• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Ashura thread - To commomerotate the great Imam Hussein (AS)

Dark Angel

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
He is a messianic figure type
But he was trying to take power by force so he deserved his fate
The Umayyad were great tolerant ruler who were married to Christians women is some cases
The Umayyad conquered North Africa Spain and reached India
I think the only person who is worthy of greatness and respect in the Shia community is Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib a great respected man and a man of letters not his Son Hussein who is a political failure
this is precisely why i have you on my ignore list, why on earth would you feel motivated to make such statements at a time where people, regardless of whether or not you share in their beliefs, are afflicted with the commemoration of a slaughtered figure they hold very dear, you cannot leave them to celebrate his memory in peace? what an a**. you have been flooding the forum with your bs for years upon years now. someone needs to draw the line for you.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    The moral lessons of Ashura:

    Ashura is one stance in a thousand ways.

    It is thirst.

    It is hunger.

    It is siege.

    It is sweat in the scorching desert plain of Karbala.

    It is blood.

    It is torture.

    It is decapitation.

    It is mutilation.

    It is imprisonment.

    It is arson.

    It is sacrifice.

    It is seeing your relatives and loved ones killed one after the other.

    Yet, in the face of all those atrocities and more, it is a deliberate, staunch and resounding NO to humiliation, tyranny and subjugation to forcefully get approval for the tyrant/oppressor and his tyranny/oppression.
    not to belittle the imam's sacrifice, here is the story of Captain Jean Naddaf, you may have heard of him

    قصة بطل غير كل الابطال
    لازم تقرأوها للاخر انه العقيد البطل ميلاد النداف

    في مثل هذه الأيام من العام ٢٠٠٠ وقع الضابط الجيش اللبناني ميلاد النداف في كمين لمجموعة “التكفير والهجرة” في منطقة “الضنية”. وُضع في غرفة مع مرافق له، وطُلب منه أن يترك المسيح ويشهد بحسب منطقهم ومعتقدهم، وإلا فإنهم، على رأس كل ساعة، سيقطعون طرفاً من أطراف جسده!!

    توسّل اليه مرافقه أن يشهد كما يريدون، ليتجنب شرّهم ويُخلّص نفسه من الذبح، خصوصاً أنه أبٌ لفتاتين هنّ في انتظاره ليلة العيد. لكنّ ميلاد رفض التخلي عن إيمانه رغم السيف المسلّط على رقبته!!
    بقي مرافقه يتوسل اليه أن يلبي شرطهم لينقذ حياته، ويعود سالماً الى منزله، مؤكداً له أنًّ لا أحد سيعلم بما جرى داخل تلك الغرفة السوداء.. لكنه بقي ثابتا على إيمانه بشجاعةٍ لا تُوصف.
    على رأس كل ساعة، يُفتح الباب ويكرّر السّؤال، وميلاد، كما ملايين الشهداء الابرار منذ أولهم إسطفانوس حتى آخر شهيد يلفظ أنفاسه اليوم فداءً لإيمانه، يرفض ويرفض ويرفض.. وهم يتفنّنون بتعذيبه وتقطيع أطرافه.. ومرافقه يتوسله أن يشهد كما يطلبون، وهو على موقفه الرافض، حتى أتت الساعة وانضم الى جمهور الشهداء الذين غسلوا حللهم بدم الحمل.
    بعد عشر سنوات نطق مرافقه، الذي نجى لأنه ليس من دين ميلاد، بما شاهد، من بربرية لمن يدّعي الدين، ومن بطولة وشجاعة لا توصف لمن يعيش حسب إيمانه..قائلاً: كم أنا جبان وكم أنت بطل يا ميلاد!!! - نقلا عن صفحة المغوار الشهيد كلاس كلاس​

    such martyrdom is not new to us, we live it day in and day out. people of faith set themselves apart by recognizing that what they believe in can never be denounced even at the expense of their own life. we respect the imam's sacrifice and we respect his commemoration, as the imam's character will remain a source of inspiration and courage for many, in particular because the murderers and the slaughterers seem to always outnumber those who embrace the path of dignity and honor.
     
    Chanklish

    Chanklish

    Well-Known Member
    dude lost a war .. let's consider him a super sacrificing close to god creature
     
    eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    What/what/what/what are you talking/talking/taking about??? :lol:/:happy:/:)
    what was there deserving of ridicule? i was wondering about what compels people like @Rachel Corrie to force an interpretation on a text (Jesus in the Bible) that clearly doesn't validly support it, and the psychological mechanism behind this behavior

    don't you find it interesting that the interpretation he's trying to force turns out to fit effortlessly on Allah and the way Allah establishes and spreads his message in and according to his direct, fully revealed and ultimate will, according to the shia sect? ; by way of force and victorious wars (via mohammad), and later on by way of deliberate military defeat till death (hussein), by a kind of self-sacrifice if you will. which of the two is Allah's ultimate will, if we assume it is not contradictory? did Allah attempt a change-of-strategy in the same direct, fully revealed and ultimate will of his? or was his strategy not fully, directly and ultimately revealed in the quran/muhammad?

    obviously, @Rachel Corrie isn't stupid enough to not have noticed that, but as a response, instead of thinking and reflecting upon it, he sought out to 'point away from it' (in vain)
     
    Last edited:
    eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    A.) Jesus, sensing danger, said "buy swords".
    B.) When the danger presents itself, Jesus said "don't use your swords".

    That is change of strategy.

    Earlier before, he placed his disciples on guard at Gethsemane while he was praying and sweating profusely, asking God to save his life.

    As for the spread of Christianity, you cannot fight or make a war when you stand no chance against the opponents. Christianity was adopted by the power of the day. However, the mainstream version used brutal force to persecute smaller sects and ensure that uniform doctrines were embraced by all early Christians within its jurisdiction.
    Jesus may not have condemned the legitimate use of swords in self-defense in principle (He's certainly not the hippie pacifist type ignorants like to make of him), but self-defense (or the actual use of the swords) wasn't the purpose of His telling His disciples to get swords in that passage, for the actual purpose was revealed in the following verses which you deliberately and conveniently left out, where Jesus is telling in Luke 22:37 - It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment, and which is further supported by His being content with only two swords being in their possession in Luke 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied, and His rebuking Peter moments later for actually making use of them by cutting the ear of one of the guards when the latter arrived at the scene to arrest Him (and there's no mention of roman soldiers being present there fyi, only Jewish zealots and Jewish temple guards. you even got that wrong) as well as His attaching back the guard's ear that Peter had cut off with the sword, in Luke 22:49 - When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. And unlike your weird narrative, all of that sits in harmony with the entirety of the NT (everything that Jesus has said and done), and with those who have transmitted, written, applied and spread the NT, and their followers of at least the first three centuries. moreover, Christianity has exponentially taken roots and grown in numbers under and through non-resisted persecution; this means Christianity was already being itself or was already being fulfilled by being persecuted. this only further corroborates the fact that the way of wars and violence for establishing and spreading a proclaimed truth or one's message is non-Christian (or not essential to it), indeed it regularly goes contrary to it

    so there's nothing in there to support your bizarre narrative that Jesus originally wanted to fight his way through by force and that he couldn't accomplish that or failed at it
     
    Last edited:
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    what was there deserving of ridicule? i was wondering about what compels people like @Rachel Corrie to force an interpretation on a text (Jesus in the Bible) that clearly doesn't validly support it, and the psychological mechanism behind this behavior

    don't you find it interesting that the interpretation he's trying to force turns out to fit effortlessly on Allah and the way Allah establishes and spreads his message in and according to his direct, fully revealed and ultimate will, according to the shia sect? ; by way of force and victorious wars (via mohammad), and later on by way of deliberate military defeat till death (hussein), by a kind of self-sacrifice if you will. which of the two is Allah's ultimate will, if we assume it is not contradictory? did Allah attempt a change-of-strategy in the same direct, fully revealed and ultimate will of his? or was his strategy not fully, directly and ultimately revealed in the quran/muhammad?

    obviously, @Rachel Corrie isn't stupid enough to not have noticed that, but as a response, instead of thinking and reflecting upon it, he sought out to 'point away from it' (in vain)
    Sorry man. I really didn't mean to ridicule, and honestly I am sorry, please accept my apology. (not sarcastic)

    Can I just give you a brotherly advice for real? Just stop using the "/" thing that you do in your posts. It's odd and does not help. Try a different approach if you want to convey more nuance.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Jesus may not have condemned the legitimate use of swords in self-defense in principle (He's certainly not the hippie pacifist type ignorants like to make of him), but self-defense (or the actual use of the swords) wasn't the purpose of His telling His disciples to get swords in that passage, for the actual purpose was revealed in the following verses which you deliberately and conveniently left out, where Jesus is telling in Luke 22:37 - It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment, and which is further supported by His being content with only two swords being in their possession in Luke 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied, and His rebuking Peter moments later for actually making use of them by cutting the ear of one of the guards when the latter arrived at the scene to arrest Him (and there's no mention of roman soldiers being present there fyi, only Jewish zealots and Jewish temple guards. you even got that wrong) as well as His attaching back the guard's ear that Peter had cut off with the sword, in Luke 22:49 - When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. And unlike your weird narrative, all of that sits in harmony with the entirety of the NT (everything that Jesus has said and done), and with those who have transmitted, written, applied and spread the NT, and their followers of at least the first three centuries. moreover, Christianity has exponentially taken roots and grown in numbers under and through non-resisted persecution; this means Christianity was already being itself or was already being fulfilled by being persecuted. this only further corroborates the fact that the way of wars and violence for establishing and spreading a proclaimed truth or one's message is non-Christian (or not essential to it), indeed it regularly goes contrary to it

    so there's nothing in there to support your bizarre narrative that Jesus originally wanted to fight his way through by force and that he couldn't accomplish that or failed at it
    It is thus mentioned in John 18:3 that Judas led a band of soldiers during the arrest of Jesus:

    "So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons".

    So when people fulfill prophecies about buying swords, they buy swords to slaughter chickens? Do they use swords as kitchen knives in the past?
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It is thus mentioned in John 18:3 that Judas led a band of soldiers during the arrest of Jesus:

    "So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons".

    So when people fulfill prophecies about buying swords, they buy swords to slaughter chickens? Do they use swords as kitchen knives in the past?
    Mishi 2oddamon bro. That's what "guiding" means.
     
    eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    It is thus mentioned in John 18:3 that Judas led a band of soldiers during the arrest of Jesus:

    "So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons".

    So when people fulfill prophecies about buying swords, they buy swords to slaughter chickens? Do they use swords as kitchen knives in the past?
    no, people don't usually buy swords to slaughter chickens, nor do they use swords as kitchen knives. people usually use swords for self-defense or offense, neither of which was the case here. it was a case of a fulfillment of a particular prophecy. and it is not a fulfillment of a prophecy of 'buying swords', the prophecy in question is that he will be 'numbered among the transgressors'. and 'being numbered among the transgressors' doesn't necessarily mean he actually is a transgressor (or that he will have to be one). in context, it actually means 'although he is not a transgressor, he will be numbered among the transgressors'. and happening to have two swords in procession is sufficient for this particular prophecy to be fulfilled without the need to actually make use of any of these swords. this is corroborated by - what you are actually conveniently and deliberately ignoring - the very passage you quoted the verse from, the entire NT, and those who wrote, transmitted and applied the NT and grew in numbers while doing so for at least the first three centuries (Christianity is fully and naturally itself by not -militarily- resisting and confronting the enemy). what better way is there to end this than by adding the ending quote of the very passage you 'quote-mined'? (after healing the guard's ear that Peter had disobediently cut off with the sword), Luke 22:52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour — when darkness reigns.

    the argument really boils down to this: is the narrative - Jesus wanted at any point to militarily confront those who were opposing him - supported by the relevant data at hand? or is it that in the process of making and holding on to that narrative one will have to unwarrantedly ignore parts of the relevant data (read: all of it in your case)?

    now, in my defense of apparently making a rather irrelevant minor mistake; the mention of 'roman soldiers being among the armed Jewish crowd that came to arrest Jesus' does indeed occur in John, but is omitted in the other three gospels, probably due to those soldiers' presence being of a relatively low nature in that scene (still a far cry from the way you were trying to portray it). however, the thing is that whether or not there were roman soldiers, it is absolutely of no relevance in terms of validating the bizarre narrative you're forwarding. you will have to support the claim which you're basing the narrative on, namely, that Jesus wanted to make a military confrontation - at all - or - at any point - to begin with (whether against the Romans or the Jews, is of no relevance at this point. hence my seeing no need to double check for the existence of roman soldiers at the scene). to reduce your reply to the question of whether or not roman soldiers were present at the scene is to simply evade the charge and clutch at straws
     
    Last edited:
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    no, people don't usually buy swords to slaughter chickens, nor do they use swords as kitchen knives. people usually use swords for self-defense or offense, neither of which was the case here. it was a case of a fulfillment of a particular prophecy. and it is not a fulfillment of a prophecy of 'buying swords', the prophecy in question is that he will be 'numbered among the transgressors'. and 'being numbered among the transgressors' doesn't necessarily mean he actually is a transgressor (or that he will have to be one). in context, it actually means 'although he is not a transgressor, he will be numbered among the transgressors'. and happening to have two swords in procession is sufficient for this particular prophecy to be fulfilled without the need to actually make use of any of these swords. this is corroborated by - what you are actually conveniently and deliberately ignoring - the very passage you quoted the verse from, the entire NT, and those who wrote, transmitted and applied the NT and grew in numbers while doing so for at least the first three centuries (Christianity is fully and naturally itself by not -militarily- resisting and confronting the enemy). what better way is there to end this than by adding the ending quote of the very passage you 'quote-mined'? (after healing the guard's ear that Peter had disobediently cut off with the sword), Luke 22:52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour — when darkness reigns.

    the argument really boils down to this: is the narrative - Jesus wanted at any point to militarily confront those who were opposing him - supported by the relevant data at hand? or is it that in the process of making and holding on to that narrative one will have to unwarrantedly ignore parts of the relevant data (read: all of it in your case)?

    now, in my defense of apparently making a rather irrelevant minor mistake; the mention of 'roman soldiers being among the armed Jewish crowd that came to arrest Jesus' does indeed occur in John, but is omitted in the other three gospels, probably due to those soldiers' presence being of a relatively low nature in that scene (still a far cry from the way you were trying to portray it). however, the thing is that whether or not there were roman soldiers, it is absolutely of no relevance in terms of validating the bizarre narrative you're forwarding. you will have to support the claim which you're basing the narrative on, namely, that Jesus wanted to make a military confrontation - at all - or - at any point - to begin with (whether against the Romans or the Jews, is of no relevance at this point. hence my seeing no need to double check for the existence of roman soldiers at the scene). to reduce your reply to the question of whether or not roman soldiers were present at the scene is to simply evade the charge and clutch at straws
    I think replying with a word - "OK" - would suffice for a reply to your blabbing. But I'd touch on two points only, that you're trying to dodge, after denying a fact in your earlier post.

    "Military confrontation" is indeed a far cry to what Jesus could have staged in defense. He neither had the followers nor the means. Rather, use the word "violent confrontation". That is more suitable to use because of his limited means and followers ready to defend him. In line with his limited means, and his will to buy swords for his few followers, and then asking his followers to keep their swords when he was to be arrested speaks of a strategy change. And a violent confrontation would have been more suited if those he is fighting are a bunch of Jewish zealots, but certainly not Roman soldiers. The fact of the presence of Roman soldiers mentioned in John changes the entire narrative. The Jewish elite made sure he was totally subdued and couldn't have resisted in anyway. Removing that detail of the presence of Roman soldiers and the Jews coming to arrest him sends the idea of a submissive Jesus who didn't resist at all, even though he could have resisted ordinary Jewish men of no state authority. However, even if he wanted to resist arrest and use force to defend himself, the presence of Roman soldiers or state authority would make it a crime to employ force and make him face the wrath of Rome. He would have made himself guilty with his own hands if he had resisted Roman soldiers.

    Additionally, fulfilling prophecies is just more than a symbolic gesture. Swords are not bought to be used as kitchen knives. They're bought for a purpose. In the case of Jesus, that purpose could not have been realized because of the twist of events. Too little means and followers and the enemies were much strong and had state sanction. The enemies had the wisdom and foresight to bring along state authority and make it an official arrest.

    Please also explain or clarify how does buying swords for self defense lead one to be "numbered among the transgressors"? Is self defense transgression?
     
    Last edited:
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    no, people don't usually buy swords to slaughter chickens, nor do they use swords as kitchen knives. people usually use swords for self-defense or offense, neither of which was the case here. it was a case of a fulfillment of a particular prophecy. and it is not a fulfillment of a prophecy of 'buying swords', the prophecy in question is that he will be 'numbered among the transgressors'. and 'being numbered among the transgressors' doesn't necessarily mean he actually is a transgressor (or that he will have to be one). in context, it actually means 'although he is not a transgressor, he will be numbered among the transgressors'. and happening to have two swords in procession is sufficient for this particular prophecy to be fulfilled without the need to actually make use of any of these swords. this is corroborated by - what you are actually conveniently and deliberately ignoring - the very passage you quoted the verse from, the entire NT, and those who wrote, transmitted and applied the NT and grew in numbers while doing so for at least the first three centuries (Christianity is fully and naturally itself by not -militarily- resisting and confronting the enemy). what better way is there to end this than by adding the ending quote of the very passage you 'quote-mined'? (after healing the guard's ear that Peter had disobediently cut off with the sword), Luke 22:52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour — when darkness reigns.

    the argument really boils down to this: is the narrative - Jesus wanted at any point to militarily confront those who were opposing him - supported by the relevant data at hand? or is it that in the process of making and holding on to that narrative one will have to unwarrantedly ignore parts of the relevant data (read: all of it in your case)?

    now, in my defense of apparently making a rather irrelevant minor mistake; the mention of 'roman soldiers being among the armed Jewish crowd that came to arrest Jesus' does indeed occur in John, but is omitted in the other three gospels, probably due to those soldiers' presence being of a relatively low nature in that scene (still a far cry from the way you were trying to portray it). however, the thing is that whether or not there were roman soldiers, it is absolutely of no relevance in terms of validating the bizarre narrative you're forwarding. you will have to support the claim which you're basing the narrative on, namely, that Jesus wanted to make a military confrontation - at all - or - at any point - to begin with (whether against the Romans or the Jews, is of no relevance at this point. hence my seeing no need to double check for the existence of roman soldiers at the scene). to reduce your reply to the question of whether or not roman soldiers were present at the scene is to simply evade the charge and clutch at straws
    This is really cool eile. I am not familiar with all of these topics etc. but what you wrote is much easier to read than before. Thank you!
     
    vicking

    vicking

    Well-Known Member
    We, in Christianity, we don't kill to go to Heaven, and Jesus our Lord offered himself as a sacrifice for humanity
    We are all Humans and we have NO ENEMIES else than the bad that lives in us


    This is your ONLY way to Heaven
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    We, in Christianity, we don't kill to go to Heaven, and Jesus our Lord offered himself as a sacrifice for humanity
    We are all Humans and we have NO ENEMIES else than the bad that lives in us


    This is your ONLY way to Heaven
    Technically you can kill, repent and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and then you go to heaven.
     
    vicking

    vicking

    Well-Known Member
    Technically you can kill, repent and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and then you go to heaven.
    True but not if thisis planned.
    I pitty all these people who believes that God would welcome them after killing other brothers. Jesus is the only way to Heaven, sorry for the ones who are missing it
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    True but not if thisis planned.
    I pitty all these people who believes that God would welcome them after killing other brothers. Jesus is the only way to Heaven, sorry for the ones who are missing it
    I, as a Muslim, accept Jesus is the only way to heaven. Only that that way doesn't include worshipping a man, deifying him and turning him into a lamb and believing in human sacrifice or any man made doctrines designed and adopted by early Christian Bishops in councils over the centuries.
     
    vicking

    vicking

    Well-Known Member
    I, as a Muslim, accept Jesus is the only way to heaven. Only that that way doesn't include worshipping a man, deifying him and turning him into a lamb and believing in human sacrifice or any man made doctrines designed and adopted by early Christian Bishops in councils over the centuries.
    Jesus was God on Earth but actually in the body of a Man
    Jesus teaches sacrifice, forgiveness and humility. Wars may make you stronger on Earth but will bring your end in the after world. You cant believe in Jesus and act opposite to his teachings. The New Testament is the way
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Jesus was God on Earth but actually in the body of a Man
    Jesus teaches sacrifice, forgiveness and humility. Wars may make you stronger on Earth but will bring your end in the after world. You cant believe in Jesus and act opposite to his teachings. The New Testament is the way
    God on earth in a man's body born of a woman who conceived for nine months; was circumcised; prayed to another God somewhere else; and then died and was brought back to life by another power.

    And we'd end up going to discussing the Trinity and how it came to be and the council that adopted it as a doctrine. I think I'm tired of going through this. Have a nice day.
     
    Top