User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
- 8 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 15 Dec 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Do you feel an inferiority complex? Is that why you have to add taglines about big words? Did you never learn how to use a dictionary?
I'm a simple, young girl who's still learning
I believe I can still be intelligent even without using those big words. Big words sound posh and can mislead those whose understanding is lacking into thinking that something is more true just because it sounds clever. doesn't mean it is.
And yes i don't always understand them so i get confused. I'm not ashamed to admit that. Hence my signature.
You might have thought my sig was directed to u, it wasn't but i've changed it anyway, so i don't cause any more offence [if i did]
On the other hand it must be said it's easier to use one concise word instead of a couple sentence when explaining something.
You didn't answer my questions.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Actually forget my questions, you've actually showed that you can't provide real evidence for your point - even when asked!
Even someone with just an English language GCSE knows you have to PEE [point, EVIDENCE, explanation]
@ Rawry :oops: i feel bad cuz i've been complaining at how people go off topic and stuff but in this case, i don't know what came over me and since the topic which was at hand was already off the title topic i sort of went off and wrote the above
... :oops:
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Anyone notice the contradictions up there?
I somehow doubt that the prophet
or the sahabah or any of their followers use anything like such a method. when asked a question "go research it yourself!"
So no, you are not here preaching or following the prophetic example. You are here because you enjoy having an argument and like the feeling of superiority putting others down gives you.
It has nothing to do with Islam or preaching.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Maybe you should actually read what the Prophet(saw) and his followers used to do to people who provided insulting comments rather than blag! This nice inquiring girl adds "duh" and that is meant to be inviting what?
That's exactly what you are doing and have been doing - without any knowledge on pretty any topic you comment on - double standards it is called!
And no, fabricating hadiths or mistranslating them to substantiate kufr points is not permitted - it is haram!
I have not fabricated a single hadith so I guess that makes you a liar.
and I have not mistranslated any either. you are the one claiming what they say is kufr. Then when it does not suit you you deny the meanings of them and pretend that they mean otherwise. Astaghfirullah.
More, I have not gone around telling half truths.
and no, the prophet
would never have told the kuffar a half truth or said something like "there is no god" without mentioning "Except Allah (swt)".
and yes, I see in the quote you decide to cut it to start in the middle instead of starting honestly in the start and showing you refusing to answer a question even while pretending th be folowing the path of the Prophet
and the sahabah. I doubt they woudl refuse to answer someone seeking knowledge, but you do.
It shows the lie you tell yourself - that you are here to preach etc, when the truth is its all about feeling superior and feeding your arrogance.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Proved you wrong yesterday with the dodgy hadith supporting majority!!! Either it was fabricated (as it bore no relation to the actual Arabic) or you grossly mistranslated it! Either way you just lift whatever you find that seems to support your nonsense modernist views - even the article about chilling is disgraceful. Picking a hadith where the Prophet(saw) did nothing, providing no context to the hadith, and using it to justify living meaningless lives "chilling" like the backward, ignorant and decadent youth of the West! Shame on you!
Yes you do - below is a classic example!
You purposefully miss out the second part of the shahadah which says Muhammed is his messenger - why don't you complain against Allah why he has not put an exception here? Or is it one rule for one person, and another for another??? Disgraceful!
I dont complain about the second part because the prophet is the messenger. He IS the messenger. He WAS the Messenger, He WILL REMAIN the messenger for all time.
And then you pretend that you have had multiple years of study under the scholars... was that at the same time as you got a masters in psychology, before or after?
It not my fault that you cannot accept that ahadith exist. Then again you did consider ahadith to be a contradictory source of information... when you were defending semi-modern secularist writers for being the objective thing to follow.
Face it, your posts are full of contradictions trying to hide behind pseudo intellectualism.
(just in case you are wondering, I am not an intellectual and I am not claiming to be anywhere close to being one.)
(the main point in the hadith about jama'ah was that it did not necessarily mean "leader"... and then you decided to use examples of numerical superiority including people who would be outside the jama'ah to show how there is no numerical superiority. More, your translation added the word "political" into the translation of the hadith, which there is no reference to in the arabic. so what you are accusing me of here is exactly what you did.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
WRONG
He was a messenger at the age of 40 and not before - a major ommission of an exception!
Studying Islam is not mutually exclusive to studying masters - many do it! And no it was not psychology; you can't stop fabricating can you? Is it a habit?
It is your fault when you fabricate/mistranslate hadith to justify kufr opinions! Muslims are not required to believe in such nonsense!
Wrong - another fabrication. You really are going full steam today in having to lie to respond.
And Ghazali is not secularist - those who believe in democracy and deny the Caliphate are secularists/modernists!
One does not take matters of reality from hadith - Allah has given us faculties for doing that and the Prophet(saw) implied the same when he said "you know best about your matters of the world" in relation to cross-pollination. Shallow Muslims look to revelation for matters of science - and to the kuffar for matters of revelation, ethics and metaphysics - ie normantive political systems, national identities, watching men's thighs, half naked women, basic humanities/values, human rights, freedoms!
Wrong - that is an accurate description of your posts. You have shown yourself as having no qualifications in any subject you comment on, and no Arabic language thus passing of dubiously translated hadith.
Don't worry - I guessed from your writings!
Jama'ah does not mean leader - it refers to the followers!
No - I used evidences to show that numbers does not prove truth or correctness - evidence and daleel proves the truth!
The jama'ah is the political community who are lead by an imam - no jama'ah is allowed to be without an imam (leader) and they are sinful if they do not choose one - if you don't know read the books of the scholars who are experts in politics and see what they say about these hadiths. Rather than making shallow accusations when you've been caught out making a mess of a point!
May I requrest that you open a few books...
Oh yes your good old fashioned assertion with ommissions. Yes go on, ommit the rest of the names you had mentioned.
You really love this technique don't you? the majority of the names you listed were not Imam Ghazali.
You can't help yourself it seems. Its very hard tot ake anything you say seriously when there is a real and significant chance that you are simply ommitting the bits that are inconvenient to your argument.
Its not about winning an argument, it is about being right. You keep making statements and assertions, but they have no credibility as they use techniques of obfuscation or ommission in order to further your goals of trying to show intellectual supriority.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I've read quite a "few" books which you have been attacking me for - you'd have been a good book burner in Nazi Germany
The books of seerah make it clear Mohammed(saw) was a messenger after the age of 40 and not before - you however don't point that exception out in your shahadah - don't you think that it is a double standard you don't mention that???
Oh yes your good old fashioned assertion with ommissions. Yes go on, ommit the rest of the names you had mentioned.[/quote]
Let's have a look here - what was it you said?
"you were defending semi-modern secularist writers"
Ghazali is not a semi-modern secularist writer - so you are caught out lieing! Shame! And not only that, you are caught out with your own principle - "WE SHOULD ALWAYS MENTION EXCEPTIONS" TAWHEED!!!! And do you mention this exception? Do you follow your creed? LOL
You really should have worked for the circus - you'd have left the crowd laughing... and it would have fitted your lifestyle of trivia and chilling out...
yet you had decided to use this as proof that the Jama'ah is not always right... some consistenct would be nice.
Except that you proved no such thing. I have since posted in the caliphate topic dissecting your post further.
you are giving the jama'ah a specific meaning. You need to prove that it applies.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
See? either ignorance or ommission. You seem to not know the difference between DECLARING prophethood and of being a prophet or messenger. (Have you read "ash shifa"?)
The prophet DECLARED prophethood at the age of 40. That does not mean that he was not and is not the prophet. Remember the covenant of the souls? It goes back all the way to there if nor further: [qs:3:81]
You are now using either ignorance or deciet to make your point.
I am unsure which as you have shown a remarkable knack to ommit inconvenient facts.
PS I am not attacking you for reading books - that is a good thing. I am just saying that your comprehension seems to be lacking and you may not have actually understood what was written. Having read a book does not make you an unquestionable and infallible expert in a matter.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Once again you conveniently ommit the rest of your list. Bravo.
How can you be found credible in anything you write when you ommit anything of inconvenience to your point left, right and centre?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
You exhibit your usual double standards - cricitising me of something you are doing yourself. If you dislike "ommiting stuff", why do you do it? I don't complain about it - you do! You leave yourself open to charges of double standards! LOL
Interesting you have no response to not excepting the Prophet(saw) before 40 years in your shahadah - but I knew your argument was nonsense - one example is usually enough to blow it out of the water... remember devilworshiping?
Read the post above the one you quoted. It will show you the error of your ways. you obfuscate and ommit inconvenient facts in order to try and win arguments instead of trying to gain a greater understanding.
You lack credibility. and yes, I could once again bring up the example of stating "There is no god" with the following "Except Allah (swt)" as an example of your techniques. I could even conjure up a term to describe it. How about AthiestMuslim? Oops, I just did.
Must mean that I am a horrible person.
When you are caught in the wrong, it is ok to admit that you are fallible.
When I make mistakes I can hold my hands up high. eg, ok, you may not have said psychology. Was is philosophy? Either way, someone else has commented that the concepts you were using were from studied A levels and wondered if people who had done masters would also be studying the same concepts. It is possible - at a greater detail, but you seem to lack credibility.
and you get disgusted when people mention ahadith of the prophet
relaxing saying it lacks context, when the context is that the prophet 
had a fardh duty to preach, yet we seem him relaxing on atleast one occasion. If you go to the "where's the fun in Islam?" topic, the linked to article also mentions other things like plays at weddings and special occasions.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
main thing i can see:
You: you are guilty of double standards
anon: No, you are guilty of double standards
You: No, you are guilty of double standards
anon: No, you are guilty of double standards
etc
My advice (which I have a feeling one will read and think about and one will ignore and belittle):
1. Get over the fact that both of you will occasionally make contradictions and mistakes, or even offend each other slightly.
2. When you spot a contradiction or mistake, instead of pointing it out, overlook it and try to work out the overall point the other person is trying to make.
3. Try to work out the motivation or reasoning the other person has used to come up with their point.
4. Respect the person's motivation or reasoning, whether or not you agree with the point.
5. Think about a way you can make the other person see your motivation/reasoning as to why you agree/disagree with them.
6. Think about how you will put your point across, in a way which won't be taken as a personal attack (no matter how sensitive you think the person might be).
7. Compose your post.
8. Read it again and make sure you have adhered to points 1-6.
Salaams.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
I have read my post again - my list had cited several including etc at the end implying many more existed. I had even cited in a post before that that Asharite scholars had argued similar points.
You attacked the scholars I quoted as being secularists - I just had to show this assertion was wrong by citing one scholar who was not. Maybe you still think Ghazali was a secularist before secularism was even born?
That aside, your critique does not stand, as the topic is nor normative but positive. Is a child born with innate morality - thus it does not even require any Muslim to comment on it - anyone can research it and make a conclusion. Just like it does not require the citation of Muslims to say atoms exist or subatomic quantum laws operate differently to newtonian mechanics.
You appear confused on what revelation is for, its domain and scope, and what empiricism and rationalism are for. Either read some books of kalam to clarify or maybe ask and I can explain it for you.
If you had accepted my suggestion in an earlier discussion to discuss epistemes most of these paradigmatic problems could have been ironed out as they appear in virtually every discussion - but you chose not to...
And the same counter argument will be raised until you refute it, why do you recite Muhammed is the Messenger of God without stating the exception that he was not a messenger before 40 even though he was a Mohammed?
Agreed - but you need to show I am wrong - asserting and showing are a little different - but then conceptual abstractions always were a little difficult for you
When the matter is recorded black and white, your alternative is to be called a liar if you persist.
All matters in life are not black and white and to achieve this result in most arguments is impossible as usually there are shades of argument, and one should follow the shade which is more closer to the truth than one that is not.
LOL The old credibility chestnut - looks like you want to argue you're bad, and want me to say no you are, to which you'll reply no, you are ad infinitum
No, you missed the point - what was the context of that specific hadith? Why was the Prophet(saw) not doing anything? The narration you cited (which I have not yet checked whcih no doubt I should given your record in citing narrations with questionable translations!) does not state anything in this regard, yet you are building conclusions on this very point.
You appear unaware that one cannot build any argument on absence of evidence - you need positive evidence.
Just citing a hadith as if it is evidence doesn't work - the hadith must contain evidence in itself to substantiate the point you are trying to conclude from it - it does not need to be explicit but must be there - the linguists in dalalat in usual al-fiqh articulate this can be done in one of at least 4 ways:
- ibarat al-nas
- isharat al-nas
- iqtida al-nas
- dalalat al-nas
You have not provided this evidence but run with your conclusion that he was just chilling out for "no reason" which cannot be deduced from the text you cited.
As I have said several times, one can find actual traditions that permit relaxing in a more clear way (eg the narration of Abu Bakr and his family) but that is not the point of contention as you should well know by now. The point of contention is relaxation and trivia as a lifestyle - you are justifying to your target audience who live in a society where purpose of life is to relax, seek pleasure, trivialise every subject, make important trivial subjects(like football!), that we can do the same and look the Prophet(saw) was doing the same!!! He was not - the thousands of traditions from Mekkah and Medina show that he and his companions were serious people who had lifestyles that mean they were busy on a mission from when the revelation came to their deaths - worshipping Allah and carrying his revelation to the world and solving each and every problem that arose! Something the youth have no clue about - yet you perpetuate and justify a corrupt and despicable lifestyle!
Maybe you can address this issue.
JZK for the nasiha - it will be taken on board as it is 100% correct - and timely!
so can somebody answer my question? cuz im kinda curious now but i don't even know what anon1's talking about so its kinda hard to research...
:/
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
There is ANOTHER post between yours and the one of mine that you quoted.
@ fiifs - what was your question?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
@ Ya'qub, while the sentiment of your post is nice and should be followed, once bitten, twice shy.
I have even tried to stay out of some discussions, on to be begged "please talk to me, please I want to debate with you. please, i beg of you. I already have these insults here sharpened up, please will you talk to me."
Such attention seeking behaviour is offputting.
and the insults, I ignored them enough. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. and the fact is her assertions are full of ommissions. She has been caught ignoring or ommitting facts that her inconvenient to her argument.
Now, that would not be a problem if an argument had been foisted upon her, but that is not the case.
I have tried being nice on occasion and even admitted flaw, but this is just jumped upon as "see, I am better than you!" which she may very well be, but it shows me that she is not here to be right but to win arguments.
As someone with a masters in philosophy and m,ultiple years of tutilage under various scholars from various schools of thought I have to say she sounds like an overly cocky 18 year old who thinks she understands the big bad world when she really doesn't.
so I plan to continue fight fire with fire.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
oh that. well, it would be to preach. to tell people what is right and wrong.
(Which is different from what she did when she tried to fob you off.
So that is further proof of her hypocrisy.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Noone's asked you to speak to them - you choose to post on a public forum, and if you don't want to discuss, don't respond to critiques of your posts.
Yes you should get rid of insults!
And you should be consistent - if you accuse others of missing exceptions when they make statements, look at your shahadah or dozens of Quranic verses and hundreds of hadiths that do the same. Your lack of reading Quran shows you do not understand assertions are made to state a general rule - every rule has an exception, including having sex with your mother - something I've iterated a number of times but something you are not even aware of in your reply to the above example!
It is the case - you post modernist nonsense and it has to be refuted.
You fabricate/twist hadith - it has to be refuted.
You deny Islamic poltiical laws and systems and try to praise western kufr systems including all their inherent flaws most of which you're not even aware of and cuss as academic when highlighted - such nonsense has to be refuted
The list goes on...
I have never said I am better than you - if you feel that you are wrong. I am not here to win arguments - as a Muslim I cannot sit back when people spout ideas opposed to revelantion.
Shows how little experience you have of the "bad world" when you cannot even get an age band right!
No problem - when I cite evidence, cite evidence - fabrications/mistranslations are not fighting fire with fire.
For someone who cannot even prove basic questions like God exists, or the universe is not eternal, should you not study a little first before entering complex issues? Or are you that arrogant to think ignorance, insulting others, belittling them, posting volumatic posts is somehow persuasive?
can you answer those for me, please?
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Allah orders the ummah, each and everyone of us, to ensure his laws are implemented, from cutting the hand of the thief, collecting/dispersing zakat, circulating wealth in society, removing tyranny in the world, carrying the dawa to all societies, having one leader, being politically united etc IE Establishment of Islam as a way of life in our personal lives, but also in our social lives by ensuring we have Islamic laws, institutions, one leader and an Islamic state.
This state should unite Muslims and protect them and ensure their welfare and needs are met. This is lacking today as the Muslim world is divided and dominated by the most savage nations of the world who kill, exploit and ravage!
All Muslims will be questioned what contribution they made to change this. The Prophet(saw) and his companions using means of dawa worked to win over societies at every level to Islam - succeeding in Medina through winning over warrior leaders who handed them the city to rule by Islam which they did and expanded.
This is the obligation on all Muslims today and the seerah provides the framework of the method to bring about change.
Erm.. what is this then:
so you weren't begging for the discussion to be rehashed there?
You were seeking my attention and wanted my focus to be on you. Kind of childish.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
No problems sis.
Premise 1: Rational thought to be used and not speculative thought - the difference being the former uses arguments that are supported by evidence (sense perception/reason) and the latter uses arguments that have no evidence and are presented as credible (eg eternal spiders spinning the universe!)
Premise 2: Numerous evidences are needed to claim something is certain - some evidences are needed to indicate something is a credible possibility, no evidences imply something is speculation (fantasy - eg santa claus!)
The argument is briefly (details can be added once you get a feel for the structure rather than overwhelming you with detail now so you struggle to even follow the argument):
Where did the universe we live in an experience come from?
There are two approaches that can address this problem:
- directly - using science/maths to conclude a creator exists
- indirectly - through an elimination process of reasoning
The former is not possible as we cannot gain access in any empirical way to what preceded the universe. Thus science cannot directly prove or disprove a God - it is beyond its scope. It's like asking a scientist to examine a watch and describe or determine who the watchmaker is (robot, man, woman, assembly plant etc) He cannot!
Thus a rational elimination process is the only way to do it.
There are only three possibilities (despite all the theories and descriptions of forms including big bangs, multiverses, cyclical universes etc):
- the matter/energy that the universe comprises is eternal in some shape or form
- the matter/energy that the universe comprises came from nothing (without the need of a cause/creator)
- the matter/energy that the universe comprises was created or caused by something external to the universe
If we can eliminate two possibilities with evidence that is certain, the third is correct.
Possibility one is incorrect as our sum knowledge and experience of the universe indicates it should be in a state of equilibrium which it is not. Thus it is not eternal.
Possibility two in incorrect as our sum knowledge and experience of the universe shows matter/energy cannot come from nothing - thus this possibility is incorrect.
It leaves one possibility that the universe was created by something external.
This external entity has to be eternal as if it is not then the question arises as to its origins which are either it came from nothing or something created it. Things don't come from nothing thus something created it. The same questions apply to that thing leading to an infiniate regression which is an absurdity - leaving us with one possibility, the creator is eternal.
So you [personally] provide dawah and give ur zakat?
are u saying "providing sticky plasters" is less helpful than dawah? :S
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Pages