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
wonderer

Thoughts (2010-2016) [ARCHIVE]

Recommended Posts

(salam)

Please recite a Surah Fatiha for an elderly sister who passed away today. She will be buried tomorrow, so please remember to read Namaaz e Wahshat for her if you can.

I swear to God, every time I comment now, it's to report someones death -_-

 

Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Praise is due to Allah who created everything including the watermelon I'm eating now which is sublime, wish you all would eat :)

 

my mother just bought watermelon  ! lol . But i personally don't like it much, i think watermelon and cumcumbers are too water-ish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blessings be upon mankind for the birth of our two sacred imams are to come. So excited! Ya Allah, by the sake of their birth, please help all of us who are taking our final exams. ^_^

Salwat.

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blessings be upon mankind for the birth of our two sacred imams are to come. So excited! Ya Allah, by the sake of their birth, please help all of us who are taking our final exams. ^_^

Salwat.

(wasalam)

Good luck

Are you also done your final year project for CE? Or are you doing it next year?

Edited by Al-Najashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck

Are you also done your final year project for CE? Or are you doing it next year?

Thank you, but I dont need luck, just prayers ^_^ I have a long way to go, but inshAllah soon. Prob next year. inshAllah I hope you do great on your exams as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's blame Israel for our problems, because apparently, Shias and Sunnis had lived amicably for the 1200 years that Israel didn't exist.

LOL. It's Israel's fault that Shi'ite Muslims were oppressed and killed in the Ummayad and Abbassid eras'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's blame Israel for our problems, because apparently, Shias and Sunnis had lived amicably for the 1200 years that Israel didn't exist.

Actually for the vast majority of history, they have. Oppression here and there, but no mass murder and that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(-3)x(-3) = ?

 

 

Can you solve this ? :)

 

Would it not jut be equal to 9?

Let's blame Israel for our problems, because apparently, Shias and Sunnis had lived amicably for the 1200 years that Israel didn't exist.

 

my sentiments exactly.

 

israel-splits-sunni-and-shia.jpg

 

silly. just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually for the vast majority of history, they have. Oppression here and there, but no mass murder and that.

 

You might want to revise that conclusion. The history is littered with countless massacres, most of them of the non-Sunni minorities by the powers of the mainstream establishments. We usually talk about the periods of Banu Umayyah and Banu Abbas and forget what happened after that. Take a look at history after the time when the Muslim lands were recovering from the death and destruction of numerous Mongol invasions. From the Seljuk era where Shias (usually Ismailis) were lynched and butchered for centuries in almost every town in the historic Persia to the gratuitous massacres of Sunnis in Ismaili-held lands, the history is full of Sunni-Shia massacres. Later, Shias were persecuted heretics in the lands of the Ottomans and Sunnis got the same treatment in Safavid Persia, right down to our modern times when the progeny of Saud acquired power to plunder and pillage the Shia heartlands of Iraq and Eastern Arabia to the present conflicts of 2000s.

 

Jews get the blame because we Muslims love to portray ourselves as victims of the Foreign Hand. This mentality did not develop suddenly. It took 200 years of colonialism to come to this point. Yet today Muslims stuck in their own brains and have a self-image of that of a beleaguered and weak community unable to undo the grand conspiracy of the Joos, and their allies, from without or from within (It is not a coincidence that Shias by and large are portrayed in Sunni sectarian literature as a Jewish offshoot out there to 'harm' Islam).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's blame Israel for our problems, because apparently, Shias and Sunnis had lived amicably for the 1200 years that Israel didn't exist.

 

LOL. It's Israel's fault that Shi'ite Muslims were oppressed and killed in the Ummayad and Abbassid eras'.

 

Israel/the US are the ones stirring problems in Syria, a long with israel/the us's proxy SAUDI arabia

 

Israel are the ones opressing palestine

 

The US/israel have a harsh stance on Iran

 

 

I am not asserting that Israel are the cause of every or most problems. Just to be aware that Israel and the US , through saudi arabia may seek to cause secterian problems for their own geopolitical gains.

Edited by Logical Islamic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel/the US are the ones stirring problems in Syria, a long with israel/the us's proxy SAUDI arabia

 

Israel are the ones opressing palestine

 

The US/israel have a harsh stance on Iran

 

 

I am not asserting that Israel are the cause of every or most problems. Just to be aware that Israel and the US , through saudi arabia may seek to cause secterian problems for their own geopolitical gains.

Israel and the U.S are causing problems in Syria... yes they are causing half the problem. What about Russia and The Dictator Bashar al-Assad? That's the other half.

Israel are the ones oppressing Palestine, yes, very true. But this has nothing to do with the Shia and other Islamic sect splits.

Yes, Israel and the U.S have a harsh stance on Iran. And Iran have a harsh stance on Israel and the U.S. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to revise that conclusion. The history is littered with countless massacres, most of them of the non-Sunni minorities by the powers of the mainstream establishments. We usually talk about the periods of Banu Umayyah and Banu Abbas and forget what happened after that. Take a look at history after the time when the Muslim lands were recovering from the death and destruction of numerous Mongol invasions. From the Seljuk era where Shias (usually Ismailis) were lynched and butchered for centuries in almost every town in the historic Persia to the gratuitous massacres of Sunnis in Ismaili-held lands, the history is full of Sunni-Shia massacres. Later, Shias were persecuted heretics in the lands of the Ottomans and Sunnis got the same treatment in Safavid Persia, right down to our modern times when the progeny of Saud acquired power to plunder and pillage the Shia heartlands of Iraq and Eastern Arabia to the present conflicts of 2000s.

 

Jews get the blame because we Muslims love to portray ourselves as victims of the Foreign Hand. This mentality did not develop suddenly. It took 200 years of colonialism to come to this point. Yet today Muslims stuck in their own brains and have a self-image of that of a beleaguered and weak community unable to undo the grand conspiracy of the Joos, and their allies, from without or from within (It is not a coincidence that Shias by and large are portrayed in Sunni sectarian literature as a Jewish offshoot out there to 'harm' Islam).

Firstly by Shia I meant Twelver shia and not Ismailis, im well aware of the deadly conflict between orthodoxy and ismailis; we have no duty to stick up to ismailis, theyre heretics by our standards as well.

 

As for normal relations, you might be surprised by this but even Ibn Taymiyyah made a careful judgement not to anathematise all twelver shias, saying many were muslims outwardly and inwardly. If you read jurisprudential texts of the sunni and shia, they always make a careful distinction between a dhaahiri muslim (apparent muslim) and baatini (inward)  muslim. What constitutes an apparent muslim is adherence to the shahada, which is why severe differences were greatly tolerated, because everyone was left alone as long as they held to the fundamentals of Islam. The heresy was always within, so raafidhis who anathamatised most sahaba would be judged as baatini kafirs, but thaahiri muslims, whilst zabiha and other stuff was forbidden from them. Likewise, those sunnis who were given the dalil for the wilaya of Imam Ali but rejected it were deemed as thaahiri muslims but kafirs inwardly.

 

I don't care for conspiracies about jews, this is a topic your country should solve as it seems to be very famous there and the arab world. Lets hope this discussion doesn't go down the same asinine road it did last time you were evaluating science and Islam.

 

P.S. Shah Ismail was a ghali, not an orthodox shia, so he doesn't count either

Edited by Jahangiram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly by Shia I meant Twelver shia and not Ismailis, im well aware of the deadly conflict between orthodoxy and ismailis; we have no duty to stick up to ismailis, theyre heretics by our standards as well.

 

If you assign yourself a 'duty' to stand for something, then a good sport is to stand for haq and not sect.

when the Muslim lands were recovering from the death and destruction of numerous Mongol invasions.

 

Can you elaborate on this please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly by Shia I meant Twelver shia and not Ismailis, im well aware of the deadly conflict between orthodoxy and ismailis; we have no duty to stick up to ismailis, theyre heretics by our standards as well.

 

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter which Shia you meant, because at the time Fatimid caliphate was established and much later when it met its end, the mainstream Shias were Ismailis by a big margin. They were the 'other sect' up against the orthodox Sunnism. The Twelvers were a quietest fringe within Shi'ism nobody cared about because they had insignificant numbers and no power base to boast of and hence not a threat to the Sunni order.

 

Today the situation is reversed; Twelvers are the mainstream Shia sect and our political and social rise has been met with fierce resistance by the established Sunni order because it perceives us as a danger. Ismailis get no attention because they have taken over the position of a fringe Shia sect with no power ambitions and also because their population is miniscule and spread out across the world.

 

As for normal relations, you might be surprised by this but even Ibn Taymiyyah made a careful judgement not to anathematise all twelver shias, saying many were muslims outwardly and inwardly. If you read jurisprudential texts of the sunni and shia, they always make a careful distinction between a dhaahiri muslim (apparent muslim) and baatini (inward)  muslim. What constitutes an apparent muslim is adherence to the shahada, which is why severe differences were greatly tolerated, because everyone was left alone as long as they held to the fundamentals of Islam. The heresy was always within, so raafidhis who anathamatised most sahaba would be judged as baatini kafirs, but thaahiri muslims, whilst zabiha and other stuff was forbidden from them. Likewise, those sunnis who were given the dalil for the wilaya of Imam Ali but rejected it were deemed as thaahiri muslims but kafirs inwardly.

 

I don't care for conspiracies about jews, this is a topic your country should solve as it seems to be very famous there and the arab world. Lets hope this discussion doesn't go down the same asinine road it did last time you were evaluating science and Islam.

 

P.S. Shah Ismail was a ghali, not an orthodox shia, so he doesn't count either

 

Throughout history there has been no unanimity of opinion among the Sunnis towards the status of the Shias either about our heresy or the soundness of our Islam. Some Sunnis were lenient whereas others were not. And it is still the same with them. That said, the soundness or truthfulness of one's belief system was never a guarantee that a pogrom would not be carried out against them. Sects and sects-within-the-sect, all sorts of people have been put to sword at one time or another so I don't really see the point of quoting Sunni theological view of the Shias. Yesterday it were Ismailis, today it is Ithna Asharis. No difference.

 

As for the last time when we were discussing Islam [read: Muslims] and science I recall that you could not come up with a reasonable and logically-held argument and decided not to reply.

 

 

 

Can you elaborate on this please?

 

Oh read it only as a reference to the long period after the termination of the Abbasid caliphate in the wake of Mongol invasion and the establishment of new order in the Muslim mainlands.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Ok its true the dynamics of power have changed amongst shias, now on to the next thing lol:

 

As for the last time when we were discussing Islam [read: Muslims] and science I recall that you could not come up with a reasonable and logically-held argument and decided not to reply.

 

 

 

I didn't reply because I thought there was no point; you made the most basic errors like anachronistically claiming Ghazali was writing a refutation of Ibn Rushd when it was the reverse (Ibn Rushd was born 15 years after Ghazali lol). You kept repeating clichés about religion and science without referencing anything; I mean are you really suggesting adherants to Islam are against studying biology? :donno:  

 

If anything, adherence to Islam was a factor in curbing superstition, as the ulema repeatedly forbade astrology and other 'dark arts'. The so-called Wahhabis themselves on their websites like IslamQA forbid these pseudo-sciences whilst encouraging studying everything else.

 

It's a whole tangled web of confusion im not bothered to untangle, but hopefully some misconceptions have been sufficiently addressed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok its true the dynamics of power have changed amongst shias, now on to the next thing lol:

 

Yes, they have, and to add further to what I said previously, I do not read history as a partisan of a particular sect but through a global perspective towards power systems that existed in a particular time period, and with this vantage point it is safe to conclude that the history of Sunni-Shia conflict has been internecine and bloody since the era of Banu Umayyah up until modern times. If things were normal between the Sunnis and the Shias (of whatever doctrinal variety and sectarian persuasion), it should be seen as a break in the chronic sectarian warfare that continued unchecked for much of the time in many different places.

 

I didn't reply because I thought there was no point; you made the most basic errors like anachronistically claiming Ghazali was writing a refutation of Ibn Rushd when it was the reverse (Ibn Rushd was born 15 years after Ghazali lol). You kept repeating clichés about religion and science without referencing anything; I mean are you really suggesting adherants to Islam are against studying biology? :donno:  

 

If anything, adherence to Islam was a factor in curbing superstition, as the ulema repeatedly forbade astrology and other 'dark arts'. The so-called Wahhabis themselves on their websites like IslamQA forbid these pseudo-sciences whilst encouraging studying everything else.

 

It's a whole tangled web of confusion im not bothered to untangle, but hopefully some misconceptions have been sufficiently addressed here.

 

No, it's okay, you have a right to not respond and no reason to explain why you did not.

 

Of course adherents to Islam aren't against studying biology. Muslims at that time with their new religious impetus strengthened science and exploration like no other community in what we call the Middle Ages. That's indisputable. But we weren't even talking about biology so I don't know why you mention that. It was about science in general esp those initial philosophical ideas that engendered the very body of knowledge that we now call science.

 

If I remember right I replied to your modern-day delineation of philosophy and science as two distinct and separate disciplines and your projection of this distinction back to the old times. My point was that this distinction did not exist back in those times and your labelling was unmerited since the feud was broadly between the Divine Law and the knowledge derived through religious sciences (Quran, ahadith, jurisprudence, in some cases Sufi spirituality) vs the philosophical ideas (inspired by the ancient Greeks) which engendered in the learned the desire to experiment with nature, which in turn incubated scientific discovery from mathematics to astronomy and from optics to biology.

 

Yes, Ibn Rushd wrote a rebuttal to al-Ghazali's book. I never said it was the other way round. Al-Ghazali wrote rebuttals to philosophers of his time whose ideas he did not agree with.

 

I also hope it explains, and I hope it is not taken to mean that I even insinuated such a thing as medieval Muslims being against biology or science in general lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...