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


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Sure, I'll answer your question. Of course, it didn't really happen! I completely made that up to see how many of the people who read it are even remotely skeptical about the BS people say to each other. Seriously, when was the last time you went to an imambargah and when they do the duas for the health (financial, marriage,...) problems of people, they also did dua for an amputee to grow back his limbs again??? Right, that never happens, because if an amputee actually asked the management of the Imambargah to perform this dua for him, the management would ask him to take a trip to the hospital and get his head examined instead. Sure, married couples get duas done for having children, people with sickness get duas done for health, financially troubled people do duas for sustenance, but no one -- no one -- does dua for regrowing their amputated limbs. Because, like it or not, deep down inside we ALL believe that there are some duas that are too difficult for God. Nevertheless, congratulations on being the only one to show some well-warranted skepticism. For a while I thought my post would go by unnoticed. Also, the next time someone extols the efficacy of some duas, ask them if they'd be willing to recite the dua regularly so that some amputee's limbs grow back again. And then watch how quickly the tune changes.
  2. What is this??? How come you didn't ask Blissful if she was "serious"? Or if she was an "eyewitness" to that women getting two rounds of IVF treatment, or to the doctors telling her that she could not be a mother? (If they did tell her that.) Why no hesitation about accepting the story about the barren woman getting pregnant, but hardened skepticism about the man regrowing his legs? Why this double standard??? You think that God is capable of making a barren woman fertile but NOT of regenerating a man's dismembered limbs??? Who gave that man limbs in the first place?!?!
  3. I agree. Like I said earlier, that verse is certainly still relevant and has legalistic value, I was only talking about the permissions from the perspective of the Sahaba. Allamah Tabatabai in his tafsir specifically addresses the issue of the possibility that the faahishah being referred to in the verse is homosexuality of some sort, and says that it is not possible for the following reasons: 1 - There is no tafsir from any exegete who understood the verse to be referring to homosexual acts between females. In fact, all the tafasir that do talk about the circumstances of revelation of this verse say that it is about fornication and was later abrogated by the laws of stoning or flogging. 2 - As far as punishment for homosexuality is concerned, no Islamic jurist has ever said that the punishment for lesbianism is being confined to their house until death. In fact, none have ever said that the punishment used to be so, but then was changed to flogging/lashes later on, or that flogging in conjunction with confinement to ones house used to be the punishment till it was later changed to just flogging. The punishment for homosexuality has always been recorded as death or flogging, so to say that this verse applied to lesbianism when there is no record at all of house imprisonment for lesbianism in any source makes little sense. More importantly, however, let's assume that this verse does apply to lesbians. That still does not change the fact that it has been abrogated, since the ruling for lesbianism now is not confinement to their houses, rather it is flogging for unmarried and death for married females. [see, for example: In the Islamic legal system, homosexuality is a punishable crime against the laws of God. In the case of homosexuality between two males, the active partner is to be lashed a hundred times if he is unmarried and killed if he is married; whereas the passive partner is to be killed regardless of his marital status. In the case of two females (i.e., lesbianism), the sinners are to be lashed a hundred times if they are unmarried and stoned to death if they are married. (See the chapter on "hudud" in Sharaya and Sharh Lum'a also al-Khu'i, Takmilah, p. 42-44. http://www.al-islam....orals/chap3.htm ]. So at this point in time, the punishment for lesbianism is not being confined to ones house. Hence the ruling in this verse has been abrogated regardless of who the term 'faahishah' is referring to (even though it is almost certainly referring to fornicators and not lesbians as can be seen when the exegetical and juristic literature is considered, as Allamah Tababtabai has explained). As for the argument you stated in point 2 ("Moreover, how can flogging or stoning be a way for her? And if that is the way for her, then what would be the way against her?"), well we have two possibilities here: 1) either flogging or stoning is indeed a "way out" for the fornicator confined to house imprisonment till death. In this case, there is no problem in saying that the verse has been abrogated by the law of stoning to death or flogging. Somehow I don't think being stoned to death is better than being imprisoned for life, but I can see why being lashed a hundred times is better than being imprisoned for life. Especially since no one was allowed to even speak to the imprisoned person for life, which will probably drive a person insane. And 2) flogging or stoning is not a "way out", in which case the entire verse, including the "way out" part, was abrogated by the stoning/flogging commandment. Not a problem at all. Thanks.
  4. I disagree, but never mind. There are other verses that have been abrogated that are more clear, so we can ignore this one. I didn't say it would have been necessary, I just said it would have been sufficient. Was the prohibition of consumption of fish without scales through verbal admonition not sufficient? Sure, there could have been a Qur'anic verse as well confirming this particular prohibition, but there isn't. My point is that if God was intending the commandment arising from this verse to simply be a temporary measure in order to wean Muslims off alcohol, this could have been done through a verbal admonition as well. But the fact that it is present as a Qur'anic verse makes it eternal. Which is why it makes sense to say that this verse was abrogated, since a "modified" law was passed in its place. Sure, you can call it a "modification" instead of an abrogation. It doesn't make a difference to the point I'm trying to make, which is that the law that is deduced from verse 4:43 is different from the law deduced from later verses (5:90-91) (as far as the sahaba were concerned, I mean). Yes, I'm only referring to the perspective of the Sahaba in this issue. Of course for later Muslims (Shi'ites specifically), the verse is certainly still applicable since there are narrations that explain that this state of intoxication includes drowsiness as well. But when the verse was revealed, it was not intended to prohibit drowsy persons from attending to prayers, it was intended to prevent drunk persons from doing so. Anyway, I forgot to mention this verse which is also abrogated: 4:15: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. As is well known, the punishment for fornication is not confinement to houses till death, it is flogging. This verse was abrogated by the verse of flogging (24:2). Allamah Tabatabai explains this in his tafsir:
  5. FAKE!!! This is just ZIONIST PROPAGANDATM! Here is the REAL relationship between Hamas :wub: and Iran: See! UnityTM! :wub: :wub: :wub:
  6. That is because I completely misunderstood your argument (I missed the "at their time" part). My apologies. In any case, the reason that verse cannot be understood in the manner you describe is because of its context. That verse (2:62) and the surrounding verses are referring to the Jews at the time of the Prophet. See the following: 2:55 - And remember ye said: "O Moses! We shall never believe in thee ... 2:56 - Then We raised you up after your death: Ye had the chance to be grateful. 2:57 - And We gave you the shade of clouds and sent down to you Manna and quails ... 2:58 - And remember We said: "Enter this town 2:60 - And remember Moses prayed for water for his people . . . 2:61 - And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food . . . 2:62 - Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) . . . 2:63 - And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you 2:64 - But ye turned back thereafter: Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah to you, ye had surely been among the lost. 2:65 - And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath Who is the Prophet asking to remember these events? Not the Arabs or pagans, since they were never with Moses nor did they ever have to observe the Sabbath. And similarly he is not talking to the souls of the dead Jews there either. Clearly the Prophet is speaking to the Jews at his time in these verses, he is not talking to the Muslims about the Jews of the past. So in this context when the verse says "those who believe and those who follow the Jewish scriptures", the reference is to the Jews who were there, since that is who the Prophet is speaking with at that time, not the ones who existed in the past and are no longer present. The narrations don't concern me. They were written more than a hundred years (more likely three hundred) after the revelation of the Qur'an. In any case, the Qur'anic verse is pretty clear. I don't see what part of the argument you find illogical there. The principle is that if the Qur'an says that something is forbidden (in a certain context), then everything apart from that (in that context) is allowed. (For example, Qur'an verses 4:23-24 talk about who Muslims are forbidden from marrying, and hence those that are not excluded in those verses are allowed in marriage.) The principle is that everything is permissible unless proven otherwise. So when a verse says that persons who are drunk should not approach prayers, the only part that is forbidden there is praying while drunk. Which means that praying while not drunk is allowed, and drinking when you don't have to pray (for a while) is also allowed.
  7. The verse refers to the believers separately from the Christians, Jews, Sabians. To include them among believers, the verse could have stated instead: Those who believe AMONG those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the.... instead of "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), AND those who follow the Jewish (scriptures)...." So the reference to the Christians, Jews, and Sabeans in that verse is distinct from the believers (Muslims). Also verses 5:90-91 abrogate the earlier alcohol related verses (specifically 4:43). People argue that there is no abrogation since 4:43 does not explicitly allow the consumption of alcohol, but that is incorrect. When a commandment only bans something for particular instances, then that is an implicit permission for allowing it during other instances. Which means that, going by that verse itself, alcohol was defacto allowed under all other circumstances (apart from prayer). Similarly, it is argued that the purpose of that verse was simply to wean people off alcohol consumption, not to actually indirectly ALLOW alcohol consumption. But this is also not a valid argument since there need not be an actual Qur'anic verse in this regard, since a verbal admonition would have been sufficient. Keep in mind that consumption of fish without scales is also prohibited in Islam, but there is no actual Qur'anic verse that prohibits this. It was simply a verbal commandment that was passed without incorporation into the Qur'an. In the same way, if the only purpose of 4:43 was to encourage people to give up alcohol consumption, then this could similarly be accomplished with a verbal admonition to do so, instead of an explicit Qur'anic injunction. Clearly the Qur'anic injunction was intended as a law for the Muslims at that time, and since it only partially prohibited alcohol consumption, it automatically partially allowed it as well. Hence verses 5:90-91 actually abrogate 4:43, not simply expand upon it.
  8. Quran 2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. Abrogated by 3:85 If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
  9. Couldn't agree more! Never underestimate the power of prayers, bro. There was an elderly man in our community who used to frequent our local imambargah but was not in good physical condition (diabetic, joint aches). He contracted a bacterial infection which became severe very quickly due to his diabetes and eventually led to sepsis. The poor fellow had to get both his legs amputated at the knees because of that. On his request we held a prayer session on the night of 15th Shaban at the imambargah. Everyone who was present recited the am ma(n) yujeeb verse a thousand times each, followed by Dua Mashlool so that the man's legs would grow back by the will of Allah. We were thrilled to find out that within two days his legs grew back completely, subhanallah! Where earlier there had just been stumps ending a little above the knees, now he had full, functional legs. What's more, even his diabetes was cured! His joint aches were still there, but not in his legs which had grown anew. And, mashallah, he has never felt any aches in his knees or ankles where he used to hurt all the time before his amputation ever since. Truly, Allah is Qadeer over everything.
  10. Here's a section of the speech (with English Subtitles) by Sheikh Qaradhawi condemning Iran, Russia (mostly), and China for being on the side of the Syrian dictatorship: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3607.htm Yeah, good luck with that "unity" thing you guys keep dreaming about.
  11. Well explained, brother. But you forgot to mention that in our Advanced relativistic quantum english class we were taught to place # before verbs, & before adjectives, % before adverbs, }{ before conjunctives, and +@~ before prepositions. +@~Without &such &clarifying :Symbols, %how #can :Anyone &even #make &any :Sense +@~of +@~the &written &English :Language?!?! }{In fact, :I'm &sure :None +@~of &these :Members %here %actually #understand %what :We #are %truly #saying -- :They #are &only #pretending +@~to #do &so %since :They #are &just &mindless :Tools +@~of +@~the &Zionist &NWO &Masonic :Judges.
  12. Ah okay, thank you for that more relevant response. Would you happen to have any links to earlier offending statements by Javanfekr? Well, Ahmadi and Ayatollah Khamenei aren't as close as they used to be, so I thought I'd throw that in there since maybe that was a possibility. Guess not.
  • Create New...