Ghaib. So, whether or not the Imams even knew everything is debatable. The general consensus is that Allah reveals portions of ilm al-ghaib to the Imams when necessary, which would explain why they could make claims that science could later prove but still not know everything. But leaving that technicality aside, even if the Imam knew Jabir ibn Hayyan was wrong, why should he correct him? The Imam is there for spiritual guidance, not to teach people advanced theories about science that are centuries ahead of their understanding. If we go by this logic, no religion in the world is right because why didn't the Prophets/founders of any of those religions make their nation a nuclear power in the stone age? Your question is incorrect because your basic assumption and expectation of what the Imam should do is incorrect. He's there to foster the spiritual growth of mankind, not our scientific or technological growth. Whether you're living in the Stone Age or the Information Era, his work and message is the same. (As another side note, I also invite you to ponder on how on Earth the Imam, even if he wanted to, could correct people about things centuries ahead of their time. Like, people don't understand that the world is made of atoms and you want him to explain different elements have different kinds of atoms, they combine via hydrogen/covalent and so on bonds? Say he did that, the people in the early 1900s would convert to Shi'ism in droves because of this man revealing the secrets of the atom a thousand years ago. Yet, in 20 years, with the advent of quantum physics and Einstein's theory of relativity, people would start asking why the Imam didn't tell us about that. You can't ask why the Imam didn't reveal the truths of science because what scientists believe is always changing. What if the Imam had revealed, and insisted, upon quantum mechanics in the 7th century. The people in the 1300 years between then and the discovery of quantum mechanics would have called him a lunatic for saying such absurd things because scientists would believe he's wrong. How do you know he hasn't revealed the true nature of existence, and we're just 10 centuries away from understanding those things and making those discoveries? Should he have lied and dumbed things down so us 21st century people could believe him or should he have insisted on the truth and told us what we'll eventually find out is true in another millennia or two? You see how this is simply an infinite sum game and will never really have a definitive answer like the one you're expecting? Your question and your expectation, like I said, is erroneous on its own.)
  14. Well, things have taken a turn recently with Iran due to the recent bombing and, I imagine, other previous incidents that neither side would disclose (e.g. if they successfully stopped terrorosits from crossing the border, I don't imagine they'd be too willing to let it be well known, not if they could help it). Both sides are planning on building a fence along the border. Obviously, this is about more than a single incident.
×
×
  • Create New...