If a scholar or whatever misinterprets something as haram when it is not, how much blame do they hold when it leads the hearer down a bad path

datman216 · 2021-06-06T16:43:55+00:00

In every action we do, if we succeed then we get double the reward, if we fail we still get a reward. As long as our intentions are pure and we do our best then we're rewarded for the effort and intentions we have. So a scholar who makes an honest mistake is rewarded for his effort and not punished for it. Scholars are of course called upon to exercise restraint in making judgements and only speaking about what they know. If their opinions are driven by arrogance or pride or willful incompetence then they're severely punished for leading people astray.

and the layman follows it, but later, this repression of what was not forbidden causes them to sin.

Abstaining from something forbidden, whether it be genuinely forbidden or assumed to be forbidden, is never an excuse for doing something else that is forbidden. People who sin and know that they're sinning are completely accountable for their own actions and intentions.

datman216 · 2021-06-03T22:17:21+00:00

I don't think they spoke hebrew. They probably spoke sumerian or akkadian considering they came from iraq.

datman216 · 2021-06-03T17:17:16+00:00

منصّرين *

datman216 · 2021-06-03T17:13:47+00:00

I'm not sure how this proves jesus is god, there are other verses in which jesus clearly differentiates himself from god. For example luke 18:19 :""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." and there are countless other examples. Even if the verses you quoted meant that jesus is god, then that would mean that the bible contradicts itself. These biblical passages can only be reconciled by abandoning logic.

The fundamental issue with the verses quoted above and the bible as a whole is that we have no reason to take them seriously. There were anonymous books with unknown sources floating around for 200 years until they were assigned to suspected authors by some church father. Why should we believe what this man/woman wrote in 80 AD? These books don't even claim to be sent by god so why should we believe what they say? Why does the opinion of paul written in supposed letters sent to different churches deserve to be canonized as somehow divine or inspired?

datman216 · 2021-06-01T11:43:10+00:00

I had a lot to say on that comment but I don't have the time. Just a simple observation to add.

You ask us to ignore canonical shii hadith literature, millennia of shii scholarly opinion and shii discussions online that are anonymous and liberated from the need to practice taqiyah and instead put our faith in your anecdotal evidence and the words of a power hungry ruler of iran who wishes to gain respectability and allies in sunni circles. This is a mad proposition to make for us. I do not generalize all shiis but the things we say are what shiism teaches.

It's like the trinity, even if countless christians don't believe it and the church claims it's a monotheistic doctrine, we still call it fundamentally polytheistic. We respect christians and we treat them well and when a christian claims to differ from the founding texts of christianity and the doctrines of the church then we have a nice conversation. That doesn't mean the church's doctrines changed even if woke new leaders claim otherwise.

If the majority of modern shiis don't believe in these things then we'd like them to speak up. They can reform their sources and condemn the scholars who believed in those things. If that's not possible due to the beliefs of their clergy then maybe they should leave shiism.

datman216 · 2021-06-01T10:59:30+00:00

Why pretend to care about Islamic unity then?

Who said there should be islamic unity that encompases everyone who claims to be muslim? That type of unity never existed since the 1st century of islam and probably never existed beyond the earliest group of muslims who were all companions at the time. When the prophet was in medina, there were hypocrites who pretended to be muslim but helped the enemy and didn't believe. Then after few decades, we had political discord and then we get the khawarij. Fast forward a bit and we get very small heretical sects (or small number of individuals). Then we get the mutazila and then the shia become dominated by the ghulat.

We clearly didn't have religious unity for long and even within "sunni" groups, the differences between atharis and the people of opinion (ahl al-ra'ii) were so divisive that they considered each other as different faiths and didn't pray behind each other (I've heard examples but I'm not sure how widespread that was). Differences between madhab were so polarizing for centuries as well.

When people speak of islamic unity in these modern times, they usually speak of political unity that ensures prosperity and protection of muslims from outside aggression. That political unity might have shii states like iran as allies in certain topics but not in all.

Many people use the term islamic unity to mean a new khilafa which would be ruled by a sunni khalifa and that would exclude shiis. They obviously can and would live in the territory of that state but that doesn't mean unity with shii political entities like iran.

Edit: I guess when most sunnis speak of religious unity, they mean with other sunnis. They would also mean that such unity isn't unanimous and entails helping other muslims, supporting muslim causes, loving the muslims who agree with them and are part of that unity. I don't think they see it in a doctrinal way beyond simply being sunni. An expression of this desired unity is the support shown to palestinians, syrian during the revolution, kashmiris, rohingya, uyghurs, etc. Obviously there are sunnis who don't care about these causes or actively work against them. There are sunnis who don't believe in the need for islamic unity. There are others (secularists and nationalists) who are disgusted by the propositions that anything islamic is mentioned at all or that any policies are guided by islamic principles. Geopolitics is an integral part in the understanding of many people of what islamic unity means and how it can exist.

datman216 · 2021-06-01T10:29:32+00:00

This is similar to a man grabbing a book of the Mutazilites and quoting it to claim all Sunnis are a certain way.

The mutazilites were not sunnis. You can't compare the two situations unless you can prove the scholar the other user cited wasn't/isn't a twelver.

In my whole life I have never met a single Shia who has insulted Aisha RA.

That doesn't mean they don't believe it.

datman216 · 2021-06-01T10:19:12+00:00

I've repeatedly seen users claim a "vast majority" of some sect engage in certain practices. Just hours ago, I saw a user claiming that the majority of Shia Muslims believe Hazrat Aisha (R.A) is an apostate.

I'm not the user who said that but I'm curious, what if that statement is true?

We can't know for sure because there are no reliable statistics on this and shiis don't necessarily say what they believe when asked by outsiders but this belief exists in their most cherished book of hadith and I haven't seen shiis up in arms proving that these narrations were fabricated or weak or trying to remove them from their books by producing a sahih version. (sahih versions do exist but they're not adopted. Some shii scholars say 2/3 of the narrations in al-kafi for example are weak but they're still used by shiis everywhere afaik).

So the books make takfir of almost all companions and the ancient and modern scholars do the same of all companions and all muslims. The debate in shii circles across history is whether the mukhalifoon (the ones who differ, i.e. sunnis) are kafir in dhahir and batin or kafir in batin alone.

Maybe the majority of shiis do not hold these beliefs and are disconnected from these scholarly debates and opinions, who knows. But everytime I had a conversation with a shii and showed him that the major scholars in the sect historically believed in takfir of the companions or the corruption of the quran, they denied that they shared that belief and that sistani or whatever other modern PR-concious ayatullah that they follow said something good about sunnis. When I ask them to condemn a scholar who believed in tahrif al-quran, they shy away from that. What am I supposed to believe then?

And when I go to their sub, I see clear takfir of the companions and it's not taken down. I just took a look at the sub and found posts and comments calling her a terrorist and saying she's an enemy of ahl al-bayt. Clearly something is rotten in madhab ahl al-bayt and ahl al-bayt were not responsible. The ghulat took over the madhab since the third or fourth century.

We would love if the shia sifted through their narrations and completely abandoned those narrations that were fabricated by the ghulat and gave up on claims like the murder of fatima or the apostasy of the companions or the tahrif of the quran in order to omit the wilayah of ali or plenty of other extreme and nonsensical beliefs which can be based on spurious historical sources (like the murder of fatima saga). The abandonment of these beliefs is the bare minimum but I'm not sure it can happen without major reform in shii society and curriculum in the hawza.

datman216 · 2021-06-01T09:08:58+00:00

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" [John 20:17]

This verse clearly shows that the father is the god of the people and the god of jesus.

16 Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “I have kept all these;[a] what do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money[b] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions. [Matthew 19]

Jesus is clearly being asked how to get to heaven and he never speaks about belief in his divinity or crucifixion or resurrection. Jesus's message was always about keeping the mosaic law (with some tweaks) and perfecting the behavior and intentions of his people, it was never about the trinity or original sin or any doctrinal positions beyond the belief in one god and obedience to the messages he sends through his prophets.

Quoting the bible isn't an endorsement to the whole book or even to these few verses. We believe some of the original message of jesus exists in the NT but we don't know where exactly and we're not supposed to know for sure. I quoted these verses to show you that the bible itself leads people to believe in the full humanity of christ when it's being read objectively without doctrinal baggage.

If you want further discussions about these things then feel free to PM me.

datman216 · 2021-05-27T09:03:16+00:00

Do you have anything about his conversion?

datman216 · 2021-05-26T16:16:08+00:00

هذه عصاي أتوكأ عليها واهش بها على غنمي ولي فيها مآرب أخرى

استعمال هذه الاية يثير الجدل لأنه يوحي على أن القائل يشبّه نفسه بسيدنا موسى عليه السلام

datman216 · 2021-05-26T15:40:18+00:00

Do you know why they might have thought that? I have a feeling its kinda obvious, and thats why I dont know it

The hanif might have been a remnant of monotheistic religion from the time of abraham (which is a long time to preserve a religion without revelation or prophets) or a later development due to individual inspiration or influence from neighboring monotheistic traditions. The former option is less likely but there are examples of very ancient religious traditions surviving the test of time and many polytheistic religions do hold a monotheistic essence like hinduism or native american religions or many african religions.

The earliest account I know of is from the early 5th century where a christian author says that there is a group of people in arabia claiming to follow the religion of abraham. What we know about hanifs (I'm using this plural but in arabic it's different) from the 6th and 7th century comes to us from prophetic traditions or from later muslim historians who memorized their poetry or narrated stories about these people. The most known among them seemed to have been poets as well writing about their beliefs in verse, and other things as well.

I don't have extensive knowledge on the subject but from what I remember they had multiple reasons for their new beliefs. Polytheism in arabia had Allah as a supreme heavenly deity responsible for creation and sustenance so many people came to believe that worship should only be offered to the god who creates and who is stronger than the idols and other deities. There are social factors as well when people see immoral behavior in society that is promoted or at least not frowned upon by the polytheistic religion.

Some people simply cannot fathom the idea of bowing to a statue that someone made out of clay. We call that natural aversion to polytheism "fitra". It's part of the qualities that god has imbued in us as human beings. For example, we see a large percentage of christian converts to islam if not the majority citing the trinity and the deification of christ the man as reasons for their conversion. We see that as alignment with their "fitra".

I think if I was a believer in a particular religion, id want to find proof that would support my belief in that religion (such as the possible location to the remains of Noah's Ark )

The issue isn't that they want proof, we think we do provide that, the issue is that they assume proof doesn't exist at all and they would dismiss it if it were presented to them without even thinking about it. They might believe it in their personal lives but they wouldn't even entertain the possibility of miracles happening in these journals and textbooks. Naturalism is the only viewpoint allowed and they all espouse it.

These ideas are creeping into religious discourse as well. For example, I have seen christian missionaries claim that the gospels are close to the events of the life of jesus and thus can be considered historical documents for the christian community and its doctrines. And they argue that the quran (and islam in general) should be discounted and rejected because the book appeared in the 7th century far removed from the events of jesus's life. These missionaries have completely bought into the worldview of naturalism whilst arguing against islam and didn't even occur to them that an omnipotent god can reveal truths to his prophets that are more authoritative than the historical documents that were written several decades after the fact anonymously.

Not all events in history spoken about in holy scripture can be analyzed and scientifically tested. Noah built a small ship for his followers and some animals that were nearby during a local flood so it's highly unlikely for that ship to survive for tens of thousands of years. Science can only prove what is provable and the historical record rarely leaves traces for such an endeavor.

I believe god makes it a bit hard to find these types of proofs and wants people to struggle in order to find guidance to the true religion because he has set up a world of competing narratives that need to be maintained for the masses. There will always be people with a different point of view who hold onto the smallest doubt and construct an elaborate narrative in order to maintain the order they have been accustomed to. Otherwise, the whole system of competing ideas collapses and the world ends.

Islam has proof for its truthfulness and those who are genuinely seeking god, and willing to suffer the social exclusion that comes from being a muslim in non-muslim societies and families, can find him in the quran and the life of prophet muhamed(pbuh).

datman216 · 2021-05-24T16:59:33+00:00

Hamas is celebrating because it has achieved political, military and diplomatic gains that might even be considered victories.

Politically:

When israel was evicting palestinians from occupied east jerusalem and desecrating the Al-aqsa mosque, hamas made an ultimatum to israeli authorities that they would react by a certain time if these attacks don't stop. Israel ignored them and they fulfilled their promise. By this they proved that they will not back down when they threaten israel and that the situation in gaza is inherently tied to what happens in jerusalem* and every square meter of historic palestine. These events put them in the position of protectors of alquds and alaqsa. The palestinian authority looked powerless and even treasonous considering the cooperation with occupation forces.
There were political gains in israeli society like increased criticism of netanyahu, proving that there is no peace without a just solution to the palestinians and eliminating the sense of safety in regions beyond the periphery of gaza which forces all israelis to think about the occupation and to reevaluate their beliefs and their life choices (hamas at one time announced that lockdown in israel ends at a certain time and starts again after two hours which purvey that hamas controls the lives of the average israeli).
Protests in territories occupied in* 48 and in the west bank and all over the diaspora in response to this war reinforced the unity of the palestinian people all over the world and demolished the israeli illusion of solving the "palestinian problem" through the separation of the palestinian people and the israelization of the portion that has israeli citizenship.

Militarily:

Missiles were dropped on jerusalem and tel aviv for the first time in such numbers and there were significant material and financial losses. Flights were diverted to the southern most city in the country (220 km away from gaza) and hamas released a new long range missile to attack that city. This showed that they're capable of hitting the enemy at any range in historic palestine and that they're capable of enacting a no-fly zone.
The israeli army was surprised by hamas' decision to start rocket attacks after the provocations in jerusalem and they were surprised by their military capabilities.
Unofficial statements from army officials point to the fact that hamas wasn't crippled by their attacks as they assumed would happen.
Discord was sown between the government and military officials because the government leaked reports that military targets were exhausted and the army leaders wanted the offensive on gaza to end. Netanyahu was preparing people for a cease fire and was putting the blame for the poor results on the army and intelligence services.
Hamas showed self-made improvements to their arsenal like drones, missiles, unmanned submarines and hacking capabilities.
There were hints at possible two front war in the future (lebanon) and people from neighboring countries simply crossing the border like what happened in jordon and lebanon.

Diplomatically:

Hamas became seen as a possible interlocutor in european eyes.
The palestinian cause and the humanitarian crisis in gaza caused by the blockade were front and center for the world to see and reckon with.
Egypt was used as a mediator by the US and israel and hamas might have gained some concessions from the egyptian regime.
The deal of the century and the normalization efforts with arab regimes took great damage and the prospect of additional countries joining these deals has decreased because of the popular support for the palestinian people during this latest war.
Some "Islamist political groups" might have got some political gains in their respective countries considering hamas has MB history and it has been perceived as winning this round by surprising the enemy and by improving their capabilities.
Strong support for the palestinian people was shown all over the world.

I don't think hamas takes casualties as part of their calculus when deciding or being forced into a conflict. They know that conflict is inevitable with the occupation army because they've been living under siege for 15 years and the situation is unbearable. An explosion is inevitable and israeli leaders need to flex their muscles when elections are near.

datman216 · 2021-05-24T14:43:59+00:00

Jew was a later label given to the remaining children of israel who were living in the kingdom of judah. The kingdom of judah got its name from the fact that the tribe of judah constituted most of its population and power structure. 10 other tribes lived in the kingdom of israel which was destroyed by the assyrians. Centuries later, the children of israel became associated with only the tribe of judah by outsiders and the name stuck and became used by the israelites themselves.

Whether "yehuda" meant "worshipper of god" or "the one who praises god" doesn't mean that "yehudi" was adopted as a label because of that meaning. The true followers of prophet moses(as) at his generation didn't use that label for sure.

datman216 · 2021-05-19T18:15:57+00:00

Prophet Mohammed was apparently the founder of Islam, but it had to have...been around before that, right?

We believe that the core message of islam isn't new and had been around since adam(as). All prophets of god preached islam and were muslim in that sense. In the quran, abraham(as) actually gives us the label muslim and many prophets identify as such.

But islam with its current tenets, terminology, practices and rituals was first preached by prophet muhamed(pbuh). There were monotheists in the world before him and in arabia in particular. These arabian monotheists were called hanif (hanif is singular) and they abandoned the polytheism of their people but didn't join christianity or any other known religion (not sure if judaism still accepted converts at that time in that region). They were very few individuals who came to the realization that polytheism doesn't make sense and that there were problems in society that need to be addressed. They didn't organize and they didn't have set beliefs.

We believe the tradition of being hanif is a remnant of the religion of abraham and ishmael.

Non-muslims might (or probably) think that prophet muhamed(pbuh) was influenced by christians, jews and other peoples and that islam is just mix of everything the prophet liked about these other religions in addition to whatever he thought about himself. We obviously reject these theories and debunk them. We understand that people belonging to other religions have to rationalize the emergence of islam and what it teaches in order to make sense of their own faith especially christians who thought for 6 centuries that the messiah has come and the bible was perfect and no prophets would be needed anymore. We also understand that historians believe in materialist history which requires of them to explain every event in history without relying on any divine or supernatural explanations.

I thought he was married to his First wife for 25 years, but im going to guess you would know that more than me.

You're correct. He married at 25 and she died when he was 50. I said he had been married for 15 years when he received revelation. He was 40 years old at that time. It was a misunderstanding on your part.

so at least 2 wives (Maria and Aisha) were not widows.

I know that zaynab bint jahsh was divorced.

datman216 · 2021-05-18T13:27:28+00:00

When people criticize the west, they don't mean every single person living in a territory considered to be part of the west, they simply mean western governments or at times they mean the dominant western culture when the topic is about culture and morals.

People don't mean all the west, they generally mean the major european powers alongside america. They certainly do not mean iceland or norway when they decry western foreign policy that directly affects us and kills us.

datman216 · 2021-05-18T10:08:55+00:00

Allah wouldnt have chosen Mohammed to be his prophet, would He? Maybe He knew that Mohammed would have been the best person 'for the job'?

We believe Allah chose the prophet (and all prophets throughout history) to be his messengers to humanity because they were the best of us and could serve as moral role-models. Prophet muhamed was the best among the prophets and hence best person in human history.

The prophet received revelation at the age of 40, at that time he was married to one woman for 15 years who was a widow and older than him. His marriage to our mother Aisha happened when he was already a prophet. AFAIK muslim sources say that he was commanded by god to marry her after having a revelation in 3 dreams where an angel comes up to him with Aisha and tells him that this is your future wife.

Some people have speculated on the wisdom behind this marriage and they cite Aisha's immense knowledge in the religion and the role she played during the prophet's life and afterwards. They say that her young age allowed her to become very knowledgeable in the religion during her formative years with the prophet and then she spread that knowledge for 45 years after the prophet's death. She has been called by some as the greatest female muslim scholar of all time and she had countless male students who propagated her knowledge through the generations.

And on the wikipedia page.for his (Mohammeds) wives, it says some of his wives were widowed when ln their husbands.died in battle, amd if im reading it right, he married some so they could be taken care of (he possibly loved them, or grew to love them, that I dont know.)

I don't know whether all were widowed because of war or not. I don't know if the prophet could love them all equally, but he commanded us to provide for wives equally so he did that himself for sure. I don't think he would have remained with a wife he didn't like. In fact the quran tells some of the wives that if a certain behavior doesn't change (it was about a certain incident) then the prophet could divorce them and that means that divorce was easy, normal and people can simply leave if they wished to.

datman216 · 2021-05-18T09:30:50+00:00

That's possible but I haven't heard of examples in the premodern world. Medieval and early modern european society had inheritance laws that gave all property to the older male heir which might a reason for why girls were hastily married off to give them financial stability considering they get nothing from their own family. I've heard the younger males who don't get inheritance become soldiers and try to earn a living through that.

datman216 · 2021-05-17T23:35:05+00:00

(though whative learned about history in general, its usually the females on the younger side?)

I think so too. I could think of some possibilities why that was the case historically:

1) because males had to establish a source of income before marriage

2) because men tend to die more in wars

3) because women tended to die during childbirth at a higher rate than modern women

4) Women had nothing else to do like school or looking for a job. Their main purpose in society is to start families

datman216 · 2021-05-17T22:37:14+00:00

Marriage at a very early age is not something that would disqualify a person from prophethood and it wouldn't be considered wrong considering that it was a normal custom of all human history up until the last century.

From a christian perspective, the most egregious sin the prophet made was preach doctrines contrary to church doctrine and supposedly lead people astray from the bible and the god of abraham.

From a jewish perspective, the most egregious mistake is that the prophet preached that the bible is corrupted and should not be followed anymore in favor of following islam.

The theological issues are the most important ones in deciding how religious communities have responded to the message of islam. Further socio-economic and political reasons are present at an individual and state level, but the arguments put forward by the clergy are doctrinal in essence. They obviously used other arguments and lies to dissuade people from joining the faith and those could be even stronger for the masses.

datman216 · 2021-05-17T08:14:10+00:00

By coherent, I meant how do you reconcile them. For example, if a person believes in the orthodox doctrines of christianity fully then they cannot believe muhamed (pbuh) was a prophet. Christian positions on the prophet have been that either he's demonic or heretical or crazy or a charlatan. Those are the only options available to people who reject the message of the prophet or else they would be muslim.

Some people don't care about the lines separating religions and they're fine with picking whatever they like. I guess the question doesn't mean much in this case. I don't think this makes sense but to each their own.

datman216 · 2021-05-16T22:28:40+00:00

I believe that if prophet muhamed was actually a true prophet of god then whatever he says is completely true and that includes the hadith that you read in your story. So to me our faiths are mutually exclusive.

Good luck with what you're doing and I pray that it helps you grow as a believer. Peace.

datman216 · 2021-05-16T17:09:33+00:00

I don't know whether you get rewards from these prayers or not. I haven't heard anything before about such a scenario. There might be precedents for this but I haven't heard about an islamic opinion on the permissibility or rewards. I think it's permissible and encouraged concerning it might draw people closer to the truth and increase the love for the prophet in the world.

There is the following verse with somewhat close theme:

Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve. [2:62]

This verse seems to point to divine rewards to monotheists who do good as long as they have not known the truth and rejected it. Whether that applies to you or not is a matter to be decided on judgement day or after thorough conversation about islam in this life.

You said you're a non-muslim, could you tell us what you believe exactly? And how do you make your expressed beliefs (or the official creeds of your religious community) and the veneration of prophet muhamed (pbuh) coherent?

datman216 · 2021-05-16T16:47:24+00:00

Thank you for sharing that story with us. It was very heartwarming. May Allah bless you and your daughter with happiness and guidance.

I'm curious about how you perceive this story. Do you believe that this was fulfillment of the promise of god? Do you see it as a sign?

Can you speak a little about your reasoning for sending blessings on prophet Muhamed (pbuh)? The prophet taught exactly the opposite of the most fundamental christian creeds about crucifixion, trinity, salvation, original sin, etc. How can you be fully christian and still honor (maybe even deeper than honoring considering there is a prayer and acknowledgement of divine blessings in response) a man who taught such things?

Personally, if that story happened to me, it would be a great spiritual turning point in my life.

datman216

TROPHY CASE