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
Chair Pundit

Did Khidr Murder A Boy?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Allaah (s.w.t) was Merciful not only to the boy, but to the boy's parents.

- He let the boy die before He could commit sins which would land him in Hell.

- He gave the boy's parents a better child.

This is of His Mercy.

 

#Problem 1:  If the boy was destined to be a rebellious apostate, why did God allow him to be born?  Why did God choose to kill him purposefully just so that he could be sent to heaven?  What is the point of that?

 

#Problem 2: If God is truly omni-benevolent, why does he not give an early death to those of us who perhaps are also destined to be hell bound?

 

#Problem 3: How is it even remotely wise to kill someone who is destined to be evil so that they could be sent to heaven? God isn't been just or consistent if he *purposely allows* people to become criminals.

 

I dunno bout you but that ^ makes sense to me.

Saying "evidently doesn't make sense" is only within the bounds of your comprehension. What does not seem evident to you can easily be evident to another and vice versa.

 

Clearly you haven't been reading any of my arguments on this thread as to why it evidently does not make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu Alaykum

 

 

The life of the youth was not his to begin with. Everything in the Universe belongs to Allah and he can kill any of us whenever he wants. It is completely justifiable.

 

But even that he doesn't do.

 

I read a hadith a long time ago that an old lady went to Prophet Musa (as) crying because of her "young son" who passed away. When Prophet Musa asked of the son, the mother said he was "300 years old". I'm not sure if this hadith is authentic, but the point is, people in the past lived longer than people today.

 

 

In any case, this "youth" may have well been in his late 20s or 30s. He was not a young child.

 

This question led me to go research this myself. there is a hadith from imam Jaafar Al Sadiq (as) which in depth describes this story.

As the hadith reports, the youth was a disbeliever PRESENTLY. When Prophet Khidr (as) killed him, he was at that moment a Kafir and Qisas needed to be fulfilled.

 

He was also going to mislead his parents in the future, but apart from that there are a few things to understand.

 

1) Prophet Musa must have been tested

2) The parents of the youth must have been tested

3) The ending of his life alleviated him from some of his sins and was in fact a mercy unto him

4) The parents of the youth were believers. Therefore, they were more important to Allah than the youth.

 

 

This story is of utmost importance to us Muslims. It is one of the only stories regarding Nabi Musa (As) that is not recorded in the Judeo-Christian corpus.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the hadith reports, the youth was a disbeliever PRESENTLY. When Prophet Khidr (as) killed him, he was at that moment a Kafir and Qisas needed to be fulfilled.

 

Then why was he sent to heaven? 

 

There's so much wrong in your post, I can't even be bothered. The fact that I have to repeat myself indicates strongly that the story can't be rationalised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say he was sent to heaven?

Did I say that?

If I did I'm sorry. His sins would have been greater if he were to keep living, and because he payed the price in THIS world then SOME of his sins were alleviated.

What report or hadith or quranic verse say that the boy will go to heaven?

Again, I am not knowledgable enough to make an assertion on this.I will research more for your sake and come back and respond comprehensively.

Also, no need to be rude.....

If we spend time to answer your questions it's because we respect you and want to devote times of our day to explain our beliefs.

Instead of saying " that's so stupid I won't even respond", tell me the issues so they can be addressed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#Problem 1:  If the boy was destined to be a rebellious apostate, why did God allow him to be born?  Why did God choose to kill him purposefully just so that he could be sent to heaven?  What is the point of that?

 

#Problem 2: If God is truly omni-benevolent, why does he not give an early death to those of us who perhaps are also destined to be hell bound?

 

#Problem 3: How is it even remotely wise to kill someone who is destined to be evil so that they could be sent to heaven? God isn't been just or consistent if he *purposely allows* people to become criminals.

 

 

Clearly you haven't been reading any of my arguments on this thread as to why it evidently does not make sense.

 

I have and what im sayin is that your arguments dont make sense to me.

 

#1-the boy drew his one destiny, if God were to not allow every single bad human to be born just because He knows what will happen, we wouldnt have any problems on earth, i.e. no purpose

#2-like i said, and i could be wrong (May Allah forgive me if I am), the purpose was to impart wisdom, rather than to save the boy... assuming there's approx 7 billion people on earth, you'd need 7 billion prophets to provide an early death (assuming all people were hell-bound).... everyone receives mercy in different ways, why is that hard to understand,

and the reason everyone receives mercy in different ways is because God knows how each individual works, He would not burden a soul with something the soul cannot handle.

Everyone gets their fair share of mercy and the fact is we will never comprehend alot of it, as this story illustrates

#3-again, the boy chooses his destiny, yes, there is a certain amount of predestination that takes place, however , each human is given their own free will to make their own choices to form their ultimate destiny, ex. you may be predestined to live in poor conditions, thus you can choose to endure and live a righteous life and therefore ultimately reach heaven, or you can go ahead and choose to be a thief or murderer and take what is not yours, and ultimately reach hell.

 

To each and his own destiny.

 

Hope I helped.

 

Edit: just to re-iterate, you said "as to why it evidently does not make sense" again, 

You should be writing it as "as to why it evidently does not make sense to me"

Edited by dragonxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#Problem 1: If the boy was destined to be a rebellious apostate, why did God allow him to be born? Why did God choose to kill him purposefully just so that he could be sent to heaven? What is the point of that?

#Problem 2: If God is truly omni-benevolent, why does he not give an early death to those of us who perhaps are also destined to be hell bound?

#Problem 3: How is it even remotely wise to kill someone who is destined to be evil so that they could be sent to heaven? God isn't been just or consistent if he *purposely allows* people to become criminals.

Clearly you haven't been reading any of my arguments on this thread as to why it evidently does not make sense.

I don't think it would be fair for parents whom are praised to have a child that would become a very bad person. Imagine being someone who does alot of charity for example, yet your son wouldn't give anything even if a beggar whom is minutes close to death came to his feet just for a drink of water?

That would ultimately be unfair to the parents whom have been striving in the way of Allaah (s.w.t) their whole life, that they have a son whom would become the worst of the worst. And I would b sure that any parent would want their son to get to Heaven rather than Hell, so it was mercy for them and their son.

Edited by DaBeast313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What report or hadith or quranic verse say that the boy will go to heaven?

 

Read the opening post properly, please.

 

That would ultimately be unfair to the parents whom have been striving in the way of Allaah (s.w.t) their whole life, that they have a son whom would become the worst of the worst. And I would b sure that any parent would want their son to get to Heaven rather than Hell, so it was mercy for them and their son.

 

 

Beside the fact that the story isn't realistic (because you can't become "worst of the worst" in isolation of any context), there is a serious logical flaw with theology vis-à-vis what took place. The boy was being recompensed for the state he was in at that very moment of his life, rather than being recompensed according to his true nature which is purportedly disbelief and rebellion. Which logically means that your true nature has no bearing on your afterlife whatsoever; only actions. 

 

However, the boy was killed to be rewarded... for not being able to trouble his parents. I can't honestly say this makes any sense.

 

 

#1-the boy drew his one destiny, if God were to not allow every single bad human to be born just because He knows what will happen, we wouldnt have any problems on earth, i.e. no purpose

#2-like i said, and i could be wrong (May Allah forgive me if I am), the purpose was to impart wisdom, rather than to save the boy... assuming there's approx 7 billion people on earth, you'd need 7 billion prophets to provide an early death (assuming all people were hell-bound).... everyone receives mercy in different ways, why is that hard to understand,

and the reason everyone receives mercy in different ways is because God knows how each individual works, He would not burden a soul with something the soul cannot handle.

Everyone gets their fair share of mercy and the fact is we will never comprehend alot of it, as this story illustrates

#3-again, the boy chooses his destiny, yes, there is a certain amount of predestination that takes place, however , each human is given their own free will to make their own choices to form their ultimate destiny, ex. you may be predestined to live in poor conditions, thus you can choose to endure and live a righteous life and therefore ultimately reach heaven, or you can go ahead and choose to be a thief or murderer and take what is not yours, and ultimately reach hell.

 

 

#1  Indeed, it is a catch-22 isn't it? God is being unjust if he is not consistent, yet if he is consistent in this respect he would render purpose... purposeless. 

 

#2  But not everyone receives the sort of mercy the boy received... the boy did not have to put in any effort of his own to enter heaven. What sort of wisdom is this?

 

#3  The boy was killed because God foresaw that he would be a terrible burden on his parents. How could the boy practice his freewill if he didn't even get a chance to? Try to square that circle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surah Kahf:

74. Then they both proceeded, till they met a boy, he (Khidr) killed him. Musa (Moses) said: "Have you killed an innocent person who had killed none? Verily, you have committed a thing "Nukra" (a great Munkar - prohibited, evil, dreadful thing)!"

80. "And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.

Khidr killed the innocent boy.

 

 

You should know that the servant of Allah named Khidr would not kill an innocent boy. He was following the order of Allah. It is wrong to assume that the boy was innocent. Years ago I asked someone about this boy and I was told that the boy had done things that were physically violent against others. Because Allah SWT knows the boy and his past (which we don't know) and also his future (which we don't know), Allah chose to end the evil boy's life and relieve his parents who were no doubt living a nightmare with his behavior. They were Believers in Him and Allah decided that they deserve to have a child who would be pious:

 

[shakir 18:81] So we desired that their Lord might give them in his place one better than him in purity and nearer to having compassion.

 

See also:

[shakir 76:28] We created them and made firm their make, and when We please We will bring in their place the likes of them by a change.

[Pickthal 76:28] We, even We, created them, and strengthened their frame. And when We will, We can replace them, bringing others like them in their stead.

[Yusufali 76:28] It is We Who created them, and We have made their joints strong; but, when We will, We can substitute the like of them by a complete change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should know that the servant of Allah named Khidr would not kill an innocent boy. He was following the order of Allah. It is wrong to assume that the boy was innocent. Years ago I asked someone about this boy and I was told that the boy had done things that were physically violent against others.

Who is this "someone," and what proof was provided? It is wrong to assume guilt in the absence of proof.

Allah chose to end the evil boy's life and relieve his parents who were no doubt living a nightmare with his behaviour.

How can he be evil if God sent him to heaven?

Why do you ignore the three problems I cited in the post above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just saying that I don't have an English book to provide you a tafsir of the verses. The person who told me the boy was physically violent to other people was a hawza educated Haji.  Why do you keep saying the boy went to heaven? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1  Indeed, it is a catch-22 isn't it? God is being unjust if he is not consistent, yet if he is consistent in this respect he would render purpose... purposeless. 

 

#2  But not everyone receives the sort of mercy the boy received... the boy did not have to put in any effort of his own to enter heaven. What sort of wisdom is this?

 

#3  The boy was killed because God foresaw that he would be a terrible burden on his parents. How could the boy practice his freewill if he didn't even get a chance to? Try to square that circle.  

 

#1 I don't know how you're able to judge whether God is being consistent or inconsistent, you're making assumptions about that which you do not know

 

#2 Refer to #1

 

#3 Use this argument when you hear of an infant being killed, however this boy had however many years he had to live, and like many people above said, he was killed to provide a better child for the parents as the parents were devout believers, I still don't understand your problem with that. And, for the third time, you are making assumptions without realizing you are.

 

I think the main issue here is why doesn't everyone receive the same mercy, which I feel I somewhat touched upon in my previous subjective explanation, but alas, I'm awful at explaining and won't do any justice should I continue.

 

I just found this link which certainly explains some of the issues you have with the story, far better than my poor explanation.

 

http://www.al-islam.org/faith-and-reason-ayatullah-mahdi-hadavi-tehrani/question-43-al-khidr%E2%80%99s-actions-qur%E2%80%99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just saying that I don't have an English book to provide you a tafsir of the verses. The person who told me the boy was physically violent to other people was a hawza educated Haji.  Why do you keep saying the boy went to heaven? 

 

Because the 6th Imam stated that the boy was rewarded. 

 

Imam Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (ع) describes these blessings in these words: “Allah knew that if he stayed alive, the young man would lead his parents to disbelief and he would become a source of corruption and hardship for all. Thus Khidr (ع) was commanded to finish his life so that as a result all of them (the killer, the killed, and his parents) would attain honor and Divine grace.”8

 

http://www.al-islam.org/faith-and-reason-ayatullah-mahdi-hadavi-tehrani/question-43-al-khidr’s-actions-qur’#footnote8_0ll1lt3

 

Your Hawza educated Haji isn't a valid source, and in the absence of a valid source you have no argument. 

 

#1 I don't know how you're able to judge whether God is being consistent or inconsistent, you're making assumptions about that which you do not know

 

 

 

What assumptions? If God kills an individual whose only potential is to be an evil person, but doesn't do the same for the rest of his creation who are similarly destined to be evil, then, logically speaking, God is not being consistent and hence not being just. This isn't an assumption; it is taking fixed premises to their logical conclusion. 

 

#3 Use this argument when you hear of an infant being killed, however this boy had however many years he had to live, and like many people above said, he was killed to provide a better child for the parents as the parents were devout believers, I still don't understand your problem with that. And, for the third time, you are making assumptions without realizing you are.

 

Analogies don't work here. If the infant was destined to be hell bound I would use exactly the same argument. 

 

You obviously don't understand because you're either unable or unwilling to actually meaningfully engage with what I am saying. 

The boy was killed to be rewarded... for not being able to trouble his parents in some future circumstance.  Is it your strong belief which prevents you from recognising how utterly absurd this is?

 

By the way, how could this actually have been in the favour of the devout parents if they could not have recognised it as a reward from God? It's not as if the parents were being troubled by the kid before the time he was murdered. If they were being troubled before that event took place, why was the boy rewarded with a heavenly abode?

 

The story simply does not stand up to scrutiny, I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the 6th Imam stated that the boy was rewarded. 

 

Imam Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (ع) describes these blessings in these words: “Allah knew that if he stayed alive, the young man would lead his parents to disbelief and he would become a source of corruption and hardship for all. Thus Khidr (ع) was commanded to finish his life so that as a result all of them (the killer, the killed, and his parents) would attain honor and Divine grace.”8

 

http://www.al-islam.org/faith-and-reason-ayatullah-mahdi-hadavi-tehrani/question-43-al-khidr’s-actions-qur’#footnote8_0ll1lt3

 

Your Hawza educated Haji isn't a valid source, and in the absence of a valid source you have no argument.

 

Thanks for the reply. We don't have all the details, and until someone explains the whole thing we have to think that perhaps Allah SWT is testing us. Will we accept the Holy Qur'an or not?  

 

[shakir 2:255] Allah is He besides Whom there is no god, the Everliving, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist; slumber does not overtake Him nor sleep; whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His; who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except what He pleases, His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not, and He is the Most High, the Great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. We don't have all the details, and until someone explains the whole thing we have to think that perhaps Allah SWT is testing us. Will we accept the Holy Qur'an or not?

Actually, we do have all of the relevant details for this particular story, thus rendering any such denial inexcusable. We know exactly why the boy had to be killed because it had been revealed afterward.

It is very convenient for you to resort to the unfounded claim that the Qur'an can't always be understood. Weren't the Imams supposed to be the interpreters of the Qur'an? Did they exhibit slack in their efforts?

The fact is, the details for the story are available. The problem is that you don't want to accept the conclusion because it is evidently illogical, so the last trick in the fallacious book is to appeal to authority through blind acceptance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last trick in the fallacious book is to appeal to authority through blind acceptance.

 

What? Are you referring to the Holy Qur'an? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, we do have all of the relevant details for this particular story, thus rendering any such denial inexcusable. We know exactly why the boy had to be killed because it had been revealed afterward.

It is very convenient for you to resort to the unfounded claim that the Qur'an can't always be understood. Weren't the Imams supposed to be the interpreters of the Qur'an? Did they exhibit slack in their efforts?

The fact is, the details for the story are available. The problem is that you don't want to accept the conclusion because it is evidently illogical, so the last trick in the fallacious book is to appeal to authority through blind acceptance.

Faulty logic! If you are seriously going to project your lack of knowledge on the Imams (as) efforts and the Quran's reliability, I don't know if it's possible to argue with you. I think the point sister H was trying to make was referring to blind faith in the face of Allah's logic that WE cannot understand. Not blind faith in the face of logic that does not exist. Something which, I should mention, has been pointed to you over and over.

What? Are you referring to the Holy Qur'an?

I'm going to be the optimist here and hope he means the trick in the (proverbial) book. Edited by l'Optimiste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again, I'd to request that you re-read the link you and I cited thoroughly. Or since you're too lazy...

 

The following is written towards the end:

1. He received punishment in this world for his apostasy, which may lessen his punishment in the hereafter.

After a few lines after this, your quote is cited. Point is, attaining "Divine grace and honour" does not mean attaining Paradise. And the various clear explanations in the very link you cited explain what's going on in a "logical" manner.

Lastly, to be truthful with you, firstly your arguments really don't make any logical sense to me because I'm looking at it from a perspective in which it makes sense, and secondly even it did make sense to me, Elhamdillah due to my strong foundation in Islam (my strong belief as you call it), I would take it as my inability to properly comprehend the Quran rather than the Quran being incomprehensible (as the two above pointed out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He received punishment in this world for his apostasy, which may lessen his punishment in the hereafter.

 

Now you're changing the official version of the story stated in the Qur'an. The boy was murdered because he was going to become a rebellious apostate in some future circumstance and lead his parents toward apostasy. This is also detailed in the link which you assume I haven't read. 

 

The argument posed in the link doesn't provide any evidence that the boy was murdered for his apostasy - because it's simply untrue.  

 

Even if it assumed that the boy was murdered primarily for apostatising (which, again, is completely false), then it not only illustrates the maliciousness of God but also doesn't make sense since it would mean that the boy was sent to heaven for his apostasy.

 

After a few lines after this, your quote is cited. Point is, attaining "Divine grace and honour" does not mean attaining Paradise. 

 

 

Yes it does. What else would it mean? The 6th Imam also includes the killer and the parents amongst those who would attain "divine grace and honour." Of course it means Paradise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faulty logic! If you are seriously going to project your lack of knowledge on the Imams (as) efforts and the Quran's reliability, I don't know if it's possible to argue with you.

 

1. I'm not displaying "lack of knowledge of the Imams." It's a rhetorical question to challenge hameedeh's assertion that the Qur'an "can't always be understood;" which would make the Qur'an utterly useless. 

 

2. The Qur'an is unreliable if it doesn't make sense, I'm afraid.

 

I think the point sister H was trying to make was referring to blind faith in the face of Allah's logic that WE cannot understand.

 

But we can understand the logic behind why the boy was murdered. Khidr elucidated the purpose of his action to Musa. The problem is that the underlying logic of the declared purpose is problematic. 

 

I'm going to be the optimist here and hope he means the trick in the (proverbial) book.

 

That would be correct. It's rather unfortunate she couldn't spell it out for herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, God illustrated why the boy was killed. Khidr is not like you and I. The example was for people to understand that there is a purpose behind the apparently "evil" things that occur and often that purpose is good for someone, like the pious parents of the evil boy in the present case. However, this is a moderately difficult lesson about this life and its meant for those who believe.

 

I find it rather amusing that those who don't even believe in anything and are the most ignorant, blind and oblivious of the basic reality would exploit this instance for their agenda. I would recommend you make a shrine and light candles for that boy too, add him to your list of martyrs and heroes in your propaganda toolkit right next to Neda Soltan, Salman Rushdie and the gang.

 

But to be really honest, Chair Pundit, take a look at your self when you are alone next time and contemplate if you can if the world around you benefits from your or if it would be better off without you. Only because thats what I do and it lets me know just who I am and if I myself am in need of correction instead of the world around me and what I can do within reason to make it better. Even a smile or a light joke shared with friends or a a stone removed from a path is good contribution to your world.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now you're changing the official version of the story stated in the Qur'an. The boy was murdered because he was going to become a rebellious apostate in some future circumstance and lead his parents toward apostasy. This is also detailed in the link which you assume I haven't read. 

 

The argument posed in the link doesn't provide any evidence that the boy was murdered for his apostasy - because it's simply untrue.  

 

 

Wow are you kidding me?

Do not attribute work that is not mine as "my words" please. I'm quite tired of your weak word play. Since you can't read (you claim to have read the link but apparently not)...

 

Here, quotations so you know it is not my work,

 

"1. If a person is born to Muslim parents and then denies his or her faith after attaining maturity, the rules of an “apostate from nature” (murtadd fitri) will apply to him or her. If that person is a man, he will be worthy of death. It has come in several traditions: “[Though the Qur`an clearly states that] the parents of that young man were believers, their son was an disbeliever, to the extent that there was no hope of his heart opening up to the truth, and the seal of obstinacy and rejection of faith had been placed on it.”4

So while it is true that his apparent conduct in playing with his friends did not reveal his disbelief (just as Musa (ع), relying on this outward state, thought him innocent), the reality of his heart and beliefs proved his disbelief (as demonstrated in the Divine knowledge and its revelation to Khidr (ع)). As a result, his being killed was merely a result of his choosing to be an apostate, which carries the consequence in this world of termination of physical life."

So.. you were saying... where exactly is it in the link that you claim is saying he was not an apostate?

 

 

Perhaps someone with an abundance of patience will reply to you, as for me I am done. You have made your intentions clear.

 

Good day to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The example was for people to understand that there is a purpose behind the apparently "evil" things that occur and often that purpose is good for someone, like the pious parents of the evil boy in the present case. 

 

But the boy was not "evil" or an "apostate" when he was murdered. Again, this was the purpose: the boy was killed to be rewarded... for not being able to trouble his parents in some future circumstance. That makes no coherent sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.. you were saying... where exactly is it in the link that you claim is saying he was not an apostate?

 

"1. The youth was culpable in two respects: he was an “apostate from nature”; and he had the ability to destroy the foundation of his parents’ faith. Allah (awj) observed that he didn’t use the respite He had given to reform himself and make amends or abandon unbelief and apostasy. Therefore, He carried out the command of killing him.6"

 

Now read the footnote carefully:

 

6 This has only been put forth as a possibility by some analysts and it is not necessarily the correct.

 

That's right. No evidence. Just conjecture. 

 

Even if it assumed that the boy was murdered primarily for apostatising (which is completely false), then it not only illustrates the maliciousness of God but also doesn't make sense since it would mean that the boy was sent to heaven for his apostasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"1. The youth was culpable in two respects: he was an “apostate from nature”; and he had the ability to destroy the foundation of his parents’ faith. Allah (awj) observed that he didn’t use the respite He had given to reform himself and make amends or abandon unbelief and apostasy. Therefore, He carried out the command of killing him.6"

 

Now read the footnote carefully:

 

6 This has only been put forth as a possibility by some analysts and it is not necessarily the correct.

 

That's right. No evidence. Just conjecture. 

 

Even if it assumed that the boy was murdered primarily for apostatising (which is completely false), then it not only illustrates the maliciousness of God but also doesn't make sense since it would mean that the boy was sent to heaven for his apostasy.

 

Mashallah, I apologize for questioning your superior and flawless analyses. 

 

I quoted a different paragraph with a different reference, just wanted to point that out.

 

Good day to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the boy was not "evil" or an "apostate" when he was murdered. Again, this was the purpose: the boy was killed to be rewarded... for not being able to trouble his parents in some future circumstance. That makes no coherent sense.

 

Of course, in the least to you or anyone who doesn't even believe in God, it should absolutely not make any sense whatsoever, and that should be perfectly understandable even to yourself. Otherwise, God creates and owns everyone and everything, even whatever one may think is their own. Everyone dies.

 

Its funny that here you are crying about God knows what, while you pay taxes to and favor this world government that mass slaughters countless children, women, men, rain forests, environment, everything, and for nothing but insanity and pure evil. Who is going to heed your word? On the same note, I know for example why your kind can not believe in holy prophets. The truth is right here in this discussion for all to see. In order to make others listen the one making the different claim and inviting to a path should be nothing short of worthy in people's eyes and must be practicing what they preach. When inside a person there is only darkness then they will see darkness everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quoted a different paragraph with a different reference, just wanted to point that out.

 

So? The paragraph I presented has exactly the same content and information as the paragraph you presented, only my one has a reference proving that there is no actual basis for the claim that the boy was an apostate before the point of his death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? The paragraph I presented has exactly the same content and information as the paragraph you presented, only my one has a reference proving that there is no actual basis for the claim that the boy was an apostate before the point of his death.

 

1. If a person is born to Muslim parents and then denies his or her faith after attaining maturity, the rules of an “apostate from nature” (murtadd fitri) will apply to him or her. If that person is a man, he will be worthy of death. It has come in several traditions: “[Though the Qur`an clearly states that] the parents of that young man were believers, their son was an disbeliever, to the extent that there was no hope of his heart opening up to the truth, and the seal of obstinacy and rejection of faith had been placed on it.[4]

 

1. The youth was culpable in two respects: he was an “apostate from nature”; and he had the ability to destroy the foundation of his parents’ faith. Allah (awj) observed that he didn’t use the respite He had given to reform himself and make amends or abandon unbelief and apostasy. Therefore, He carried out the command of killing him.[6]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quoted a different paragraph with a different reference, just wanted to point that out.

 

I find it very strange that people should undertake such a lengthy discussion based on a literal understanding of the Quran.

The Quran is not a book that you can fully understand entirely even if the text may appear absolutely clear.

 

If people think that they can understand the Quran fully just by reading it, then please tell me what is so special about the Ayat ul Kursi [verses 2:255-57] that it is known as the most important set of verses in the Quran.

 

The Arabic expression for this verse is Sayyed-ul-Ayaat  (chief of all the verses).  Why?

 

Similarly, why is sura e Yaseen [sura no 36] so important that it should be given a very special status in the Quran.

Can you see its value with the naked eye? 

I bet you can't.

 

The fact is that the Quran is not fully comprehensible. Anyone who thinks it is, is wasting his and everyone else's time.

 

As far as "death" is concerned, God gives death in a lot of different ways.  

 

He chose to "kill" that boy in sura Kahf in a certain way.

 

He can "give death" in any way he chooses.

 

We cannot be certain  who exactly that person was who killed that boy.

 

Some say it was the prophet Khizr.

 

But the Quran does not name that person.

 

It could have been the angel of death doing his daily rounds.

 

Or may be the angel of death was on another assignment and had requested someone to do his errands.  

 

Whoever it was,  was clearly on a special mission that is not quite apparent.

 

As so often, the Quran does not tell us the full story. 

 

I don't see the point in wasting time over it.

 

There are lots and lots of teachings in the Quran that are far more useful for our daily lives than sura e Kahf.  

 

Cheers

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God kills this boy for being able to change the faith of his parents but respites Satan and allows him to corrupt humans.

 

Why wasn't this type of mercy applied to humanity with respect to Iblis?

 

Brother, why do you even need an answer for this? A person like you should be able to think of an explanation quite easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it very strange that people should undertake such a lengthy discussion based on a literal understanding of the Quran.

The Quran is not a book that you can fully understand entirely even if the text may appear absolutely clear.

 

If people think that they can understand the Quran fully just by reading it, then please tell me what is so special about the Ayat ul Kursi [verses 2:255-57] that it is known as the most important single verse (or set of 3 verses) in the Quran.

 

Similarly, why is sura e Yaseen [sura no 36] so important that it should be given a very special status in the Quran. Can you see its value with the naked eye? 

 

The fact is that the Quran is not fully comprehensible. Anyone who thinks it is, is wasting his and everyone else's time.

 

As far as "death" is concerned, God gives death in a lot of different ways.  

 

He chose to "kill" that boy in sura Kahf in a certain way.

 

He can "give death" in any way he chooses.

 

We cannot be certain  who exactly that person was who killed that boy.

 

Some say it was the prophet Khizr.

 

But the Quran does not name that person.

 

It could have been the angel of death doing his daily rounds.

 

Or may be the angel of death was on another assignment and had requested someone to do his errands.  

 

Whoever he was,  was clearly on a special mission that is very clearly not very apparent.

 

The fact is that the Quran does not tell us what exactly happened. 

 

I don't see the point in wasting time over it.

 

There are lots and lots of teachings in the Quran that are far more useful for our daily lives than sura e Kahf.  

 

Cheers

 

My apologies if I came off as arrogant and as someone who thinks he knows what he's talking about. If anything I consider myself the last person to be able to explain verses or anything of the such, I am well aware my knowledge is extremely lacking (to astronomical proportions) and my original intention was to help Chair through the thought process,

 

With that being said, I realized what his intentions were and the last few posts I made were not for the purpose of debating or anything of the sort (I stated I gave up on that), rather I just wanted to defend my integrity, nothing more.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies if I came off as arrogant and as someone who thinks he knows what he's talking about. If anything 

 

 

Brother

 

You did not come off as arrogant and I never said that you did.

 

And you said nothing that was wrong in any way.

 

I was just saying that we are all discussing this topic on a very false platform.

 

That is all.

 

Please read my post again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother

 

You did not come off as arrogant and I never said that you did.

 

And you said nothing that was wrong in any way.

 

I was just saying that we are all discussing this topic on a very false platform.

 

That is all.

 

Please read my post again.

 

 

Hahah sorry again! Thought you were implying that by asking me to explain Ayat Al-Kursi =P

 

I understand what you were saying now.

Edited by dragonxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...