AlBaqir:
Sino, there is nothing in your so-called questions that has not been answered. Unfortunately it is you that is running far away and dodging question as per tawil and tafwid in respect to your belief.


As per this hadith which is only my concern:


Absolutely you are just posting without getting Shia believe as per Tawhid. Again for the last time, Shia do not separate Allah's attributes (siffat) from His Essence (Dhat). We believe both are one. It is your manhaj that believe His Essence resides in one place while His knowledge is in another place.

Read the hadith well please. It is crystal clear and doesn't support your believe. We've given you verses of the Quran where Allah says He is Everywhere and with everything. You are trying to rationalise "How" when you cannot even grasp what is His Essence or His attributes. He is beyond what you think or imagined about Him.


We've quote this ayah before:

Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 3:
وَهُوَ اللَّهُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ يَعْلَمُ سِرَّكُمْ وَجَهْرَكُمْ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا تَكْسِبُونَ

And He is Allah in the heavens and in the earth; He knows your secret (thoughts) and your open (words), and He knows what you earn."

The hadith you've quoted says:

"His being in the sky over the earth is just as He on the Throne. All things to Him are the same in the matters of His knowledge and power, domination and control".


The argument is never Shia's but yours who had separated Allah with His Essence in a place and His attributes in other places.

Bros, if you have answered my question, you wouldn't need to be trying too hard to rope my beliefs to epistle you are typing, and even breaking apart!

Let me help you with another narration from you guys!

Kulayni in “Kafi” 1/126-127, and authenticated by Majlese in “Mirat” 1/67

It is narrated from him (the narrator of the above Haddith) from a group of our people from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from Yaqub ibn yazid from ibn abu Umayr from ibn Udhaynah from Imam abu Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following: It is about the words of Allah “There is not a single place wherein any secret counsel can take place between any three people without God being the fourth, nor five people without His being the sixth. . .” (58:7). “He is One, the One only in His Own-self. He is different from His creatures and as such He has said about His Own-Self. He has control over all things through His presence, control and power. Nothing as small as an atom in the heavens or earth is absent from Him, not even things smaller or bigger. It is all through His control and knowledge not by His-self. It is because the places are limited by the four boundaries. If it would be by His-self it would limit Him.

How does the red above mean what you have written?! If you do not know, this is exactly the belief of the Ahlu Sunnah! So explain to me how that your belief that Allah (SWT) is everywhere again?!

For me not to cause more confusion for you,

And narrated al Sadooq(ra) in al Illal (Illul ul sharai) with sahih (authentic) sanad (chain of narration) from Abi Baseer from one of the 2 Imams(as) said: Don’t reject hadith which has come to you people through murj’i, qadari and kharji attributed to us, for verily you people don’t know for it is something from the truth AND (BY REJECTING IT) YOU WOULD LIE UPON ALLAH (WHO IS) BEYOND THE ARSH.

Oh! What did Allah (SWT) say?

"The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established." (20:5)

Please what is the tawil of the above verse according to the Imams, please bring your evidences. Thanks

@tintingz,

You have had many brothers here being concerned about you, what must have happened, what caused your disbelieve in Allah (SWT) and up till this thread, you haven't been coherent, your logic is all over the place, you can't answer questions posed to you in order to establish your convictions, you rather resort to mockery and ridicule. This portrays you in a very bad light. It is an open secret that your best answer to the cause and purpose of the universe and life is "I don't know" (You may wish to change the pronoun as you want), and that isn't a good point to argue from, one thing which "I don't know" should teach you is to be humble, quiet, open-minded and ready to learn! I have not seen a student in class, after not being capable to answer a question, starts to argue with another student who has been able to provide an answer. If the answer is not convincing to you, do you have a better one?!

Now, a good example of your incoherence and poor logic is the issue of empathy. You claimed empathy is responsible for morality, it is innate albeit subjective, you claimed that objective morality is what should be ideal, and I asked how would this be achieved knowing fully well that this empathy, as you claimed, is under the control of society. You gave me the UN as the answer, does this show you have a clue of what you are talking about?!

Again, still on empathy, I asked since it is still subjective, why should you fault anyone, since you have already made a case for homos, who is attracted to homosexuality, and I used your logic to also make a case for a murderer etc. But instead of answering this, you started defining empathy, hello! is empathy not responsible for morality again?! Okay, the murderer lacks empathy, Why? Is it not innate?! What happened to the society's control?! What I want you to tell me is what is the consequences of doing things with lack of empathy, if I can always get away with it?! Is it possible for someone with empathy to act otherwise?!

Again, you based the shari'ah law on the subjective view of the homosexual, if we are to do this for all actions, we are only going to be following our desires, each individual would look at every action done to him with this subjectiveness, and there wouldn't be anything as morality talk more of objective morality! A student would look at the teacher as being immoral for failing him, regardless of what he had done! So how do you apply your empathy when you have limited it to yourself?!

Mind you, because I know you never reasoned my post with regards to Shari'ah law, I gave the adverse consequences of homosexuality to the family system and even humanity! I told you that since homosexuality isn't in the way we are designed to function, a true case of mental/psychological issue would be treated accordingly, but of course, that is not what you want to hear.

"From the standpoints of individual health, public health and social order, participating in homosexual activity could be viewed as dangerous to society and incompatible with full health." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2762461

There are many studies that shows the above as well, and like I said, in Islam, death penalty is a preventive measure, it wasn't instituted to celebrate destroying lives, for the law was instituted to protect life, not only yours, but everyone, and also the family, hence the society and humanity in general, and it is never the responsibility of an individual, rather it is the responsibility of the State!

The fact is that you do not actually understand Islam and what it represents, you are not open-minded enough to accept reasons other than what you already believe and continuously want to believe about God/Islam! You are here just to make fun of God, Islam and Muslims as well as other religions, you do not have anything better to offer anyone here, you obviously do not have any sense of morality to know that you do not go to people's house and start insulting the occupants without any tangible reason or worse, because you feel you can!

Do not for a second think my responses are meant for you to believe in God, it is, after all, you choice! Islam does not force belief on anyone!

tbaba1234:


The standard of contribution on the Islamic section has dropped.

Unfortunately, you are right! And I do think it is general too, it really speaks volume of the quality of youths we have in this country! May Allah assist us.

tbaba1234:


Assalamu aleikum,

Long time bros....

Wa alaykum Salam bro, yes o, and seriously, I do miss your insightful topics and contributions on this section o! You have defected fully to the sports section

AlBaqir:


# There is no gymnastic interpretation or esoteric meaning here, brother. Our interpretations are confined within the meaning of muhkam verses. It is your manhaj that had limited and confined Allah to a place and thereby separated His Essence (Dhat) from His attributes (Siffat); and that is doing tajsim and tashbih, as I've explained earlier.


In the verse 64 (of sura Maidah) where He talks about His hands, we've returned this "informative attribute (siffat al-khabari)" back to His attribute of "Generous" which is obvious within the context of the verse itself. This is how Ibn Kathir interpret the same verse as posted earlier.

# In other verse, His Hand, metaphorically (since He does not have literal or imagined attributes as Quran explains), signifies and explains other attributes, for example, of "Power", "Able" etc. Therefore, there is no tashbih (description with known or imaginative figure) as Imam (alayhi salam) says in the hadith you've posted.

Brother AlBaqir, I asked a simple question, all these stories are not necessary for they aren't my major concerns. The Imams did read these verses and to the best of my knowledge never did tawil as you do. The narration from the Imam also straightens the position of the ahlu sunnah with regards to the attributes of Allah (SWT)! On the contrary, the verse you allude to is self explanatory, he doesn't require any form of tawil, it is simple and straight forward!

What you have done with other verses that states hand, is contrary to what the Imam stated in the narration, we do not deny these attributes, we affirm them the way it is written and not make tashbih! No where I have seen that the Imams claim hand is metaphorical!

AlBaqir:

On the other hand, as we've exposed earlier, it is your manhaj that has limited and confined  Allah to a place. You also describe Him with movement from one heaven to the other. You also gave Him a literal descriptive attribute of filling into something (E.g filling the empty space of hell fire with His leg). ALL these are nothing but Tashbih and tajsim, and He says, " Glory be to Him, far from what they ascribed Him with"

Lol, you are the one with such understanding from this narrations, not ahlu sunnah! Let me give you report from your Imam that explains how we approach such narrations:

Narrated by Kulayni in “Kafi” 1/126:

Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Sahl ibn Ziyad from Muhammad ibn Isa who has said the following.
“I wrote to Imam abu al-Hassan, Ali ibn Muhammad (a.s.) to clarify a question. May Allah take my soul in your service, O my master, it is narrated to us that Allah is in one place and not in another place on Arsh, (the Throne) resting. He comes down to the sky above the earth every night during the last half of the night. It is narrated that He comes down at the ninth evening of the month of Dhul Hajj and then He returns back to His place. Certain individuals among your friends have said that if He would be found in certain places and not in other places the air must have come in contact with Him and would surround Him because air is a thin form of body that surrounds everything proportionate to its size. How then the air would surround Allah, the Most Holy and the Most High, According to this assumption? The Imam replied in writing, “He has the knowledge of this. He is the best One in having the true measurements of all things.

You must, However, note that His being in the sky over the earth is just as He on the Throne. All things to Him are the same in the matters of His knowledge and power, domination and control.”

Muhammad ibn Jafar al-Kufi has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isa a similar Hadith

Majlese said weak about first chain, and said sahih ala thahir about second way of transmission.

@ the bold in red, it is as simple as that, and that is what can be understood from the narration I had presented earlier.

@ the bold in green, well, I don't know, you may say the narration is weak or fabricated, but there are actually more of such narrations from the Imams with similar narrative and belief! So i am now trying as much as possible to understand where you get your own understanding from, and up till now, you have yet to ascribe such beliefs to the Imams!

AlBaqir:

# And when you claim you do tafwid of those "informative attributes (hands, face, eyes etc)", that is, leaving them  as they are, then we have asked you why you have interpreted the verse where He says, " He (Allah) is with them wherever they are", to His knowledge?

Why do you do tawil of this descriptive attribute when you hate and even make kufr of others doing tawil of other descriptive attributes like His hands, His face etc?


Sheik Saduq documents:

 الإمام الصادق (ع) - لما سأله أبو جعفر عن قول الله عز وجل: ((وهو الله في السماوات و في الأرض)).- كذلك هو في كل مكان.
قلت: بذاته? قال: ويحك! إن الأماكن أقدار، فإذا قلت: في مكان بذاته لزمك أن تقول: في أقدار و غير ذالك، و لكن هو بائن من خلقه، محيط بما خلق علما و قدرة و إحاطة و سلطانا و ملكا.

Imam Jafar Sadiq (alayhi afdhalu salat wa salam) was asked by Abu Jafar regarding Allah's verse in the Quran: "And He is Allah in the heavens and in the earth", to which he replied, 'Yes, similarly He is in every place.' I (Abu Jafar) asked, 'In His Essence?' Imam replied, 'Woe betide you! Verily places are subject to limits and boundaries, so by your saying that He is in a place in His Essence, you are in fact compelled to say that He is contained in objects which are subject to measurement and size. He is however, distinct from His creation, entirely encompassing what He creates in knowledge, power, control, authority and dominion.

Source: al-Tawhid, p. 140, hadith no. 15.

Where you get it all mixed up is verses that are already explained by Allah (SWT) in the Qur'an, you claim we are doing tawil, not only that, we have evidences of such understanding from the companions as well as the Imams! Where such cannot be found, we default to the principle as established also by your Imam, that is, affirming without tashbih, not doing tawil. So bring where the Imams says we should do tawil!

AlBaqir:

# Lastly, concerning "seeing Allah", to say one will see Allah whether in this world or in the hereafter (exactly the way we see bright moon with no difficulty, as Salafi hadith claim) is making tajsim and tashbih of Him. Saying "seeing Him" is only in the hereafter and not on this earth is limiting His speech:

"No vision can grasp Him and He grasps all vision, and He is Lateefu al-Khabir".


# Sheik Saduq also documents:

Imam Ali (alayhi afdhalu salat wa salam) said in reply to Dha'lab's question about his being able to see his Lord, 'Woe to you O Dha'lab! I do not worship a Lord Whom I cannot see!' So Dha'lab asked, "But how do you see Him? Describe Him to us.'

Imam (alayhi salam) replied, 'Woe betide you! Eyes do not see Him by looking with the sights; it is the hearts that behold Him with the realities of faith.'

Source: Amali al-Saduq, p. 423, hadith no. 560.

Shia shaykh al-Barqi narrated in his “al-Mahasin” (p 60), and shaykh Azizullah al-Utardi quoted from him in “Musnad ar-Rida” (1/95):

From Abul Hasan al-Rida (alaihi salam): Who wants to look at Allah without obstacle and Allah looks at him without obstacle, let him to befriend with family of Muhammad and be (far) away from their enemies, and follow Imam of believers from amongst them, (and if he would do that) in the doomsday Allah would look at him without obstacle and he would look at Allah without obstacle.

From the narration you have brought, the man asked the Imam to describe Allah (SWT) in this world, obviously, the Imam can never see Allah in this world, hence the expression of faith, while the narration about seeing Allah (SWT) states we would see Allah (SWT) on the day of judgment! It is just as Allah (SWT) described the Israelites when they asked Musa (AS) to show them Allah (SWT) here on earth! They are not related at all!

Allah (SWT) says: "Some faces that Day shall be radiant. Looking at their Lord (Allâh)" [75:22-23:]

This is Allah's statement! Allah (SWT) doesn't contradict himself! And sure does not need your help in doing tawil for His Speech, that is why He (SWT) sent the Prophet (SAW) to explain what we need to know and understand! And the Prophet (SAW) nor the his companions, including the Imams, never denied this truth!

Your claim of limiting Allah's Speech is redundant, scholars have explained this verse accordingly, first and foremost, the words used are quite different:

...And a group of them interpreted the word “Al-Idrak” in the ayah [6:103] to mean: encompassment, meaning that the sight does not encompass Allah Azza wa Jal, though it sees Him on the day of judgment.

- Qatadah (d. 117 H.) said regarding the interpretation of the ayah: «And He is too Great for the vision to encompass Him.» (Tafsir Tabari (9/459))

- Abu Bakr Al-Ajurri (d. 360 H.) : If someone said: ‘What is the interpretation of His (Allah) saying: {No vision grasps Him}?’, it is said to him: According to the people of knowledge, it means: Visions do not surround Him, nor encompass Him -Azza wa Jal-, and they see him without encompassment, and they do not doubt seeing Him, as a man would say: ‘I have seen the sky’, and he is truthful, and his sight did not encompass the whole sky.” (“As-Shari’ah” (2/1048))

- Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H.) said in his “sahih”: “He is seen on the day of Judgment, and the visions do not encompass Him when it sees Him, for Al-Idrak is encompassment, and Ru’yah is looking, and Allah is seen and not encompassed.”

- Abu Muhammad al-Baghawi (d. 510 H.) said: “Know that Idrak is not the same as ru’yah, because al-Idrak is: to reach the end/extreme limit of something, and encompass it, and ru’yah is to see with the eye. And ru’yah can be without encompassement.” (“Ma’alim At-Tanzil” by Al-Baghawi (3/174))
Source

Secondly, seeing (looking at) Allah (SWT) is exclusively a bigger and better reward (as indicated in the verse already presented above) in the hereafter! So prove otherwise from the Prophet (SAW) or from the Imams!

tintingz:
How does this work?

Someone destiny has been decree before he/she exist, what again is he/she choosing?

If you path away from the destiny that has been foreknown by Allah, is Allah still all-knowing?

I have answered this questions in so many ways already!

No matter which path you feel like choosing, there are only two consequences! Good or Bad! It is up to you to choose your end!

tintingz:
Lol, no.. that's what makes worshiping God meaningless and when worshiping God is meaningless, God himself/herself/itself is meaningless.

Okay, as I said, that is what you want to believe.

tintingz:

This is not an evidence oga, you're arguing from ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam).

Last time I checked, you do not have any superior argument as to the cause of the universe as well as any reasonable belief as to the purpose of life!

tintingz:

Why not counter the immoral practice I mentioned in your holy book?

When you present the proper practices of my religion and not the stereotypes and propagandas which you yourself had countered on this same platform, then I would take you seriously.

tintingz:

Are you assuming your God exist or you know your God exist?

It isn't difficult to understand my post, you may wish to read it again.

tintingz:

There's also possibility the universe is infinite.

That possibility doesn't solve anything! If it is proven that the universe is infinite, then what caused life?! And for what purpose?!

tintingz:

Lol, evidence is base on beliefs? Sino oooo!

If evidence is base on beliefs, then I believe Santa Claus exist, I believe Leprechauns exist, I believe tooth fairy exist, I believe Vampires exist, I believe there's a white dragon and unicorn above the sky, because I've evidence base on my beliefs.

You think I don't believe in nothing, I believe in those existing creatures above.

You can't keep on being evasive, bring your superior argument and evidences, whereas, I being a believer in God, my evidences are substantive, for I have the Qur'an, where God says He is the Creator of the whole universe and all that is in it (for clarification, this is my evidence based on my beliefs)...If you have such evidences for whatever you claim to believe, produce them, if not, you should stop using this argument, you always come up sounding unintelligent!

tintingz:

You're confusing yourself.

Worshiping God is meaningless.

Present intelligent counter arguments, prove that you do have something reasonable to show you are convinced of your perceptions of reality, that you are better informed regarding your lack of faith!

tintingz:

Lmao, how does empathy has to do entertainment?

Empathy has nothing to do with your worshiping your God five times daily, empathy is having human values.

We have some muslims worshiping God five times daily but still go out killing and bombing people.

You should always pay attention to your own post that I am responding to, go back and read, then you would see the correlation...

Muslims who kill for no just cause are going to be punished, both in this life and the next, but according to your world-view, if you can get away with any crime, then there is no reason stopping you from doing the crime, and you can even convince yourself that what you have done is good, because you have no standard for what is good or bad, just what your feelings suggests to you, and I'll show this to be true for you subsequently...

tintingz:

Lol, who told you I'm not into business of entertainment? What a Fallacy.

So assuming I'm not into it, I can't start tomorrow?

People find happiness in different things, sport, movies, superheroes, music, praying, fasting, partying, reading etc, but that happiness shouldn't be harmful to another.

You're the one that need to sink this into your skull.

, Yeah, you would become a believer tomorrow, or no! Your happiness is, in fact, in religion and believing in God?! Please think properly before you give yourself another excuse why you always talk about this "imaginary" God!

tintingz:

For a God to claim to be all powerful and all good but can't wipe out the evil Satan he created from existence and only send guidance shows he's not capable, this leads to a paradox.

I have told you to use appropriate description of God according to my beliefs. This world isn't all that there is to existence, and life here is for a purpose! Without purpose, life would be meaningless! That is why I am amused at your empathy and goodness you claim, why and for what purpose?!

You should show the contradictions and how logical your claims are. If I choose not to do something in which you want, does it mean I can't do it?! When you see your fallacy (ever heard of false dichotomy?!), then you would stop all this paradox argument!

It is not enough that you can write big words, but to fully understand what it means and how to use them accordingly!

tintingz:

I didn't close my mind to all your explanation, I just fine many of them absurd.

Still arguing from ignorance, keep on with the gods of the gap argument.

Point of correction, I don't make fun of good religious people, I'm only criticizing the babaric, absurd, ridiculous practice in Religions.

That is why I am seeking your own "non-absurdic" reasoning, as well as your argument from superior knowledge! For the record, an open-minded person do not use such terms as you continually do while arguing, and an open minded person is always willing to revise his views or opinions by critically and intelligently reviewing evidences and arguments put forth.

tintingz:

Lmao, it seems you're not reading clearly between the lines.

I said morality is suppose to be objective for us to harmonize but in reality as we're now morality is subjective, look around is morality objective?

Why can't I have say in faults of someone? So if someone murdered my relative I shouldn't have a say? How do you reason and even comment?

I use to think you're this intelligent.

You say morality should be objective, how and why? You say the reality is that it is subjective, and I seek your arguments why should you fault my morality based on your subjectivity?! You believe homosexuality is moral, that is subjective to you, why should you fault me when I say it is not?!

Since you have suggested that life is all about survival, perhaps the person that murdered your relative can justify his action based on survival, perhaps they were in competition for the same goal or he just simply hate him?! Perhaps he just felt like doing so, he is attracted to killing people, he feels depressed if he doesn’t, why do you find him psychopathic, after all, his empathy doesn’t feel that his action was wrong in any way!

What I am telling you in essence is that, to base your morality on your empathy is deceitful, inadequate, and cannot achieve the so called objective morality or to even harmonize humans as you suggest!

tintingz:

In as much as there are good Muslims out there and that bolded phrase is a good one, it's a paradox when we relate it to the Islamic Sharia like beating your wife, killing apostates, killing homosexuals, stoning adulterers etc these are base on archaic practice.

The Shari'ah does not condone wife beating, apostates that are killed must have committed treasonable offenses, killing homosexuals and stoning adulterers are preventive rulings against a horrible crime capable of destroying the family system, the society and humanity! So there are no contradictions, except you are not willing to reason!

tintingz:

You know I told you empathy is also control by society and era

But you have not told me how this empathy is evolving, and why is it evolving?! Is it a biological evolution?!

If empathy is also controlled by the society, then it means it can be taught and learned, but the problem here is that the society is mostly controlled by a selected few, especially the elites, and this speaks volume of how things hitherto considered immoral are now being accepted, it therefore means, there is no evolution happening! You are just being controlled by the selected few dictating what you should consider as good and what isn't!

tintingz:

Yes.

It's likely we get there or not, this is one of the reason why country leaders come together for summit.

And here is where you agree with what I have written above, but to go further, if the world leaders make a pronouncement for an objective morality, what would be the criteria for what is morality? How would they enforce it?! Would there be consequences for going against the sets of objective morality?! If no, then why the need for such pronouncements?! Why the need for a harmonized morality system for the world?! If yes, then why are you arguing about God's standard of morality?!

tintingz:

Killing someone for no reason is something of the stone age and dark age, like I said objective morality is now playing a role in our era and it's progressing, we're now in age of enlightenment. It's a murder case when you kill someone in every nation.

The point I was trying to make is that there would be consequences for doing what is immoral! Mind you, there is always a reason for doing something of such, and selfish reasons comes tops! And because it is called stone or dark ages doesn't mean they didn't have a system of morality, you do not say what you do not know! By the way, are people not killing each other for no "reason" today?! You are yet to present what you mean by this objective morality, I'm I the source of it, from my empathy or is it from other people's empathy?! Do each individual has the same level of empathy?! Have we all evolved or is it progress to the same level of empathy?! If it is progressing, how?!

tintingz:

Imagine you find yourself attractive to your fellow gender, you were not able to control it, it's even causing you depression and one day Sharia men caught you in sexual act with a man, and you're sentence to death, how would you see this Sharia men? That's empathy.

For the record, the shari'ah is a legislation that sees life as the most sacred, it protects life as well protects the family and the society. Man is not designed to have sex with man, the shari'ah recognizes that there can be cases of mental and psychological imbalances and thus would be treated accordingly, but those who seek to corrupt the family system and the society, death sentence is therefore instituted to curb such corruption in the land!

Note, here you are portraying that empathy should only be from the individual’s point of view. We can easily use this to support whatever anyone does, and give the excuses you have just given for homosexuals, then I’ll ask, how would this define morality or to even claim objective morality?!

tintingz:

I don't have problem with your morality as long as you're not hurting anyone.

But you know you do, or why do you criticize the hijab, not listening to worldly music etc.?! How does my praying 5 times a day hurt anyone? How does my charity hurt anyone?! How does my fasting hurt anyone? How does my going for pilgrimage hurt anyone? And the most important, how does my believe in God hurt anyone?! This is my morality! You do have problems with it, and that is why you are here, criticizing my morality, nay, over 1.5 billion people’s morality!

tintingz:

Yes.

Your comments proves otherwise!

tintingz:

Mind knowing the life forms from earthquake after-effect?

New Plant Life
The MSI researchers already studied the effects of man-made intrusions on sandy beaches, such as sea walls and rocky revetments, before the earthquake hit, so they had benchmarked the condition of many beaches along the south central Chilean coast. After the devastating 2010 earthquake and tsunami, they decided to study these same beaches to measure the effects of the natural disaster. They surprisingly discovered new sand dunes dotted with plants where before no plants previously thrived.
https://sciencing .com/do-earthquakes-positively-affect-environment-8761480.html

tintingz:

Ok assuming New life form was discover from earthquake effect, so when earthquake show up again, what then will happen to the "life form"?

Another life form thrives!

tintingz:

Every life form is as a result of survival of the fittest a.k.a natural selection, natural disasters is chaotic to every living species.

I actually have empathy for animals but humans have to survive, we have to do everything to survive, even animals do same.

Meanwhile we have animal rights, who are against any form of abuse on animals.

Yeah I understand survival, but for what purpose and why?! Why do you think you need to survive when it is certain that you will die?! Why is your survival more important than that of the animals or plants?! I am not talking of animal rights, I am talking about why you considered something which is natural, and have its benefit for earth and other life forms a disaster, because it kills humans?! Are humans not supposed to die?!

tintingz:

Lol, people would only rejoice about Hitler's death not rejoice about the earthquake that killed 2 million innocent people and Children!

Hitler cannot live forever but earthquake will continue to occur as long as the Earth still stands.

You're talking as if Hitler can only be killed by earthquake.

You're not making sense.

I am sure my comparison was between an earthquake that killed a thousand and Hitler that killed 2 million innocent people and children.

If you knew this beforehand, would you not have realized a great service the earthquake had done for the world?! People die every day, we were never meant to live forever here on earth!

The sense in which you fail to grasp is the fact that, your knowledge about this life and the universe is limited, blaming God wouldn't change the way the world had been created to function, including people dying as a result of natural "disasters". They are natural disasters quite alright, but they serve a purpose! Even if it kills humans!

tintingz:

You are talk as if once you loose a job, another big job is waiting for you, there is no assurance to that.
When someone is dead in an earthquake, he/she is gone it's different to that of loosing a job which one still have hope.

Again, you miss the point of my analogy...Some people lose hope once they lose their jobs, some even commit suicide while some may become despondent perpetually depressed. Since you cannot wish away death, it is either your death would be a good thing for you, or a bad thing as the case maybe. As a Muslim, death is not final, and such death carries some benefits, so there is always something to look forward to, and your relatives have hope of meeting with you in the next life which is eternal...But since you do not believe in anything, death looks like a terrible and horrible end, there is nothing to look forward to, and there is no hope of ever seeing any of your loved ones again! Life would become meaningless! Then you look for who to blame for this hopeless and meaningless life you live!

tintingz:

Lmao, I'm good and I know I'm good because I make use of my empathy which is natural innate in me, that's sincerity.

But you are only good because a book told you so and dictate to you how to be good lol , you're good because you fear wrath of Allah, you fear going to hell forever, your goodness is base on fear not natural/empathy.

That I follow a standard set of moral conduct laid down by God doesn't mean I do not have empathy, after all, you agree it is natural, everyone has such ability or capacity to show empathy. Obviously, the opposite is also true! So if there are no consequences, if you can get away with anything you do, then why should you choose to care?! Is life not survival of the fittest?! Are you not to survive at all cost according as you have claimed above, and live your life any way you want?! So nothing stops you from being the opposite of good, for all I know, you may be telling lies that you are good, whereas, you are a cheat, and corrupt individual, after all, there are no consequences...If you are good, then you are good for your pocket, no one sure cares that you are good, so I ask again, as someone who once believed in God, and now doesn’t, why should God care that you are good?! Why should you expect any reward from God for being good?!

tintingz:
Lol, is destiny already decree or it's choose?

it is both!

tintingz:
Worshiping God is just meaningless, that's what you're driving at.

That is what you want to convince yourself to believe!

tintingz:

What evidence do you have that your God exist before every generation was born and will exist when every generation dies?

I need evidence not some empty talk!

The evidence you seek is right in your face! your existence, the existence of the universe and all within it...

tintingz:

Your God said the sun revolve the Earth, is that what science discover? Your God said beat and stone adulterers, your God said kill apostates, your God said kill homosexuals, your God said beat your wife, so tell me is this something moral or some ancient archaic babaric practice?

Your fairy anthropomorphic God have no say on whats moral, your God is the source of evil!

You should know my now that this your tactics of being unreasonable doesn't work for you, please address my posts accordingly, or we both agree you lack the faculty of reasoning!

tintingz:

Lmao!

I said there's a possibility of a first cause not your anthropomorphic imaginary being sitting on a throne in the sky, there's possibility of Aliens, there's possibility of other particles or energy causing the universe, all these are just assumptions, imaginations, predictions.

The universe can be infinite itself.

There's something called being agnostic on some things especially when we have no full knowledge of it.

We are both saying the same thing, while you are agnostic about what might have been the first cause, and also the nature of this first cause (this is where you should realize that giving characteristics based on your assumption of my God is a fallacy), there is that possibility of it being a God! So your disbelieve in God isn't absolute, hence, my continuous pricking that little remaining conscience, wherein lies this possibility!

tintingz:

No, I look like someone arguing from the knowledge of a book where donkeys can fly.

All you needed to have done was to prove your superior knowledge/argument about the cause of the universe, instead, like always, you bring nothing but mockery, abuse and a poor attempt at sarcasm!

tintingz:

Lmao! Is this now argument from authority?! Is this the fallacy you wanna play?

Your strawman get level.

What fallacy?! I bring evidences from based on my beliefs, you however bring nothing, because you believe in nothing!

tintingz:

Oga go through the thread and read the nonsensical your brothers were posting.

He made fun of the OP and posted those verses as counter to prove his point that Allah will purnish unbelievers(that reject Allah and Muhammad) both good and bad.

Well, that is irrelevant here.

tintingz:

Yahweh, Odin, Zeus, Olodumare, Ra, Brahma etc are not Allah.

If you paid attention to my post properly, you would have understood that I was informing you that I am not perturbed by other Gods because I believe there is only one God, and every culture and people believe in this supreme God, and call God by different names...I wasn't talking about gods that some people worship as a means to the Supreme GOD! You may go back to my posts if you think otherwise.

tintingz:

What then do you live for? Smacking your head on the ground daily?

I live for a purpose that is beyond my selfish desires, to worship God in the specific way he had directed me to, which also include all my activities here on earth, so that I will be the best I am made to be, and get the reward meant for me after I die!

But you live for the money and entertainment, shows your claim about having empathy is pure BS, it is even evident the way you respond to me, your empathy doesn't cover respecting other peoples beliefs?!

tintingz:

Lol, I can actually make my money by making Black panther clothes designs, shoes, accessories, having a community blog with adverts. Dude are you in stone age?

And that's the point, your God is imaginary and we're arguing about your imaginary anthropomorphic being somewhere in the sky.

Eyah, I know it will take some time, but I believe it would definitely sink in...

Now, you my friend are not into the business of entertainment, you do not have any of the things you listed above, you sure are certain that black panther does not exist, but you spend your days arguing about it, please do tell how this argument is very intelligent of you and profitable to you?!

So also, you should relate the above to the fact that you are not religious and you do not believe in God, yet you are arguing on a daily basis about this! Is this a reasonable thing to continuously engage your life in on almost a daily basis?! On the other hand, I am a Muslim, I believe in God, and hence have so many things to gain discussing God on a daily basis.

When the above sinks, you are free to change tactics!

tintingz:

Why can't an almighty God just wipe out Satan from existence instead of sending guidance? Is your God not all powerful?

Why can't your God foreknow Satan will rebel and cause evil to humanity? Is your God not all-knowing?

It seems you don't know what paradox is.

And "for a purpose" seems incomprehensible to you?! The paradox is only in your mind, you have closed your mind to all other reasonable explanation of your "why" except that which supports your choice of atheism, so no matter what I write, you will not reason!

God does what He wants and wills, because God is all-knowing and all-powerful! If you agree that the knowledge of the universe that is available to us is limited, then you can't in any way fault what I say God does, because you have little or no knowledge of even how this earth came to be habitable for man and for what purpose...

tintingz:

Morality should be objective because that's the only way we can harmonize as humans, if morality is subjective then Muslims killing apostates will be morally accepted by them, Islamic terrorists killing people is morally accepted by them because a book said so.

You want to harmonize human morality based on what?! And while you are always making mockery of religion and religious people, the most viable tool to harmonize people is religion! A believe in a superior being who would definitely punish you after death if you go against the standards of His morality is the only way, well except you want the science fiction option of putting a chip in the human brain!

As it stands, you have no say in faulting what anyone does, because you do not have any standards, and you believe the reality of morality is subjective!

tintingz:

Empathy is natural innate in humans even in animals they have empathy. Empathy evolve just like our intellects.

The society also control how you use your empathy, e.g Slavery is morally accepted in past because that's what the society understood about humanity, moral codes are changing from generations to generations because we're progressing in our empathy.

Many Islamic practice look archaic and babaric because muslims still believe in the archaic Arabia book.

So in this era when you kill someone, you're term evil and psychopath, because we're no longer in stone age or dark age.

I agree empathy is innate, and also believe that it is acquired from teaching and learning, and here brings to fore the need for reminders and guidance which is why God sent teachers and reminders in forms of Prophets, Messengers and Books! What other better understanding of empathy can you possibly bring compared to “None of you have faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself”?!

If empathy is still evolving, progressing and changing as you suggests, then reaching moral harmony would most likely be an impossible task!

Since I would be called a psychopath for killing you, because my empathy does not see it as bad, does it not mean that I am being judged by other people's subjective morality? Then why do you have issues with Muslim's sense of "subjective" morality pertaining to homosexuality, adultery, etc.?!

tintingz:

Lol, ofcos good and bad is not universal although we're progressing.

What I said is, the concept of good and bad is universal, e.g Nigeria has the concept of good and bad, Russia has the concept of good and bad, China has the concept of good and bad etc I've the concept of good and bad, you have also but the applications are what that's different, the applications of good and bad in Saudi is different to that of USA. That's why we still have conflicts of what is morality in the world, that's why objective morality is important but we're getting there.

As I opined above, so what then is your problem with my choice of morality?! And why do you think it is important the world needs objective morality?! How would you be certain of the objectivity of the morality and remove this application barrier?! Would such objective morality be in a book to be circulated across the world and taught in schools and colleges?! Would there be consequences/penalties if anyone go against these objective morality?! Or is it evolution that would magically imprint the updated empathy software and we all get it at once and work by it?!

While I hope you have the answers to my above queries, wouldn't a divine law that governs our day to day activities suffice and more reasonable, knowing fully well that if you default, your punishment isn't just here on earth, but also after death?!

tintingz:

Earthquake will always be natural disaster, that's just the fact.

So by your logic, children should be wipe out for what beneficiary again? You think earthquake is some kind of emotional entity?

Did you reason before you post this?

I was making examples out of Humans in general, that's why I didn't include other living species.

You claim to be open-minded, do you think other life forms matter?!

Earthquake isn't an emotional reaction of earth, but a reality of earth, and since it is natural, calling it a disaster is just a subjective appellation by humans, while other life forms that are now thriving, wouldn't care less of how many of you died, and judging from the harm humans cause (global warming, deforestation, extinction of animals, plants etc.), perhaps such other life that is now thriving after an earthquake would help the earth to regain it natural form!

Why do your empathy fail you when you kill other animals for food and clothing?!

tintingz:

So assuming earthquake killed Adolf Hitler we should rejoice? What about the innocent people and children killed by earthquake, are you making any sense at all?

So let's assume your relatives were killed in earthquake along Adolf Hitler, what's your say?

What about the 2 million innocent people and children who would have been saved by the death of Hitler in an earthquake?!

The sense I am making is that you do not have the knowledge to fault the activities of God who is all-knowing, because you do not and cannot see the full picture! It is like losing a job and you feel it is a disaster, but you became a multimillionaire being an entrepreneur! Wouldn't you be grateful for the job loss and consider it a good thing, even though it would have been a horrible experience?!

tintingz:

Your fairy anthropomorphic God morality is filled with babaric acts and absurdity, God creating evil and also purnishing his creation for his evil he created, your God will purnish good disbelievers in hell forever!

That God is immoral and shouldn't be worshiped, even Jainism have sense of morality than your fairy God.

Why are you being good?! If your being good is subjective, how can we prove that you are sincerely good?! And why should God care that you are good when you have rejected the existence of this same God?! Can you reject/abuse/make mockery of your parents and still seek their favours?!

tintingz:
You're just contradicting yourself, Allah has written everything down and again we have freewill, is there any logical sense in this?

To make it easier and straight forward.

Did Allah for example foreknow and decree(before I exist) I will be an atheist on June 7 2001?

I have answered this above, you should rather explain why you believe there is no logical sense in you having freewill to choose your destiny here on earth!

tintingz:
So before I exist or the moment I was born, Allah already knows and wrote down my actions and end, yes?

Can you explain this verses,

(Quran 57:22) No calamity befalls on the earth or in yourselves but is inscribed in the Book of Decrees (Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz), before We bring it into existence. Verily, that is easy for Allah.

(Quran 37:96) While it is Allah who created you and all your doings!

Hadith

Muslim (2653) narrated that ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas said:
I heard the Rasul of Allah (saw) say:
“Allah wrote down the decrees of creation fifty thousand years before He created the heavens and the earth.”

I had answered this question in the post you quoted, Yes, everything that you could possibly do and your end is already written, it is not difficult for God, but you are responsible for the specific choices you make! There is but limited things you can possibly do at a given point in time, you yourself write down things you want to do in the future, but you have the freedom to do or not to do them! Let me give an example to explain, a disaster happens, you were saved, but you lost some things, you can either dwell on what you lost and reject God, or you can be thankful to God for the life you still have! God had written the disaster and what you would lose and also, God had written all your possible responses, but it is definitely your responsibility to choose your response/reactions/actions out of the available options! No one is forcing you to do anything, heck! you chose to become an atheist, that is an action out of other possible actions available to everyone too in your circumstances but other chose differently, while you chose to be what you wanted! So what are you trying to prove?!

tintingz:
What does a self sufficient God wants to gain from worshiping him five times daily, stop dodging and shifting left and right.

If you don't have answers, then we will assume worshiping God is meaningless.

I gave you an example of the government, you pay tax, government functions, you withhold tax, and government becomes crippled! Is it the same with God?! Again! God has shown you that your worship is of no use to Him, and since you withdrew your worship has God stopped being God?! It only shows God doesn’t need your worship! And FYI, it is practically impossible for the whole world to deny God, so no matter how you wish God away, you will always fail! I specifically told you that you are the one to gain or lose!

tintingz:

Lol, if God exist we shouldn't be debating his existence just how we don't debate if the sun exist.

You shouldn't be God mouth piece if he exist, you're the one making God exist, God depends on you to exist.

You are the one that has rejected God and still not comfortable in your rejection and denial! Before you were born, before your generation was born, God exist, and my friend, after you are dead and the people of the world have forgotten you, God will continue to exist! There is absolutely nothing you can do about it! So, I am not the one debating if God exist, you are the one with the doubts, God had already spoken and had given you all what you need to believe, even within yourself, there are signs, hence my question, what authority do you have to demand how God should prove Himself to you when you do not have a say with regards to how the simplest form of life in your body functions! Think!

tintingz:

You just agree your God is not absolute moral.

Humans have the ability to determine what's wrong and right.

Sighs!

tintingz:

An absolute Good God is also the source of evil, that's paradox(self contradictions).

An all powerful God need to send guidance against evil he created, that's another paradox.

"Can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?"

Everything God created is for a purpose! God is not incapacitated by what He has created, there are no contradictions. You have a problem of mixing up issues, and introducing whatever you get from God knows where to describe God! You were once a Muslim na, write what about God the way He describes Himself in the Qur’an and not mixing things up! The funny thing is that you think you have a say in how the world should be, and I ask, what can you do about it?! Do you have another ideal world you are comparing ours to or have a better concept of what God should be and do based on what?! You claim God does not exist, apparently, you deny God based on your selfish ideas of what you want God to be and do! So who should know better, who should dictate how things should be? You or your Creator (God)?! The all-powerful God does not need your opinions on how to be God! You do not even have an idea!

tintingz:

Hope you know possibility means likelihood, chance which is built on assumptions, prediction, imaginations.

Your anthropomorphic God is imaginary, even Aliens. Nothing fact or certain about thier existence.

Lol, I know what I am saying, you believe there is a possibility, then your believe isn’t absolute, thus your believe in there being no God is also not absolute, except you want to change your beliefs to be only what you can see by yourself for which I had expressed the fallacy in such belief…So in your perpetual uncertainty, there is still that possibility of a God, but I assure you, at death, you will be certain!

tintingz:

The Quran has no right because it was written by an Arab man in an ancient desert in the middle east. You claim I have no right to have a say about the universe then the mythical book has no right also.

You're still arguing from ignorance, using God of the gaps.

I don't know how I came to be therefore Brahma created me or it is Odin or it is Prometheus.

And you are arguing from what knowledge?! The absurdity of your logic is just something else!

I simply asked you what authority do you have to demand something when in fact you are nothing?! This is no God of the gaps argument, I asked you, since you are portraying a form of knowledge which must have informed your choice, perhaps you did create yourself or you have control over the simplest form of life in your own body! At least we Muslims believe that the Qur’an is God’s words and all authority belongs to God! I ask again, what authority do you have?!

tintingz:

But the Quran said those who reject Allah will burn in hell forever.

Here's a honest counter response from your fellow Muslim brother in a thread.


https://www.nairaland.com/4614795/why-hell-fire-distributors-close#69362613

Wether the person is good and kind is not Allah's business, as long as they reject Allah, he will burn the good, kind disbelievers in hell forever.

What a God!

Sighs! I knew this is what you wanted all along, shows how close-minded you are, and it is such a pity you want to portray yourself as being reasonable! I gave you a proper response bringing into cognizance all what had been stated in the Qur’an, authentic traditions and explained by reputable Islamic scholars. There is a reason I am not quoting verses or hadith to you verbatim, because your brand of atheism closes your faculty of reason! The brother you quoted knows that you do not label someone a disbeliever indiscriminately or say an individual at random is going to hell to burn eternally without having established proof against such individual, and he sure knows that Allah (SWT) is Just, and would never do injustice to anyone, hence you will get what you deserve on judgment day!

tintingz:

Every Religion and cultures have thier Gods with thier stories and they believe it to be true. The story of Hindu supreme God Brahma is different to that of Yoruba supreme God Olodumare, Yahweh is different from Allah.

There's different substituting or replacing a language, nature of God and believing in the God.

E.g Yoruba Muslims replace the supreme diety Olorun as Allah in the Quran. Many don't even know Olorun is a polytheistic deity.

And so?

tintingz:

Because it fetch them money and it's entertaining.

Do you know the blockbuster and box office these characters are in the world?

Black Panther box office is $1.347 billion!

These characters have create communities in the world.

This is the height of ridiculousness! Yeah money and entertainment, that’s what you live for right?! Well, I’m not actually surprised!

But you are still missing the point here, those making the billions are in the business of entertainment, but you who aren’t, arguing endlessly on how black panther would beat super man in an imaginary battle is plain silly when you know for certain that both do not exist!

tintingz:

It doesn't take away your God is the source of evil, you're wasting your time and it's meaningless rebuking Satan.

Rebuke the source of Evil and you're good.

If God had not informed us of the evil that he created, and how we should seek refuge in Him against such evil, then you might have a minute point, but God had taken care of that, so you are pointless! This brings me back to your “paradox”, it is with God’s power and will that we overcome the challenges of evil. Again, everything created has a purpose!

tintingz:

SMH.

The concept of evil is universal, the concept of good and bad is universal, the applications surrounding them is subjective.

If your empathy doesn't see anything wrong killing me then you're evil and lack empathy, infact you will term a psychopath.

Morality is supposed to be objective but it's not in reality.

You would have to explain how this universality came to be, or how did you come to the conclusion that there is indeed a universal evil/good/bad?!

I see you have tried to rigmarole out of your empathy theory, but not so fast, how do I lack empathy?! Is it something I can acquire or it is inborn? Do I learn this empathy like learning about this universal evil/good/bad?!

Again, if morality in reality is not objective, then it means there is no such thing as a universal evil/good/bad! So making statements such as my God is a source of evil, is myopic, and poorly and badly thought out...

tintingz:

The earth may benefit from earthquake or may not either of the two the Earth has nothing to loose, nothing is taken away, it benefit can be minuscule(tiny). We're talking about humanity here, earthquake is chaotic to us, it can wipe out a community, it's called natural disaster(negative) for a reason. No one wish for earthquake to happen!

What if People, relatives and children killed in earthquake is positive in thier reality? Are you making sense at all?

Even if we assume it's positive in thier imaginative reality, how does that make it non-disasterous in nature?

Why is humanity important than other forms of life on earth?! Why are you bothered only about humanity, since humans are actually causing more damage to other lives and are threat to earth itself?! What if earthquake, which is natural, is a form of cleansing the earth of some of you so that other beneficial living things can thrive?! Or other life forms are insignificant to your universal evil/good/bad and empathy?!

We can’t know for certain what could have been the opposite if those killed by earthquake if they were left alive, if an earthquake had killed a thousand people including Adolf Hitler, would it still have been a negative thing after we now know that Adolf killed over 2 million people?! And it is also true that some of those killed by earthquake could have been a powerful source in changing millions of life for the better! What I am trying to let you know is that, you do not have the knowledge to claim, this and that is evil or negative, since you would never have the understanding and wisdom of all the possible outcomes of an event! Hence, God, in His infinite wisdom administers the affairs of the universe as He wants and deems proper, and God is the one that determines what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong, what is positive and what is negative, and God have placed that instinct in you to know to a certain degree, but again, your subjective selfish desires would always be there, it is when you can rise above such subjective selfishness and ego, that you become a better human with empathy not only for humans, but all other living and nonliving things on earth! And this is what Islam calls to!

tintingz:
Did God foreknow and predestined my actions and foreknows my end before I exist?

All the possible actions that you can take are known to Allah SWT as well as all the possible outcome, but it is up to you to choose your actions, which would eventually lead you to your destiny! But God being the Merciful, didn't leave you to just make random choices like a gambler, He SWT sent guidance as well as consequences for your actions so you wouldn't give excuses for making the wrong choices! So it is up to you!

tintingz:
You want me to prove what God would gain from worshiping him? Did you actually ask that?

You're the one worshiping God five times daily, freaking five times daily!, why not tell me what a self sufficient God what to gain in it? The burden is on you.

The government is not self sufficient that's why it depends on the citizens.

I have shown to you how insignificant you are, and further tried to enlighten you that you are the one gaining or losing as the case may be. And using you as an example, you and so many others have become disbelievers after they had believed, and still you ask what is God to gain? Have those like you from time immemorial who have disbelieved affected God?! If yes, how, if no, then you have no point! Simple!

tintingz:

You just claim your God sent guidance and prophets to make people believe he exist, if an almighty God exist why does he need people to be his mouth piece?

At least we read the fictions in the mythical books how God is displaying left and right when camera never exist.

And what's wrong for God to do what I want, to prove he exist.

Is that so much for God to do?

And is that the struggle?! That he sent guidance through messengers?! Lol, I guess you feel you deserve some form of special treatment and I ask why?! God has used the medium He wants to prove His existence to you, it is up to you to accept or deny, you have no say in how God should be God! Heck! You do not even have a say to how the cells in your body divides, so what are you really feeling like

tintingz:

This here agree with me your God is not absolute moral.

Read my post you have responded to properly and tell me what has what you typed here got to do with it!

tintingz:

I just disprove the existence of your perfect God by pointing out it paradox and you just agree with me above.

Did I want the world to end when I left your Religion.

Kindly enlighten me, where is the paradox, how did I agree?!

tintingz:

Your God is outside his creation because he's imaginary and only visit his creation in the mythical book.

Nah, you want to believe my God is imaginary, so you insist God must show Himself to you before you believe, but we both know that because we do not see something doesn't mean there is nothing, and still, you are coming short in proving my God is Imaginary since you yourself believe in the possibility of other life forms within our universe e.g. aliens...

tintingz:

Argument from ignorance!

What gives the Quran right to state how the world should be when it's filled with humans intellects? That's how you sound up there.

What are you even saying here.

Qur'an has all the right to state whatever, since we believe it is the word of God. But what right do you have?! What can you do about it?! Did you create yourself?! Can you even demand that your cells responsible for taking oxygen to rather take Nitrogen?! When you lack control of the basic unit of life, how then do you think you have any say to how the world should be?!

tintingz:

If a traditionalist is good, kind, give charity but reject your God, will God purnish him/her eternally?

Answer and stop dodging.

Lol, ask this question 1 million times, it is still the same answer, you want me to tell you he is going to burn in hell forever right?! But sorry to burst your bubble, my God is the Just, he would never do injustice to anyone, you shall reap what you sow! You will get what you deserve at the end of the day!

tintingz:


Yahweh, Brahma, Ra is God?

Hope you know these Gods are different from Allah.

Read and understand my post properly, every culture and people believe in a supreme being, they may call Him by any name in their languages, but that isn't a barrier for a Muslim!

tintingz:

We have seen intelligent people arguing about comic characters that doesn't exist, philosophers debating imaginary entities.

It's not that I come here all the time to argue, I have things doing for myself.

I didn't talk about being intelligent, I said being reasonable! What would be the essence debating about superman or naruto?!

Good you have things doing...

tintingz:

God is the source of evil, then he's not all good. I will bookmark this part for future reference. I wonder why you spent your days rebuking Satan.

Lol, there are purposes for everything created including evil/satan. You can focus on evil/satan and whine all day, or you can see the opportunities, overcoming evil/satan and becoming great and reaching eternal bliss...it is a half full/ half empty glass of water...

tintingz:

I know when something is immoral by using my empathy, while each societies define what should be moral and immoral. It's just subjective in reality.

As for your example, The earthquake is negative not because it killed my wife but because of the thousands people it will kill including children, it's chaotic in nature

And this empathy, where did you find it?! Do we all have it?! If it is subjective how then do you come to the conclusion that evil is negative and immoral? If my empathy doesn't see anything wrong in killing you, I'm I evil? Does your empathy works only for humans or also to other living things?! Why do you not find it evil to kill and eat other animals?!

If you just stated that the earthquake is negative based on your subjective reality, what if the subjective reality of those who were killed was that it was positive, then where does this leave your negativity?! Mind you, I just read earlier today that there happens to be environmental benefits of earthquakes! So, then what is really evil/negative and immoral?!

AlBaqir:


# We've discuss this before. Your problem is moving from tawil to tafwid to tawil. You dare not use the tafwid in all cases. It will kill your manhaj.


First, Shia don't tashbih of any of Allah's attributes with anything known or imagined.

Second, the verses where hands, face, etc are used with respect to Allah, if interpreted based on the knowledge of ayat muhkamat, that will never constitute to tashbih.

Quran is crystal clear, there is nothing like Him, in His attributes or essence, both of which is one.


# Hands, face, as used in the Quran are metaphor signifying something else. I remembered I gave you this verse once:



Surah Maidah verse 64 says:

"The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. ..."


* Why cant we use your tafwid and literal senses of the Salafis for this noble ayah? That is He says "Hands" that means He has hands, not even one but "many".

The hand in this ayah never mean literal hand; therefore, we cannot do tafwid here. It means being miser. And if the hand is stretched, it means generosity. The context of the ayah clarifies this interpretation.

So we ask you: why did your Imam do the Tawil (interpretation) of the ayah moving away from its literal meaning? Interestingly, here is one of Salafi literalist Imams.

Imam Ibn Kathir writes in his Tafsir:

'Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas commented on Allah's statement,

{The Jews say, "Allah's Hand is tied up."} "They do not mean that Allah's Hand is literally tied up. Rather, they mean that He is a miser and does not spend from what He has. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him.'' Similar was reported from Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Ad-Dahhak.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=759&Itemid=60


This is metaphor common in every world languages. Yoruba will say "O ha owó. O la owó." Meaning "he is a miser. He is generous". This meaning is contrary to the literal meaning. Without interpretation, you will fail to understand the true meaning.


# All your ulama with no exception did tawil (interpretation) to this ayah below deviating from their belief of tafwid (leaving the ayah as it is) or literalism.

Surah Al-Hadid, Verse 4:

.... وَهُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كُنتُمْ وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ
... and He is with you wherever you are, and Allah sees what you do."

Your manhaj insist that Allah in His Essence resides in the heaven or above the heavens (depending on how you interpret "fi" ). Your only evidence for this is the literal interpretation of an hadith that says "Allahu fi samai (Allah is in heaven)". This is your manhaj and that is what gave you the audacity to interpret the above ayah which clearly says "Allah is everywhere" rather than leaving it as it is so that it will be consistent with your "Allah is in heaven " manhaj. Your Ulama say it does not meant Allah in His Essence is everywhere rather it means "His knowledge" is everywhere. Why doing tawil which you accused us of doing?

# What you have done are:

1. Limiting Him

2. Separating His siffat from His Essence. That is tar'kib.

Brother AlBaqir, you have not answered my question, and none of the salaf did t'awil, the examples you gave are not examples of t'awil of Allah's names and attributes. For the record, the Salaf and what the majority of Muslims belief is to affirm for Allah SWT what He affirm for himself without tashbih or t'awil, except for where Allah SWT had cleared for Himself in His book or found in authentic narrations...anything after this is personal brain gymnastics to claim esoteric knowledge.

You had made mention that where Allah SWT says hand, eyes, etc. are metaphorical and I had presented a narration that negates this kind of metaphorical interpretations according to your Imam, and seek to know who you follow with regards this metaphorical interpinterpretation you do, and up till now, you haven't quote any of your Imams. It is not enough that you quote verses and claim XYZ, you have to back it up from those who you claim you follow!

tintingz:
Lmao, Sino... Even your fellow Muslim is confused about your God absurd actions.

The young man might be confused perhaps due to lack of proper information about what is destined and what is reward and purnishment for individual's actions here on earth!

Your destiny with regards to hell or paradise is as a result of your actions here on earth! As the saying goes, "as you lay your bed, so you shall lie on it". You can't be playing when you were supposed to be reading and when you fail, claim that it is your destiny! That is not what Islam preaches! Allah ( SWT ) says, everyone shall get whatsoever he strives for! So if you strive for hell you will get it, and if you strive for paradise, you will get it, and that is why there are challenges, difficulties, tests, whatever you want to call it, in the path of whatever you want! So again, it is your choice!

tintingz:
Someone command you to worship him five times daily and you said he doesn't need anything!

So God did all these for people to enjoy eternally, God is all-powerful, self sufficient, all good and all knowing, yet he's struggling to make people believe he exist.

God sent down guidance against evil he created?

"Can God create a stone so heavy he could not lift it?"

Why can't God just make everything right instead of the ridiculous things you just mention up there.

You see, if you cannot prove what God would gain from worshipping Him, then you have no point! And the easiest way for human intellect to know that an act is of benefit to another is to show the opposite result when such act is stopped! If we all stop paying taxes to government, the government would fail in its responsibilities.

And where do you see that God is struggling?! For one who claims God does not exist, you sure have so many weird information about this your "imaginary" God o.

What I see in your questions is that you want God to do what you want, and that my friend is the real absurdity and ridiculousness!

tintingz:

Your reason here is the same way chriatians, jews etc reason. The right-way-wrong-way argument. Conflicting and absurd!


I left the religion I was indoctrinated with, I have seen the ridiculous things believing in a fairy anthropomorphic being in the sky.

We're talking about your God threats and anger on his creation, if your God actually knows my end and everyones end, if your God is omini-benevolent (all good), if your God is absolute source of morality, if your God actually exist, such thing as hell, evil, purnishment, disbelievers shouldn't exist.

The Quran said Allah has written everything down in a book.

Again, what's the purpose of your God in all these, when he knows the right thing to do, even humans have sense of morality and reasoning than your God.

Please always try as much as possible to focus on my God and my religion, however, since it is obvious that there happens to be a dichotomy in our reality, good and bad, right and wrong, then it would only be foolhardy to deny this facts about our reality, and this dichotomy serves as the basis of all human endeavours including legislation within and amongst committee of nations.

Yes you left, and the world did not end, and you have not found any enlightenment whatsoever to disprove the existence of my God! Because when I tell you my God is outside of His creation, you have no answers, because you have little or no knowledge of what is even within the universe, talk more of what is outside!

Like I stated don't mix things up, My God is the Merciful and also He (SWT) is swift and severe in His purnishment. You and you alone is responsible for what you get, if you didn't create yourself, and still clueless about how the universe came into existence, then what gives you the right to demand how the world should be?! If you don't like the way it is, what options do you have?! Deny God?! Then what?! Does it change the facts of your reality?!

Since you believe you have more sense of morality than my God, why not change all these things you believe to be immoral?! You should state what you are doing, abi it is just to come online to say you do not believe in God anymore, and the world has become paradise?!

tintingz:

Oga, I'm talking about good, kind people but disbelieve in your God, will your God purnish them eternally?

Your case is also different in front of Yahweh, Odin, Ra, Ukulunkulu, Olorun, Brahma.

And what part of if they were not presented with the religion properly, and that they shall be rewarded according to their deeds do you fail to understand?! My God is the Just, and wouldn't do an atom of injustice to anyone.

What you keep failing to umderstand is that as a Muslim, I believe Yahweh is God, and all other names of calling God in other languages, there is only one God! So I'm not perturbed, because I worship only the one God!

tintingz:

I don't believe they exist does not mean I can't talk about thier absurdity (argumentum ad absurdum), don't try to excuse yourself out, good you agree God is also the source of evil.

Have I not answer that? Evil is negative things, immorality.

The bolded part, is like saying God do/does unreasonable things.

Your God is all-good, absolute source of morality, why or how then evil exist, if you claim it's freewill, why then God wants/allow evil to exist when he's absolute moral?

Yes I know you can argue anything, but hardly would you see a reasonable person arguing about what does not exist all the time, but it's your prerogative, just saying...

Of course God is the source of everything, including evil that exist, which you have defined to be negative things and immorality. How do you come to the conclusion that there are negative things and immoral things?! If for example sake, your wife, who was about to poison you due to her having an affair with another man, was killed in an earthquake, is the earthquake negative to you or immoral to your wife?

tintingz:
Wow!

Can't you read how absurd you sound?

Your God is claim to be self sufficient, he's almighty but he's very interested in his creation affairs that he even get angry. An almighty God who's so interested in humans living in a tiny dust in milky way galaxy?

So much for a self sufficient God.

It is quite simple, and you would have to prove beyond your complains here that my God needs you! What does my God wants from you to think you are special?! My God says worship me so you can live a fulfilled life and have endless bliss afterlife! He sends down guidance and prophets to guide, so that you wouldn't have excuses that you didn't know, but you have rejected all these, and that does not diminish my God even by anything!

tintingz:

You're contradicting yourself and making the creator looks unreasonable.

The creator knows our end and predestined it and yet he test us for what purpose? You know someone end and you're still testing the person with threats and hardship, does that make any sense? It's either you don't know someone's end or you know but test for no reason.

Actually your God is forcing his creation to do want he want with fear and threats. There are over billions of people not believing in your God and we have good people among them, your God will actually purnish good people for eternity.

Lol! You are a good example of the facts that I have posted, you were once a Muslim, you believed in Allah (SWT) and now you have decided not to believe in Him anymore, no one forced you, or is it not your choice?! Let me now shock you, I know your end too, and it is either good or bad, but your actions, your decisions, your choices would ultimately determine this, and this is up to you! You are shown the right way and the wrong way, and are told of the consequences and yet you want to run away from your responsibilities?! Na God force you to choose wrongly?!

My God does not purnish without evidence against an individual that deserves it, for a random individual who is good and didn't here properly about my God, such perosn would not be punished! My God is the Just on judgement day, every individual shall get what s/he deserves. But for you, I'm afraid, as they say, your case is different! You rejected after you had believed, so you shouldn't complain about the consequences of your action, but can only wish them away, yeah, as you say, "my God does not exist" well, time would definitely tell...

tintingz:

Your God already has a perfect place where evil doesn't exist which is paradise, he wants his creation in it but then he wants to test people when he knows all, when he can do the right thing. God is the primary source of evil, since he's the creator of all, he created Satan.

Evil is all negative things existing which is associated to Satan, which was created by your God who's all knowing.
God hate evil because he's omini-benevolent but then he made it(evil) exist.

It seems God is bored that he doesn't know what he's doing, he has no reason for he's doing or he knows but he's not all powerful as claim!

This is where the ominipotence paradox comes in.

I'm going to skip the satan part, obviously, just like my God, you do not believe he exist, but I'll agree with you on the fact that God is the creator of everything. But you have not answered my question, and I'll repeat, as an atheist, what is evil?!

FYI, God does whatever He wants or Wills, and so many times, you think (in your small mind) something is evil but there is good in it, and if you are willing to answer my question above, then we can explore this my statement further...

tintingz:
What does an almighty all-knowing creator wants to gain in testing his creation, What is so special in it when he already knows the end of everyone. If he's omini-benevolent why does he allow evil to exist?

The Almighty, The all-knowing Creator, who created the universe and all that is in it, that which you know and that which you are ignorant of, in your mind would the creator want to gain in testing His creation?! When you think about it properly, comparing the universe and yourself, then you should normally come to the conclusion that you are insignificant, and anything you do or will do, cannot possibly be required in activities of the divine...So, you are the one to ask yourself, what is to gain and what is to lose at the end of the day...

To your second question, same as the above, but with a twist, the creator made you intelligent, to make decisions for yourself. The creator knows the end of all, but gave you the chance and opportunity to make your choice! There are two ends for all, good or bad, so it is up to you, no one is forcing you not to do what you want, so do not complain when the creator does whatever he wants with you at the end of the day! It is as simple as that!

And the last, the evil in the world! So if there is no evil, you would believe?! Or would you find another reason not to believe? So what is evil? As an atheist, what do you believe is evil?!

AlBaqir:



Perhaps when you cite an authentic Shia traditions and the interpretations of shia scholars, I can take you serious. Better still, being an ayah from the glorious Quran - verses that talk about hands, face etc of Allah, and give us Shia ulama' s interpretation on it. Shia don't interpret literally what your manhaj interpret literally.

As per your usual posting of propaganda videos, am sorry it's not for people like me. Give me a well reference Shia authentic hadith with Shia ulama' s interpretation to support your point.



And please stop copypasting irrelevances in the bid to attack Shia. You should have grown up by now.

I had asked you once to bring evidences (authentic ones o) where any of the Imams said that we must do t'awil of Allah's (SWT) names and and attributes, up till now, you haven't, but you keep trying to rope us with the beliefs of your earlier predecessors, who the majority were mujasim!

Anyways, let us look at what is narrated from one of your Imams:

[We were told by Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Walid (rah), Muhammad bin Yahya al-`Attar said, Muhammad bin Ahmad said, Muhammad bin `Isa said, from Hisham bin Ibrahim, he al-`Abbasi, I told abu al-Hasan (as): May I be your ransom, some of your followers asked me to ask you something, he (as) who is he? I said: al-Hasan bin Sahl, he (as) said regarding what? I said: regarding Tawheed, he asks whether Allah is a body or not? He (as) replied: People have split to three groups: Affirming with Tashbeeh, denying and affirming without Tashbeeh. Affirming with Tashbeeh is impermissible, and denying is impermissible so the path is the third, to affirm without Tashbeeh.”] (Ibn Babaweyh al-Qummi narrated in his book “At-Tawhid” p 100-101)

So you cannot deny the verses from the Qur'an that says Allah (SWT) has hands, eyes, or authentic narrations that says Allah (SWT) descends, or we are going to see Him in paradise etc. rather, we affirm them and do not make tashbeeh! And this has always been our stand as Muslims!

So bring your evidences from the Imams that we are to deny these narrations, or we are to interpret them differently or just say you do not follow the Imams and let us know who you follow.

AlBaqir:


Therefore your Caliphs Umar and Uthman have gone against the Prophet as exposed in this hadith:

Imam Malik Ibn Anas in his al-Muwatta documents:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Humayd ibn Abd ar-Rahman that Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman ibn Affan would pray maghrib when they saw the night darkening, before they broke their fast, and that was during Ramadan .
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 18, Hadith 8 Arabic
reference : Book 18, Hadith 641
https://sunnah.com/malik/18


# Always try to read and comprehend before making comment on a thread.

Perhaps you inform us what time does maghrib prayers comes? When does it end? Are we not advised to pray in the earliest time? So what is the time difference between iftar after sunset and after maghrib prayer?!

If you can sincerely answer the above questions, then you would see that your conclusion with regards to the above hadith in relation to the one posted by pristinecreed is very wrong.

AlBaqir:



# Your excuse is "delaying to break fasting till after salat" is hardship as if 20, 30 or even 40 min for salat is 1 year. Hence, my submission of people who fast via longer day. It's a very simple submission.


Unfortunately Qur'an command fasting be break by "Night" not sunset. That alone is enough going by the direct definition of night in the Qur'an. It doesn't need twisting. And practical example of Umar and Uthman should be enough for you amidst other controversial ahadith.

Anyway, one fact is clear: it is no longer a "bad thing" as people view it due to ignorance that it is no sunnah to break fast after salat. In fact it is nearer to the truth than otherwise. Likewise it is not obligatory to break fasting after salat.

Okay Mr. AlBaqir, sunset is not night, it is day, according to you, I'm I wrong?

By the way, I believe you are in Iran, hope you do have access to Nigerian cuisines?

AlBaqir:


# So, in your view to break fasting after salat that is at night constitutes to hardship?!

Nigeria is blessed with a suitable weather condition. Day wise, we only experience maximum of 14 hours otherwise it is usually 12 hours. Region with longer days during Ramadan - between 17 -19 hours (London, Iran etc are good examples).

Temperature wise, during Ramadan is not up to 35 degree in the west and 42 degree in the north. Besides, temperature drops as day winds down. Have you witness region of 55 - 60 degrees during Ramadan? City of Basra, Iraq is a good example.

If people (who are capable) are fasting in such extreme conditions, why would breaking of fast after salat at Night in a more favorable weather constitute difficulty?

The areas you have mentioned with longer hours of fasting and harsher climate are the ones who should even hasten to break their fast. We fast because it is a command of Allah ( SWT ), it is not an easy task, not to mention fasting under harsh conditions. ..And as I stated in my post, it is a narration from the Prophet ( SAW ) to delay the sahur and hasten the iftar. We are in the month of Ramdan, our solawaat are rewarded in manifold, whether it is Ishai or Asr, the rewards are not predicated on being in the state of fasting.

My question to you is, when does night start? Is it after ishai? Where is it stated that we must break our fast after salat?!

Empiree:
@sino,

With respect to Nisai 64 and Maida 35, especially the former, do you have evidence from QUR'AN and sunnah that restricted the ayah to when nabi (p) was alive or Hadith that categorically shelves the ayah till Qiyamah?. I think that's opinion of some ulama not necessarily sahaba or nabi (saw). The ayah as far so am concerned is functional everyday till Qiyamah. Sheikh Rabiu Adebayo said something about it in his lecture how ulama of a country considered the practice of the ayah after nabi constitutes shirk. After they reached conclusion banning istighatha, Allah sent hurricane to shatter the country for their disobedience.

He said, "do you think you know better than Him who revealed the ayah?. Did he tell you it is invalid after Anobi is gone?".


This is important thing to think about. Now look at these attachments from Hanafi argument on the issue. They have point. Remember, you can only refute them properly by bringing evidence that restricted the ayah or shelves it.

First let's look at the preceding verses and subsequent verse of Nisai 64 to get some insight:

"And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger," you see the hypocrites turning away from you in aversion.

So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them because of what their hands have put forth and then they come to you swearing by Allah, "We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation."

Those are the ones of whom Allah knows what is in their hearts, so turn away from them but admonish them and speak to them a far-reaching word.

And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah . And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muhammad], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful.

But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission. (Q 4: 61-65)

Reading through the above verses, it is clear that Allah (SWT) was talking about hypocrites, this is corroborated by tafsir. Why this should be the proper understanding is the fact that we cannot find any of the companions using this verse to mean what you claim, are you saying they do not understand the verse?!

Secondly, the verse 65 states making the Prophet (SAW) a judge in their dispute, so the question is, should we also start taking our dispute to the grave of the Prophet (SAW)?! And how do we establish "and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission"?! This clearly restrict the verses to when the Prophet (SAW) was alive.

The Hanafi argument stems from the same narration already presented that is fabricated....

It is established from Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) with regards to waseelah as follows:


"Quotes below are taken from Shaykh Shams Af-Afghani’s “Juhud Ulema Hanafiyah”:

Al-Hasakafi said in “Durul Mukhtar”, Fasl fil Bay’: “And in “Tatar Khaniyah”…, from Abu Yusuf from Abu Hanifah: “One should not invoke Allah except with Himself, and the Du’a permitted in it and prescribed is what is taken from His Saying : “And for Allah are beautiful Names, invoke with them” (A’raf, 180), and this saying is Makruh (forbidden): “Bi Haqq of Your Prophets or Nabi or Awliya…”

Ibn Abideen As Shamee said in explanation of “except with Himself” : “Meaning with His essence (dhat), His attributes and His names”

So if it is not restriction of Tawassul to Allah’s essence, attributes and Names then what is it?

Allamah Rustami said about words of Abu Hanifah quoted above: “Know that in this saying (of Abu Hanifah) there is restriction to Tawassul of Tawassul Ismi in du’a to Names of Allah and His attributes. And the condition of these Muqalids is that they leave the saying of their Imam, and follow their desire without knowledge…and our Shaykh (Ar-Ribati) Al-Fadil Al-Allamah Al-Adeeb, gathering rational knowledge and that of texts, one of the senior Hanafi in refuting Quburiyah, has some important words in taking a proof from this saying of Imam Abu Hanifah, and he quoted sayings of Hanafi scholars cutting the backs of the Quburiyah…” (“Tibyan” p 182 of Rustami, see also “Kawakib Ad-Duriyah fi Tahqiq Al-Wasilah Ash-Shar’iyah” p 125 of Ar-Ribati Al Hanafi”

About the Ayah “Seek Wasilah to Him”, Hanafi scholars said in Tafsir “Seek Qurbah (proximity) of Allah with actions of obedience and leaving sins”

Abu Layth Samarqandi, one of the big Hanafi scholar said about this Ayah : “Meaning seek Qurbah (proximity) and nobility with good deeds”

Abu Su’ud Al ‘Imadi al-Hanafi said in its Tafsir : “It is Fa’eelatun with meaning what we do Tawassul with to Allah from actions of obedience and leaving sins”

Also An-Nasafi mentioned in “Madariku Tanzil” that Tawassul as been used to “What we do Tawassul with to Allah with actions of good and leaving sins”

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his companions, his household and those who follow them"

Source

AlBaqir:


# This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Albaqir faah

The fact remains that you and your copy-pasted reply have been corrected that those ahadith of Anas Ibn Malik meant sexual relation. And alhamdulillah that you now agreed that Anas might had made mistake going by his assumption. This is a way forward compare to your copied reply's stubbornness that the ahadith does not meant sexual relation that it was just mere visits.

Yes, in Sunni ilm rijal, the chain is correct. The fact is we did not submit our criticism based on the sanad rather it was based on the matn which is erroneous

# Yeah, I agreed with you that the wives of the Prophet were in a better by far position to report what transpire between them and their loving husband, not sahabah with conjectures among themselves.

Fi amanillah

In your desperation to reply with your preconceived parochial intentions, you never paid attention to the following which was part of the article I referenced:

"Further clarification:

One may refer to the narration from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, in which he related the same issue of Prophet, may Allah bless him, all his wives in a single with him being given the "strength of thirty men." One may say this implies the Prophet, may Allah bless him, used to have intercourse with all his wives. But how can the implied understanding of some other companion be taken in precedence over a direct authentic report from none other than the wife of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him? Who else would have been more knowledgeable of such intimate details of the Prophet's personal life?

Similarly even the word يَطُوفُ implies 'intercourse' when used in relation to a person going to his wife [or wives] it will not work here for an explicit authentic report from the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him, bars us."

For your information, there is nothing wrong with authenticity of the matn, it is a statement of a companion, it is harmless (except if you intend mischief) and they were humans, and it did not in any way depreciate the authenticity of Sahih Bukhari which you are trying too hard to discredit!

May Allah (SWT) Guide you!

AlBaqir:


Sahih Bukhari of today is nothing but fraud.

Yeah, this is your aim, to cast doubt in the narrations found in Sahih Bukhari, because let's face it, no book in the world of shi'ah can stand close to it. But unfortunately for you, you would have to call all the books containing the sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) as fraud, since narration in Sahih Bukhari can also be found in other books, even those earlier than it, so let's know where you stand! A hater of sunnah?!

AlBaqir:


# There's no escape from the word your website try to cast doubt on.

Fact 1: The exact word is also used in relation to Nabi Sulayman when Abu Huraira forged or copy-pasted Biblical stories that the later had se.xual intercour.se with 60, 80, and 100 women.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/60/96

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/35


Fact 2: In another hadith of Bukhari, "yaduru - he used to visit" was used as different from "tawafa"; when used in this context of those ahadith under discussion, it means nothing but " had se.x". Since, x-rated word could not be used, a more "relax word" usually used. Even Yoruba, it is courtesy to say, "mo ni ÀJOSEPÒ/ÌBÁSEPÒ pelu iyawo mi - I had relation with my wife". However, in the real sense, it means s.exual intercours.e and not mere relation.


This is why Anas was saying in the same (or another) hadith that your website decided not to reveal, " I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet (s) the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet (s) was given the strength of thirty (men)."
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/5/21


# We have explore the hadith in this thread revealing yet great errors in your daeef Bukhari with his inconsistent number of women Abu Hurairah lied Nabi Sulayman slept with:
www.nairaland.com/4169105/abu-huraira-biggest-fraud-sunni#62484561

The hadith in question was not from the mouth of the Prophet (SAW) himself, it is what was observed by a companion, who in all circumstances, cannot know what goes on behind closed door, except AlBaqir believes otherwise. Yes the narration is authentic, because the chain is authentic, it is attributed to the observation of a companion with regards to how the Prophet (SAW) moved from one room of his wife to another. Yes you can assume that it involves sexual relation, but that it what it is, an assumption!

As I had explained and brought another narration carrying the same information, the wife of the Prophet (SAW) who should be an authority with regards to what goes on behind the closed door of the Prophet (SAW) clarified the whole issue, and the companion was mistaken by his observation. The fact that the Prophet (SAW) go round his wives is established, while that of having sexual relation with them in one hour or one night has been obliterated! Only one seeking mischief would still hold on to the interpretation of sexual relations in regards to what really transpired between the Prophet (SAW) and his wives.

AlBaqir:
Rashduct4luv and sino

# This is not about copying and pasting o. There are serious argument submitted at the OP to show the present "sahih" Bukhari was not written by Imam Bukhari.

Try to be academic. Make a proper response/counter bit by bit to the OP. Your copy-paste address nothing so far.

Thanks.

We both know your aim, so no need for you to hide under "academic" response, and for your information, my quotes were academic, and it nullifies the doubts you intend to establish with regards to the content of Sahih Bukhari. If the contents of Sahih Bukhari can be found in other collections of even his predecessors like Imam Malik (ra), some of whom are his teachers, and the fact that what Bukhari did was to establishing authentic narrations, then, attacking and asking who wrote Sahih Bukhari becomes not only absurd, but ill-thought.

Anyway, here is another excerpt:

[b]There is no doubt that Imam Bukhari did pen his work al-Sahih with his own hand, however, he [also] recited it to a large number of his students who listened to it from him and copied it in its entirety. Thereafter, they checked it against Bukhari’s personal copy. This way their copies were in accordance with the original one of Bukhari. Afterwards, came another generation who listened to the book from the students of Bukhari and compared their copies to those of Bukhari’s students, and likewise [it happened through subsequent generations] until the book became widely known.[1] If, therefore, the original one written by Bukhari was lost it had no implications, because it had been transmitted among the generations of students of Bukhari and its copies had become widely published each with a chain of transmission back to Bukhari. Commentaries to it were written, and all the copies are, by the grace of Allah, in congruence. As to the minor differences in the wording, they are in a sense similar to the difference of recitals (qira’at) in Qur’an and are, in fact, a factor confirming the attribution for they establish numerous transmitted links that go back to Imam Bukhari[/b]

Accordingly, even if the reliance is made on a copy much later than that of Bukhari it confirmed to the manuscripts and editions prior to it except for minor marginal differences. See, therefore, how the differences, rare and marginal, increase the authenticity of copying rather than question it. Moreover, whereas the transmission of al-Firabri – a student of Bukhari – became popular, and copies of it were published, it was not because copying was exclusively based on his transmission. Sahih Bukhari was copied through other transmissions as well. This is al-Khattabi (319/931 – 388/998) saying in his commentary to Sahih Bukhari titled ‘Alam al-Hadith that he listened to major part of the book from Khalf b. Muhammad al-Khayyam on the authority of Ibrahim b. Ma’qal al-Nasafi (d. 295/907), a student of Bukhari who listened to the book from him.[2] It is a link other than that of al-Firabri. This is how it was with the early scholars. Among them the oral transmission and reporting of Sahih Bukhari through various links, other than the one popular today, was widespread. Their renderings of the Sahih are in line with the copy common today.

The internal consistence of the transmissions and copies of Sahih Bukhari despite remoteness of the regions, difference of times, and the number of links back to Imam Bukhari are best evidence for the mass narration of Sahih Bukhari and the reliability of its copied transmission. Thereafter, if one or more of the copies of it became popular among the scholars (as it happens with most of the academic works) it was not because it was the most authentic of the copies or because it included something that other copies did not rather this is simply how it naturally happens. It is similar to a situation wherein a contemporary author writes a book and multiple editions of it come out, however, decades later only one of the editions remains in print and the book becomes popular in that edition because it is the best or, let us say, the most critical of the editions whereas the other editions go out of print and are neglected. This does not mean that the subject matter of the in-vogue edition is different from other editions.

In short, Sahih Bukhari was relayed down from his author through mass transmission. It was not possible for any scribe to make any interpolation or alteration without it being known. Scholars of different schools of thought possessed copies of Sahih Bukhari and knew its content intimately. If any narration were interpolated it would have been known to them immediately through its variance with their own copies of it and their knowledge of narrators and the chains of narrators. Reflect, therefore, on this peculiar and crucial feature of our ummah’s intellectual tradition – the methodology of narration, scrutiny, and comparison of a later copy with the earlier one – the like of which is not found with other nations. This signifies that loss of Bukhari’s own copy makes no difference rather it goes with the natural order of things. It is indeed rare for a manuscript to outlive environmental, historical, military, and political changes and survive for over 1200 years!

Source: same as previous

After reading this above brilliant submission, do you now expect me to follow you in your usual twisting and turning of facts to suit your preconceived purpose?! Sorry bro, try harder next time!

AlBaqir:
And the following junks are classified Sahih?

Imam Bukhari in Kitab ghusl document the following:

Narrated Qatada:

Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet (s) used to visit all his wives in an hour ( السَّاعَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ), during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet (s) the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet (s) was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa`id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 268
In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 21
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 268
(deprecated numbering scheme)


Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet (s) used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 284
In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 36
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 282
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/5

NB: Observe how the prophet was portrayed with this insatiable desire for sex! Having sex with eleven women within an hour during the day and night, no taking of bath after the first one but approach the second with secretion...How can a man throw himself upon his wife without any pre-intimacy even animals do pre-intimacy. Why will the prophet disregard his own saying: "Do not approach your wife like an animal but instead do something that attract them and you". We can ask Anas b. Malik how he managed to report that?
Those are the impersonation of the holy Prophet in the infallible sahih Bukhari.

Prophet Muhammad visiting all his wives in one night?

Some of the Christians use the following tradition and yell obscenities against the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, saying that he had passion for women.

Narrated Anas: "The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives."
But as a matter of fact this is clearly wrong translation and the words within parenthesis do not find any place here.

Actual text of the Hadith and correct translation:

Now the Hadīth goes as;
أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَطُوفُ عَلَى نِسَائِهِ فِي اللَّيْلَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ وَلَهُ يَوْمَئِذٍ تِسْعُ نِسْوَةٍ

The word, يَطُوفُ like طواف i.e. circumambulating the Holy Ka’ba only refers to going around and has no other nuance whatsoever. So the correct translation of the Hadīth is:

Narrated Anas: The Prophet used to go round all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.” (Bukhari, Hadīth 275)

There is nothing special in the Hadīth. It infact shows that he cared for all his wives and went to see them.

The query probably rises from the famous translation of this Hadīth which is there in well known software. In that software it reads;

"The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives."

One can clearly see that the words ‘have sexual relations with’ are in parenthesis, that is to say these are not the direct meanings of the Arabic words but addition by the translator to help understand according to his understanding.

But I disagree with his understanding and thus believe that these words in the parentheses are not helping to understand better but are rather misleading. Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, did visit them all but its not that he had sexual relations with each of them.

Details of Prophet’s visits to his wives:

Urwa reported on the authority of his father:

‘Aisha said: "O my nephew, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bdid not prefer one of us to other in respect of his division of time of his staying with us. It was very rare that he did not visit any of us any day. He would come near each of his wives without having any intercourse with her until he reached the one who had her day (i.e. her turn) and passed his night with her...."

(Sunan Abū Dawūd Hadīth 2135. Albāni classified it as Hasan Sahih)

Besides Sunan Abu Dawud the narration is found in ,
Musnad Ahmad (No. 23621)
Baihaqi's Sunan Al-Kubra (No. 13434, 14754)
Mustadrak Al-Hakim (No. 2710)

It is found in Sunan Darqutni (No.3781) too with more explicit wording.

Imam Shaukani has taken the hadith on same account. He writes;

وَكَذَلِكَ يَجُوزُ لِلزَّوْجِ دُخُولُ بَيْتِ غَيْرِ صَاحِبَةِ النَّوْبَةِ وَالدُّنُوُّ مِنْهَا وَاللَّمْسُ إلَّا الْجِمَاعَ كَمَا فِي حَدِيثِ عَائِشَةَ الْمَذْكُورِ

"Similarly it is allowed for the husband to enter upon the wife [even if, it being] without her turn [to spend night with] and to come closer to her and touch her except the intercourse as in the Hadith of Aisha mentioned above." (Nayl al-Awtar 10/213)

It makes it clear beyond all doubt here that he visited all of them just to see them and dint have intercourse with each of them but only with the one whose turn was it that day.

Further clarification:

One may refer to the narration from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, in which he related the same issue of Prophet, may Allah bless him, all his wives in a single with him being given the "strength of thirty men." One may say this implies the Prophet, may Allah bless him, used to have intercourse with all his wives. But how can the implied understanding of some other companion be taken in precedence over a direct authentic report from none other than the wife of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him? Who else would have been more knowledgeable of such intimate details of the Prophet's personal life?

Similarly even the word يَطُوفُ implies 'intercourse' when used in relation to a person going to his wife [or wives] it will not work here for an explicit authentic report from the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him, bars us.

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

https://www.nairaland.com/3166814/agege-show-innaa-lillaahi-wa#47246154

Empiree:
Remember it is the same as saying ola alubarika anobi, ola inna ataina etc. These all refer back to Allah. So waseela in itself is mustahab whether through good deeds or not. Yoruba is a very rich language like Arabic. We have word or phrases that can not be perfectly worded in english or perfectly understood in english without being misunderstood. It makes perfect sense in yoruba language when we say Ola anobi, ola makkah mukarama, ola medinat mnawara, ola sura yasin, ola alubarika baba wa sheikh fulan etc. We understand this without exaggeration. But translation to english becomes problematic to some when we say for instance "through the glory of muhammad". Sounds ridiculous to some.

Again, i repeat, there is no waseela greater than using nabi (alaiy salatu wasalam). There are lots of hypocrisy in 'good deeds' today. The reason ulama use the prophet is by bringing together all his virtues: birth, mujiza, his life etc. We see in many ahadith used by some that some sahaba would seek blessing from nabi's belongings. Some drank from his blood seeking barakat etc. All these and more are what brought about using his personality. He did not have to say that. Matter of fact, when a sahaba drank his blood, it is said that those who drank from his blood (after hijama) would not be in fire of Hell. Unfortunately some disregard this type of ahadith. And also dont forget how Quran and sunnah emphasized "love of nabi". This is also pointing to his personality. In the process, some muslims show extreme love or 'bida love' but i dont really see anything that limits love anyways. Some people have no knowledge but upon hearing nabi's name, they can't help but bust in tears. This alone could win them Janna. Love of the prophet is beyond text. Love of the prophet is doing salatu ala nabi even while you are on top of your wife. It is allowed to use him for as long as we avoid two things: Calling him God or son of God. Anything aside these, no problem. This is what gave birth to solati like fatih etc.

The two bold seems to contradict each other. When you say "there is no waseela greater than using nabi (SAW)" you are invariably neglecting that it goes back to Allah (SWT). From my quote, the Imam stated in his opinion that, "and what is meant by "Jah" returns to attributes from attributes of Allah... so the meaning of the saying of the one who say: "Allah, I do Tawassul with status of Your Prophet (saw) that you fulfill my need" will be: "Allah, make Your love for him as a Wasilah in fulfilling my need". And there is no difference between this and your saying: "Allah, I do Tawassul with Your Mercy that you do this and that", as the meaning is also: "Allah make your Mercy as a Wasilah for me in this action"

If you understand the above, you would realize that the best form of tawasul is using the names and attributes of Allah (SWT) and your sincere good deeds and not using Nabi (SAW). And the reality is that, if you take ten Muslims (who practice this tawasul) and ask them to explain "ola anobi" I doubt if all ten would refer it back to the attribute of Allah (SWT), what would likely be said is what you have stated "all his virtues: birth, mujiza, his life etc." and therein is the Problem!

With regards to love of the Prophet (SAW), thank God you mentioned the Qur'an talked about this...

Allah (SWT) says in the Qur'an:

"Say (O Muhammad to mankind): 'If you (really) love Allaah, then follow me'"[so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." [Aal 'Imraan 3:31]

If we want to claim love, then following the Prophet (SAW) sincerely is the only way we can show this love, not going contrary to his legislation. Allah (SWT) clearly defines what love fundamentally means in the above verse, which is "to follow". The Prophet (SAW) went to the grave, taught us what to say there, warned us about worship therein, he (SAW) taught us du'a, and we cannot find this form of waseelah, nor did he command us to use him as such, so why would you want to do what he never did nor recommend?! Remember, this is an act of worship.

Abeg, doing asalatu while on your wife does not show love for the Prophet (SAW) (I kind of find it insulting), you (and I don't mean empiree) should rather perform the recommended dhikr, as well as pay attention to your wife and her needs during this period!

According to the author of the below excerpt, the question who wrote sahih bukhari "is such a naïve and absurd question which props up [in the guise of academics and research]." And I tend to agree.


"If we were to gather all the thousands of copies of Sahih Bukhari, whether manuscripts or printed ones, and put them all to fire and likewise delete whatever of it is available on the internet including what is quoted in the commentaries and books of fiqh etc. If we were to delete them all leaving no trace of Bukhari’s work; even if this were indeed to happen we would not lose anything we know of the sunnah of the Prophet (ﷺ) today because whatever is narrated in hadith reports of Sahih Bukhari is available and published in other books of hadith and fiqh as well.

[b]These are the facts that those who indulge in the superficial and sentimental speech asking as to where all these sayings of the Prophet (ﷺ) came up from are not aware of. Many great hadith scholars preceded Imam Bukhari whose multivolume tomes were sources of much of the Bukhari’s work. Some of these scholars were Bukhari’s teachers and some were the teachers of his teachers. If you were to carefully study the reports in Sahih Bukhari you would find them attested and narrated through the very chain of narrators with which they are found in books both prior and later to it. Among the books prior to it is Musnad of Bukhari’s teacher al-Humaidi (d. 219/834) which has reports that Bukhari included in his Sahih. Likewise there is Muwatta of Imam Malik (d. 179/795) most of whose reports with connected chains were narrated by Bukhari as well. And similarly there is Musannaf of Imam ‘Abdul Razzaq al-San’ani (d. 211/827) and Musnad of Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241/855) and others besides. The works of great hadith scholars who preceded Imam Bukhari greatly overlap with Sahih Bukhari. Moreover, if we take into account the works of the contemporaries of Imam Bukhari such as Imam Muslim (d. 261/875) and Ibn Khuzaima (d. 311/923) and those who came after him we would find the reports in Sahih Bukhari repeated and preserved in these works. Such works are not few rather there are scores of them. Therefore, even if all the copies of Sahih Bukhari – not just original one – were to disappear nothing from the authentic hadith reports would be lost. Our religion is not based only on the works of one individual or Sahih Bukhari alone though it certainly has a great stature due to its academic value and accordingly the scholars give it preference over other works. May Allah bless Imam Bukhari with great reward for his services to the ummah.[/b]
..........

As a starter it would suffice for the reader to get know of Muhammad Fu’ad ‘Abdul Baqi’s (d. 1388/1968) book Al-Lu’lu’ wa al-Marjan, Fima Ittafaqa ‘alaihi Ash-Shaikhan (wherein he collected hadith reported common between Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) in order to find out that Imam Muslim also narrated 1906 of the reports of Sahih Bukhari. How about going through other hadith works as well? Indeed the reader would find the authentic hadith reports of Sahih Bukhari have been adequately published in other books as well. In fact one would find that most of them have been reported through different chains of reporters which only adds to their authenticity. "

Source

I never paid much attention when this whole issue was on, It seems Sheikh Habib likes to be controversial, perhaps his research or sources of knowledge are tainted by the well known haters of the sunnah, even though I agree with some of his opinions, but on this, he goofed big time.

I would state here again, you do not take one hadith in isolation and make queer conclusions, and if you cannot go the extra mile to seek understanding of such narration, ask politely, instead of making outlandish claims.