@tintingz

I would like you to think about the reason behind evolution of humans and the society they build. I am not in anyway swayed by data presented from animals and insects, there is a reason behind us being higher animals and them lower animals. When we start equating animal behaviour with humans, then it really shows the level those who do not want to accept divine guidelines are ready to sink! If science say we are all animals, science also say we are more developed in all aspects, thus why we pride ourselves as higher animals, it is then counterintuitive to decide to accept animalistic behaviours as also normal for humans without recourse to understand why, and how it is beneficial to humans. Facts are, humans rarely practice polyandry, our biology also does not support it, not to mention the social aspect of this issue, in terms of building relationships and the society. I am afraid with such premise of yours, humans would retrograde into walking naked on the streets and mating in public! what am I even saying, it is already happening...

I understand where you are coming from, and the argument behind those who propose this polyandrous nature of women are solely based on sexual gratification, and perhaps economic benefits. They also go against the idea of men being naturally selected to be dominant, and thus propose that previous researches, theories and hypotheses on evolution are flawed, and somewhat sexist.

So if there happens to be no scientific or evolutionary backing for polyandry in human females, other than it is just in their "nature" to seek multiple male partners, then, of what use is our intellect and our claim to superiority over lower animals?!

With respect to science and evolution, I have not been able to read any facts on the benefit of polyandry to humans, all what I have found are assumptions, suggestions and hypotheses...If the early humans were wise enough not to practice it, except for few and even carried out secretly, then I wonder why now it is widespread as you have stated. Even in the cultures that practice polyandry, they are majorly fraternal, brothers marrying just one female, perhaps as you like to put it, mating with one female, well that is something isn't it?!

If the present decadence in the society where women can just go have a one night stand, or practicing prostitution is what you want to give credence to by saying women are naturally seeking multiple sex partners, or the cases of infidelity in some marriages, then i'm sorry, that is very wrong!

Let me give another example, cannibalism is in nature, some animals and other classes of specie are cannibals, interestingly, there are some cultures that practice cannibalism even till today, and some anthropologist have also proposed that our ancestors may have been cannibals, so can we say cannibalism is natural to humans?! Therefore we should accept it as normal and allow people to go ahead with it in our society?!

@tintingz Just to make you realize I am not the only one saying this,

“Some anthropologists have suggested that polyandry is so unusual among human beings as to be “unnatural” (Stephens 1963, 34). In the few cases where it does occur, polyandry is fraternal: a wife of one brother becomes the wife of all, even brothers born after the wedding. This fraternal arrangement moderates the jealousy of the males and ensures that the offspring are related to them."

Source: Larry Amhart, “Darwininan Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature” pp. 264. Can be found on google books.

tintingz:
My brother in science discussion is here.

Lol, you accept women can seek for multiple partners but you still say it goes against their nature.

Kindly tell me what to call a woman that seek for multiple male partner and a man that seek for multiple female partner?

I didn't make that up, it was clearly stated that polyandry goes against aspects of human biology! Please take note we are discussing humans, the higher and more intelligent specie on planet earth.

Yes we say the females are polyandrous, I do not go against the definition, I am only arguing with facts that it goes against human nature....

tintingz:

I don't know if you're the one confusing yourself or the writer.

Here is what another report said:
Furthermore, polyandry occurred in 89% of populations, providing the first demonstration that polyandry is both ubiquitous and common in nature.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534714000883#fig0005

There is no where the writer in your link your posted concluded women are not polyandrous.

The writer is shifting from one angle to another.

He started his article with this:

Although polygyny is evident in our bodies and behavior, polyandry is also “us.” ironically, we are both polygynous and polyandrous.

From my argument, I also mention men and women being both monogamous and polygamous.

Here again:

and yet women, like men, are also prone to having multiple sexual partners.

What do we call this?^

Here again:

Another way of looking at it: patriarchy pushes polyandry underground, but does not eliminate it.

I've also said this that male dominant created culture and made polyandry not common because it does not benefit them.

Here again:

In other words, women follow a two-part reproductive strategy consistent with an evolutionary history of polyandry: mate, when possible, with partners carrying those good genes, but associate socially with those offering the prospect of being good collaborators and co-caretakers of children.

A scientist or psychologist will never say women are not polyandrous in nature.

All what i pointed out are from same link you quoted.

First and foremost, you should learn to distinguish between facts and opinions supported by proposed theories and hypotheses…

Secondly, I am not confused, nor the author; I never said the author was proving that polyandry isn’t natural; I presented facts that support my arguments. Being a rational individual, you are expected to analyze such write-ups and be able to arrive at an informed conclusion…

From the opinion article you presented, the authors were more specific about non-human populations, in fact they do agree to the variation of polyandry within different taxonomy, on the average, the population of females (all the 14 taxa data analyzed) said to be polyandrous is said to be under 50%. But if you want to equate humans with insects and butterflies, then I am correct to categorize females (humans) who seek multiple male partners as being animalistic, nay even lower, insect-like should be more appropriate...

Again, the statements you have quoted from the article I presented were not overlooked, the fact that the author only made reference to studies from other animals, and particularly "seemingly" monogamous birds, rather than humans, shows that polyandry isn't natural to humans, we are talking of studies of DNA here, how many human offspring do have multiple DNA imprint from different men?! He only mentioned that people are not different, but cannot substantiate it, rather stated that it was not institutionalized due to obvious reasons...Therefore, women would only covertly seek multiple partners to satisfy their sexual adventures...

See, no matter how you want to look at it, nature selected men to be dominant, and favoured polygyny, it did relegate polyandry among female humans to be unfavourable, and hence unnatural!

tintingz:

And polygyny was not the same?

Whether environmental condition or not, polyandry still exist in human nature. You can do your research.

Of course, I never said polyandry is not in nature, even homosexuality, inbreeding, bisexual and other anomalies can be found within lower animals. My argument is that, as higher animals with intelligence and sophistication, polyandry is not natural! it goes against our biology, psychology and sociology.

Environmental conditions that allowed polyandry is understandable, coupled with the fact that the women still are subjected to the male, and these societies are said to be very simple and primitive! I believe you do not want us to return to such status...

tintingz:

So whats wrong with this?

The same way our ancestors practiced polygyny for many reasons is the same reason polyandrous was practiced in some cultures.

Lol, a woman acting polyandrous is being animalistic?
Anyways humans are said to be higher animals according to science. You agree women fantasize and seek to have multiple partners but you still argue that it is not part of their nature when its clear and obvious everywhere?

Polyandry in humans varies from what is common and evolutionary supportive in nature. Yes polyandry was practiced in some culture due to environmental conditions, but that does not make it natural to women. unlike the males who have an evolutionary backing.

Polyandry is everywhere?! I guess you would also say that homosexuality is everywhere too right?!

Having fantasies i.e imagination is natural to humans, but what you imagine or fantasize about may not be natural. I fantasize that I can fly, but is it natural for humans to fly?! And yes I can try to fly, and find a way around my nature, which is why we have hot air balloons, airplanes, sky diving etc. When some females have fantasies about having multiple male partners, it’s natural, but the act itself, going out to seek multiple men is going against nature, because nature had made such act unfavourable. Same would be said about homosexuality, it is against human nature, but can be fantasized about, I mean you do not even need to have a psychological or genetic issues before you can do that, but it is NEVER natural to humans! Those who eventually carry out these activities are anomalies, and eventually problematic not only to society, but nature itself.

If you want to claim that seeking multiple partners by female humans is natural, then nature would have supported it, it would have been widespread and overt, there would be no reason to be surreptitious about it. I should even put it to you; let’s say you do have a female you are dating, would you accept her having multiple men dating her too and mating?! If you say no problem, then what is the difference between you and the lower animals?! We are humans, we should know better and act better!

tintingz:

Something that's a very common behavioral among women: Fantasizing and seeking for something comes from the brain, a chemical process that stimulate the desire for it and also put it action. Is this not nature at work?

Please what do we call a woman seeking to have multiple male mate?

Lol you said "common behavioral among women"?! something that nature had carefully relegated to the background, and would only be carried out secretly?! Perhaps you are making reference to what is now obtainable which I had clearly stated being a result of humans relegating and downgrading themselves to the lowest of low in the hierarchical structure of species?! Isn't the Words of Allah ever true?!

"Certainly We created man in the best make. Then We render him the lowest of the low"...(Surah At-Tin 4-5)

I studied those chemicals you are talking of, especially dopamine, they are called neurotransmitters, they can be subjected to your thoughts, your environment and ultimately your regular activities...the urge to have sex is natural, but having sex with animals or same sex as yours isn't, even if some humans find that fascinating and fantasize about it, thus, women fantasizing about having sex with multiple partners isn't the issue, but the fact that it goes against aspects of human biology, not supported by human evolution, not socially viable, and most importantly, religiously abominable! I still believe and state that polyandry is not natural to women folks.

^^^Ameen! Jazakumullah khayran for sharing rhajaan, indeed we owe our parents so much...

@tintingz

Indeed, some females may have their fantasies, and can also seek multiple partners if they want to, but that happens to go against evolution as well as most culture and society, and most importantly Islam. Anyways, here is a quote which I believe is quite adequate on this “female polyandrous nature”…

“Female harem-keeping – polyandry – goes against some aspects of human and mammalian biology, once again because of the difference between sperm-making (what males do) and egg-making (a female monopoly). Although a male’s fitness is enhanced with every female added to his mating prospects, the same is much less true for the fitness of a female who mates with additional males.. There can indeed be a payoff to females who refrain from sexual exclusivity (actually, there are many such payoffs); however, there are also substantial costs, not least running afoul of the male sexual jealousy just described. Thus, even though females can sometimes enhance their fitness by mating with additional males, they are simultaneously selected to be surreptitious about their sexual adventuring. Hence, polyandry – unlike its overt counterpart, polygyny – is more likely to be covert and hardly ever proclaimed or institutionalized. It also doesn’t reveal itself in such blindingly obvious traits as sexual dimorphism in physical size, aggressiveness, or differences in age at sexual maturity, since unlike the situation among males, natural selection does not clearly reward such readily apparent traits among females. “

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pura-vida/201603/polyandry-one-woman-many-men

I do not think women are naturally predisposed to go seeking for multiple partners to cohabit with like men do, even being covert. In fact, polyandry, according to history, has been said to be as a result of environmental conditions.

Anthropologists Starkweather and Hames states, “polyandry constitutes a variation on the common, evolutionarily-adaptive phenomenon of pair-bonding -- a variation that sometimes emerges in response to environmental conditions.”

Furthermore, in societies that allow polyandry, a female involved is not in charge, the man still is, especially the first husband, and has to agree to such setup of another husband. Also, in some of these societies, the female is married within a single family, majorly for economic reasons, security or a skewed ratio of fertile females to males buttressing its occurrence as a result of the environment.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/

However, what is obtainable (especially in recent times) where females have multiple partners, not being under any form of legal relationship according to the society cannot be termed as being “the nature of women to be polyandrous”, it is pure animalistic way of life (even lower), not fit for any human who claims superior intelligence and higher status in the world (we can say the same for the males too), but still, on the contrary though, the males do have the backing of evolution in seeking multiple partners especially in propagating their “genes”, hence the common saying of men being naturally polygamous!

In a nutshell, nature/evolution does not support polyandry, and therefore we cannot say females are naturally polyandrous.

Well I found another relevant information from Shirazi site again, this time around, it was a fatwa passed during Ashura 1423 H. And this time around it has the pictures of the Ayatollahs, the scanned image of their statement with their stamps and signature.

Please see here: http://imamshirazi.com/tatbir%20fatawa1423.html

It should be noted that only 7 Ayatollahs were mentioned here, some of the names of these 7 can also be found in the earlier list already presented.

ALBaqir and ShiaMuslim, were are the statements of your Ayatollahs (with stamps and signature, perhaps with scanned pix too, at least Shirazi did his homework), except for Ayatollah Khamenei, that states categorically that tatbir is HARAM?!

Are all these Ayatollahs who said tatbir is permissible misguided?!

AlBaqir:


# The bogus hadith isolated itself. It talks about judgment before we are even get a chance to be born and established on earth. And its so racial and unjust and cruel that it doesn't care.

# The hadith you quoted up there is no difference to the one under discussion.

A simple question to clear your doubts, do you believe Allah (SWT) is the all knowing and there is no knowledge hidden from Him (SWT)?! Do you believe Allah (SWT) knows what would happen on the day of judgment?! Do you believe Allah (SWT) knows those who would inherit paradise and those who would be damned in hell?! Is there a time where and when Allah (SWT) does not know any of the above information?!

lexiconkabir:


sino will be like;

The Shirazi site blew the Shi'a lies to smatterings, so they want me to believe Shirazi had to go the extra mile to fabricate fatwas of different Ayatollahs, Presented their names, their status and pictures, paste it on the internet for all to see, then no one of them have challenged the claims on the site....At least they would have presented the correct fatwas of those mentioned where they said tatbir is haram, I am still waiting for them to present their proofs...

AlBaqir:
^Hey yah sorry. Chest beating and taking off shirt never add up to blood ritual via body flagellation.

# And I need to add: The word "Haram" simply means it is legislatedly forbidden by Allah or His Nabi. No scholar has the right to declare anything Haram which Allah or His Nabi never declared. Hence a good jurist should be careful using the word "halal" and "haram".

Why not present where Sistani said tatbir is haram! So he allowed you guys can hit your heads, and beat your chests, but all of a sudden hitting your head with sword or knife and beating your chests with chains, cannot be found, so no Shi'a asked him such questions?!

AlBaqir, this is for you, Kwantinue!!!

Empiree:
I dont think what i said go against what you and lexicon have said. And what you said here doesnt contradicts what I said either. If I'd simply said it daef would have been different case. I m not naive when Quran speaks of "black and white faces". I know it is more like metaphorical. So your post here doesnt really concern me that much. As you can see, albaqir seems to disagree with me as well.

Maybe I should rephrase it. I said "If it is taken literally it would have been in conflict with Qur'an". Is that difficult to understand?. I dont think i have disagreed with what you and lexicon have been saying. Maybe you misunderstood my post.

I was referring to your statement, "I believe the hadith as a whole is khayr but just that little element was unnecessarily inserted", which I presume to mean was inserted by fabricators and the likes, if you mean the translation used by AlBaqir, then I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

Empiree:
Well, that shouldn't be much of a problem. The phrase " I don't care" should be discounted as one of those attributed flinges . I believe the hadith as a whole is khayr but just that little element was unnecessarily inserted. Another version of the hadith uses " I don't mind".

Bro, you just don't make statements you cannot prove, especially with regards to religious issues. It is better you are silent. First let me bring a better translation of the said narration:

Narrated AbudDarda'

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Allah created Adam when He had to create him and He struck his right shoulder and there emitted from it white offspring as if they were white ants. He struck his left shoulder and there emitted from it the black offspring as if they were charcoal. He then said (to those who had been emitted) from the right (shoulder): For Paradise and I do not mind. Then He said to those (who had been emitted) from his left shoulder: They are for Hell and I do not mind.

Transmitted by Ahmad

Source: http://www.alim.org/library/hadith/TIR/38

Secondly, the narration used the same phrase for both the people of paradise and the people of hell, what does that tell you?! That is justice, each group getting what they deserve, and no prejudice involved! One of the first aspect of tawheed is to understand Allah's will, which is divided into two Qawniyah and Shar'iyah. When you have full understanding of this two, you wouldn't fall into doubts and skepticisms, and finding it difficult to accept and understand the narration in question.

AlBaqir:


# To sino post, unfortunately his only reference is the same al-shirazi website I have castigated. Is that an evidence?

# The two leading maraji of about 90% Shia worldwide are Ayatullah Ali Sistani and Ayatullah Ali Khameini. They both have official websites where their books and fatwas can be checked. They both declared tatbir haram based on many facts top of which is it does not exist in the Quran, sunnah of the Nabi and the Ahl al-bayt.. Is this not enough for any rational mind? Where are the books or websites to check the veracity of various 19 Shia scholars fatwas? Shirazi website, sino submit.

# Sino said he loves that tatbir.org because it states the act gives Shia bad image. Is that the only reason states by the website?

# The truth is there are lots of fake Ayatullah, Mufti, Sheiks and Mullas. Unfortunately they have followers who follow their teachings and fatawa. If you are to judge majority Shia ithna Ashariyah, you judge based on the teachings and fatawa of those two leading maraji. Shia do not follow a dead Ayatullah. And in a situation where you have two Ayatullah in a locality, you follow the most knowledgeable and most pious.

# Personally I follow the jurisdiction of Ayatullah Khameini. Don't give me condemned Shirazi family/cult in Yasir Habib and his cohorts.

Question: Is it permissible to wail and cry loudly as well as beat one’s head and face in mourning for Imam Hussein, peace be upon him?

Answer: There is no problem in it .

Question: I would like to ask your opinion about taking off the shirts in mourning processions. Is it permissible for men to take off their shirts while beating their chests?

Answer: It is not haram (forbidden) by itself.

http://www.sistani.org/english/qa/01125/

You could see that the aspect of bleeding as been stylishly removed, perhaps AlBaqir can point to a direct source where he condemns tatbir, I do not see Sistani condemning it here...

I was wandering why you haven't posted any reference to this scholars that clearly states that this tatbir is haram.. So once your maraji is dead, his fatwa also becomes invalid because...?! is it only their fatwa, or their books too shouldn't be relied upon?! Let me know now before I start quoting books of your dead scholars o...

AlBaqir:


# Ma sha Allah. He is All-Knowing, All-Powerful. However His knowledge and power is supported by other attributes of His - Adl (Justice ) and Hikma (Wisdom). That is why He is Al-Adl and al-Hakim.

But you are the one questioning His wisdom and justice by poorly criticizing a narration you fail to understand. If I, a Professor in a University, enters a class for the first time and inform my students, in this class, there are two groups, those that would pass, and those that would fail. Have I been unjust?! It is a fact that there would be those who would fail and those who would pass, I have superior knowledge with regards to this, so I can boldly inform the class of this, at the beginning of the class.

AlBaqir:

# The fact that He knows where every individual will end up doesn't mean He decreed it forcefully to the extent that whoever is doing good deeds but hell has been decreed for him, will just switch to bad deeds and die with it and enter hell.

What would you say of a man who had been righteous, and close to his last days, he committed shrik?! or an idol worshipper who died fews days after accepting Islam?! Does the narration says he forced people to end up in hell?! Just like the analogy of the university professor I presented above, there would be a group of descendants of Adam (AS) who would end up in paradise, and another group in hell, those in paradise are described with being white (illuminated) and those in hell black (devoid of light, burnt and black like charcoal).

AlBaqir:

# Here we talk about Monotheism and Polytheism. Not Atheism.

# Atheists are thieves. And there arguments are irrational. Nobody is born as atheist. They usually grew up with certain "monotheistic belief" and change after.

# What majority of them do not believe is the Islamic or Christianic God. Many of them now believe the positivity of a "Designer". Their inner rationality and thought which they outwardly denied made many of them to divulge these secret.

# Kindly check two videos I upload under the thread, "God and Evolution".

Well I do not really care, the fact is atheist do not believe God exist!

AlBaqir:

# I have said lot on this already.



# Again this point of yours which I agree with is one of many deadly punches that expose that bogus "sahih" had it.

Lol, you are just deluding yourself bro, which deadly punches?! You are the one infusing the meaning of race and skin colour into the narration, it is your problem not mine. Since it is established that we do not have just two races or skin colours in the world, and the fact that the Qur'an talks of similar information, i.e people of the left and the right, as well as those with black and white faces, then it is only logical to conclude that the narration is never about race or colour!

AlBaqir:


Kindly point out where the hadith selected based on deeds as you claim.

There is no deed in the text of the narration, I was explaining based on the understanding of what leads man into hell or paradise. It seems when you want to start this your probing the authenticity of sahih hadith in sunni books, you forget Islam totally, and argue like one who is alien to Islam. Another question, the narration says enter hell and enter paradise, are the descendants of Adam in either places now?! Does this not imply that it is referring to what would happen at the end?! I thought you pride yourself in understanding the metaphorical and all other figures of speech that is involved in communication in Arabic?!

For the fact that Qur'an had mentioned people of the right, and people of the left, as well as those whose faces would be black, and those with white faces, should have been enough for a sincere believer.

AlBaqir:


# Ma sha Allah. This, and many more are what expose the falsehood in the matn (content) of the hadith. The fact that hadith has "authentic" chain does not mean the content is also authentic.

# Even Quran do not use the word "black race or white race". It simply says We have created you into various tribes, nations and races.

For the umpteenth time, the narration is not talking about skin colour or race, rather the two groups of humans, in terms of their deeds and final destination, it is not that difficult to understand na.

AlBaqir:


# First, you and I were absolutely not aware of this. Do you?

Indeed, so also we all are not aware of our end! But Allah (SWT) if fully aware, and He (SWT) knows the end of each man, whether in Jannah, or Hell, He (SWT) only informs us, what we need to know and work with.

AlBaqir:

# Second, the beginning of man is different from his day of reckoning.

Allah (SWT) has perfected his plans, he knows the beginning of creation and knows the end, this are basic understanding of every Muslim.

AlBaqir:

# Third, we believe so much in the above ayah based on its manifestation - Aql (Intellect) which Allah made innate in man. That's why the popular hadith says, "Know Me (Allah) before you worship me".

Knowing Allah (SWT), entails knowing and understanding His Names and Attributes. If you had this understanding, you wouldn't be arguing about the narration in question! Your aql can work against you, ask the atheist (scientists).

AlBaqir:

# Fourth, Quran says even if you challenge the idolaters, "Who created the heavens and the earths? They will say, 'Allah'". That is the hujjah of their Aql (intellect) against them.

We have atheist, they do not believe Allah (SWT) created anything! What is the hujjah against them?!

AlBaqir:

# Fifth, the hadith under discussion clearly talks about a specific color destined for paradise and other color for Hell in their state of unconsciousness. What is the intellectual hujjah for this?

Because that is what your aql wants you to see and belief! Allah (SWT) states in the Qur'an that some people are destined for hell fire, and some paradise. Would Allah (SWT) not know who these two sets of people would be in the beginning of creation?! Think! Is your skin color black like charcoal?!

Again if AlBaqir wants us to believe this is about colour of the skin, are there only black and white skinned humans?! And how many of human population are as black as charcoal?! Even Arabs are not considered white skinned!

MrOlai:


These are the fabricated narrations they use in deceiving their gullible followers!

Hmmm!

If there is another word than fabrication, it would have been most appropriate! Imagine they would also want to be part of the avengers, that is when The Imam who is said to be hiding from those who would kill him, appears, I guess with Thor, Superman, Batman and the rest of the Justice League

Alhamdulilah! Jazakillah khayran Slitz

Perhaps AlBaqir may tell us when Allah (SWT) was talking about in the below verse:

And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware." (Q 7:172)

Is it the beginning of creation or judgment day?! Didn't all descendant of Adam (AS) testify that Allah (SWT) is their Lord?! Then why are people still worshipping other gods, and some do not even believe in God?!

Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Imam al-Seyyid al-Shirazi

Question:
Some individuals say that I do not see shedding my tears as enough to express my grief for Imam Hussain (AS), his household and his followers on the day of Ashura. So is hitting myself with sword and injuring myself is allowed?

Answer:
The Hussaini Sha’a’er, including TATBIR, are some of the RAAJIH issues. TATBIR is a MUSTAHAB deed, unless it leads to death, loss of limb, or loss of faculties. (RAAJIH means MUSTAHAB that could become WAJIB depending on the circumstances - translator.).

Question:
What is your opinion regarding hitting the head with sword – TATBIR – on the day of Ashura whether or not it harms the individual?

Answer:
The most common and widely known opinion of the Fuqaha (scholars) is that the desirability (of TATBIR) is in it not being extremely harmful.

Question:
If one engages in the program of TA’ZIAH for Imam Hussain (AS), and goes on to serve the program of TA’ZIAH but does not do TATBIR, is he regarded as a sinner, who deserves to be humiliated?

Answer:
TATBIR is a desirable act, and a MUKALLAF – i.e. one who has reached the adolescence age and is duty bound – may forsake a desirable act. It is not allowed to humiliate a Mu’min, and also one who does not do TATBIR may not humiliate or insult others, or accuse them (of false things).


Question:
What is your opinion regarding the reports that Lady Zaynab (AS), when she saw the head of her brother Imam Hussain peace be upon him, being paraded in public hit her forehead on the bar of the carriage she was travelling in, causing bleeding to flow from beneath her veil, which was visible to onlookers who witnessed the event?

Answer:

Yes that is proven.

{Some of the famous references, which confirm the above report, are as follows:
• Bihaar al-Anwaar; volume 45, page 114,
• Jalaa’ al-‘Oyun; volume 2, page 238,
• Zaynab al-Kubra; page 112,
• Asraar al-Shahadah; page 474,
• Al-Muntakhab; volume 2, page 478,
• Nusrat-ul-Madhlum; page 18.

Needless to say that ‘Allamah al-Majlisi – compiler of Bihaar al-Anwaar – and Sheikh al-Shari’ah al-Isfahani have confirmed the authenticity of the report.}

Source: http://imamshirazi.com/tatbir%20fatawa.html

AlBaqir:
This article is curled unedited from www.tatbir.org

This website aims to highlight the rulings of the great Shia scholars on this issue and to elaborate upon the Islamic reasons for the discouragement and prohibition of these cultural practices. The primary reason for the prohibition is the bad image that is given to Islam and Shi’ism in particular, and there are also many other reasons which will also be discussed.

I agree with the website that the primary reason for prohibition of tatbir, is basically because of the bad image the Shi'as would be portrayed, you know it kinda make them look like savages, and that is bad publicity, not necessarily because the act in itself is a bid'ah, and far from what Islam teaches! Can you believe these guys?!

AlBaqir wants us to believe that only Ayatollah Shirazi permitted tatbir, according to one of the images up there, but I found a very interesting fatwa of other Aytollahs, permitting tatbir, perhaps AlBaqir, would help us understand...

The following are the Fatawa of 19 of the most Eminent Maraje’ of the Shi'a world
regarding the TA’ZIA or AZADARI for Imam Hussain peace be upon him
[the list below is not exhaustive, but it only enlists some of the eminent Maraje'.]

Al-Imam al-Sheikh Abdul Kareem al-Ha’ery

The Founder of the current Hawzah in the holy city of Qum.

“The hitting of swords on the heads (causing bleeding) is alright (allowed) provided there is no harm to the person doing this. Furthermore no one has the right to prohibit this (hitting the head with sword). In fact all kinds of TA’ZIAH – mourning – for SEYYED AL-SHUHADA’ – Imam Hussain – may our souls be sacrificed for him, are MUSTAHAB – desirable deeds.”

The above Fatwa by al-Imam al-Sheikh Abdul Kareem al-Ha’ery was endorsed and signed by the following eminent Maraje’:

• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Sheikh Muhammad al-Araki,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad Ridha al-Gulpaygani,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Shahab-el-Deen al-Mar’ashi al-Najafi,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Hassan al-Tabataba’e al-Qummi,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad al-Waheedi,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Mirza Jawaad al-Tabrizi,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad Saadiq al-Rouhani,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma Muhammad Mahdi al-Lankaroudi,

And many other Maraje’ and eminent scholars . . .

Al-Imam al-Sheikh Muhammad Hussain al-Naa’ini,

The teacher of the Maraje’ of the holy city of Najaf.

“There is no doubt as to the permissibility of the beating of the chest and the face with the hands to the point of redness or blackness (of the chest or the face). This is also extended to the lashing of the shoulders and the back with chains to the extent mentioned (above), and even if this led to bleeding. As for causing the bleeding of the head by sword beating, this is also allowed provided it does not lead to endangering harm, such as unstoppable bleeding or harm to the scull, etc. as it is known amongst the experts in doing this (hitting on the head).”


The above Fatwa by al-Imam al-Sheikh Muhammad Hussain al-Naa’ini was endorsed and signed by the following eminent Maraje’:

• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Mohsen al-Hakim,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad Kaadhem al-Shari’atMadari,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Abd-el-A’la al-Sabzewary,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Abul-Qassim al-Kho’i,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad Ridha al-Gulpaygani,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Ali al-Hussaini al-Seestani,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad Saadiq al-Rouhani,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Mirza Jawaad al-Tabrizi,
• Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Sheikh Hussain al-Waheed al-Khurasani,
And many other Maraje’ and eminent scholars . . .

Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid al-Kho’i

The former leader of the Hawzah of the holy city of Najaf.

Question: Is there any problem with causing the bleeding of the head – TATBIR – as it is practiced, to express one’s grief about the martyrdom of our Imam Hussain peace be upon him, assuming there is going to be no permanent harm?

Answer:
There is no problem with that, given the assumption made in the question, and Allah knows best.

Question:

You stated that there is no problem in causing the bleeding of the head – known as TATBIR – if it does not lead to harm. It is said that it is not more than a permissible act, then can TATBIR be MUSTAHAB – desirable – if the intention was the upholding and honouring the Sha’a’er – signs of Allah – and sympathy with the Ahl-ul-Bayt, peace be upon them?

Answer:
Most probably Allah Almighty would give thawab – reward (the individual) – for sympathising with the Ahl-ul-Bayt if the intention is sincere.

Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid al-Seestani

The current leader of the Hawzah of the holy city of Najaf.

Question:
What is the ruling regarding the lashing with chains, chest beating, and walking on fire on the occasion of mourning the martyrdom of Imam Hussain peace be upon him?

Answer:
If (these are) not associated with extreme harm or loss of limb, there is no objection.

Question:
What is the ruling regarding wearing black, and chest beating when commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussain peace be upon him, as well as other infallible Imams peace be upon them?

Answer:
This is permissible, and in fact this is regarded as one of the best means of seeking nearness to Allah, since it is upholding and honouring the Sha’a’er of Allah Almighty. [This is a reference to the Qur’anic Ayah 22:32. – translator.]

The Shi'a follow not the ahlu -l-bayt, they follow the desire of their scholars...I guess being a friend of Allah, is not really one of their goals...They would rather ask the dead Imams for things only Allah (SWT ) has the absolute control over, rather than ask Allah (SWT ) the ever living!

tunderay:
is this Hadith authentic? Everything the Prophet said is contrary to this, I don't believe this Hadith

The narration is authentic, Allah (SWT) had established the two sets of humans, those on the right and those on the left, those destined for paradise and those destined for hell respectively. The colour reference has nothing to do with skin colour, other evidences proves this, both in the Qur'an and Hadith.

lexiconkabir:
I guess bilal who was a black would also go to hell
is there anyone that is as white as white ant? or any as black as charcoal? is there?
Allaah says in the Qur'an;
"On the day when some faces will turn bright (Tabyadu) and other faces will turn dark (Taswadu)" (Quran 3:106)
I have purposely quoted the Arabic words because “white” was translated into bright, while “black” was translated into dark, which is correct since Arabic uses colors in many occasions to describe bright and dark.
so the hadith is an explanation of this verse, and again, it is authentically reported that bilal(a black descendant) will be in Paradise.

Quite simple brother, jazakumullahu khayran for your insightful input.

MrOlai:


Subhanallah!

Albaqir! Is this true?

Let me help him bring authentic evidence, seems he cannot find it already... Please pay attention to the red and bold section of the below narration:

Sheikh Tusi reports: Narrated Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazi, from Salih bin Uqba, from his father, from Imam Abu Jafar (A.S). (d. 114 A.H. / 732 A.D.) who said: “Whoever visits the grave of Imam al-Hussain bin Ali (A.S.) on the day of Ashura, in the month of Muharram and persists in weeping at his grave, then Allah the Glorified and Exalted will receive him on the Day of judgment with the reward of two thousand major pilgrimages (Hajj), two thousand minor pilgrimages (Umrah) and two thousand military expeditions.
The reward of each major and minor pilgrimage and military expedition will be akin to having undertaken them with the Prophet of Allah and the Rightly Guided Imams (A.S).”


The narrator said: “May I be ransomed for you, but what about him who lives in far and distant lands and is unable to travel there (i.e.to the site of the grave) on that day?

He (the Imam (A.S) said: ‘If that is so, then let such a person go out into the desert or climb up to the terrace or roof-top of his house and gesture in the direction of the grave of Imam al-Hussain (A.S.); send greetings and salutations and exert himself in invoking curses on his enemies. Thereafter he should recite two units of prayer. This ritual should be done at the beginning part of the day, before the sun passes its zenith. Thereafter, he should lament and weep over al-Hussain (A.S.), and command the people of his house, who are unaware of it, to cry over al-Hussain (A.S.). He should establish mourning in his house by expressing grief and sorrow over al-Hussain (A.S.). Some of them are to console others of their feelings of distress. If they do all this, then I am their guarantor near Allah the Exalted.’ I said (i.e. the narrator, in a state of amazement): ‘May I be ransomed for you, are you their guarantor in that?!’ He (the Imam (A.S)) said: ‘I am the guarantor for him who does that.’ I (i.e. the narrator) said: ‘But how do some of us console others?’ He (the Imam (A.S)) said: ‘You should say: “May Allah magnify our recompense due to our distress for al-Hussain (A.S.). May He establish you and us from amongst those who seek to avenge his murder, in the company of His friend, the Imam al-Mahdi (A.S) from the progeny of Muhammad.” (P.B.U.H&HF)

(The Imam (A.S) continues[b]).‘Furthermore, if one is able to abstain from spending this day in fulfilling needs, then do so, for it is a day of misfortune and calamity, in which the needs of a faithful are not fulfilled. If the need is fulfilled, it will not be blessed and he will not see any goodness in it. None of you must attempt to accumulate anything for the future in his house on that day; for he who does so will not obtain any blessings in what he has accumulated and neither will his family.[/b]

Thus if they do this, Allah will ordain for them the reward of a thousand major pilgrimages (Hajj), a thousand minor pilgrimages (Umrah) and a thousand military expeditions, as if done with the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W). Additionally, for such a person will be the recompense of the suffering of every Prophet, Messenger, Successor (of the Prophets), the Truthful and the Martyr who was killed, since the creation of the world till the Day of judgement.”

I got the above from a site that tries to establish the above narration, among others, is authentic. Click HERE for the whole gist...

Imagine, I didn't even know you also get the reward of performing 1000 jihad with the Prophet (SAW) and that one can stand on top of the roof facing Imam Husein's "Qiblah", sending salutation and offering two raka'aat! this is serious!!!

SMH!

This is very disturbing MrOlai; you should have placed a caveat on the topic bro.

I laugh in Persian when Shi’a are trying too hard to explain what these deviants are doing is haram, here we have Shi’a who would not think twice before castigating the companions of the Prophet (SAW) especially the closest to the Prophet (SAW). In their belief system, all the companions of the Prophet (SAW) became apostate (perhaps I should say betrayed Islam), except for a few.

Anyways, instead of These Shi’a to expend their energy on how this silly innovation of their ignorant brothers could be nipped in the bud, they would rather come here on a majorly Sunni dominated section of this forum to attack the fasting on Ashura, which is an authentically established Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW). The Prophet (SAW) and his progeny fasted on Ashura, we Muslims fast, emulating the Prophet (SAW) and his Ahl-l-bayt, but the Shi'a what do they do?! They put on black clothing, they go on long procession, some go as far as harming themselves with knives and machetes, and they keep calling on the dead and asking for things which they have no power over except Allah! Who is on the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) and who has introduced silly and "kufrutic" activities into the religion?!

Perhaps they may also explain how the procession and the “pilgrimage” to Karbala also a Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW), in fact it is said to be wajib to do this (i.e obligatory)?! It is even reported in their books that visiting the shrine of Hussein (RA) in Karbala has a reward of 1000 Hajj!!! I wonder what would be the reward for visiting the Prophet’s grave in Medina?! I hope those who fabricated narrations for the Shi’a do have the reward for this documented…

May Allah (SWT) not let Shaitan (la) deceive us into following the path of deviation from Islam. Ameen

The usual suspects would soon come and claim it is propaganda, perhaps the Red Cross now works for Lai Muhammed...

tintingz:
The theory I posted shows sex chromosome of our ancestors are different from ours today(modern human) am not arguing about diploid or haploid all am saying is there are evolutionary stages.

As you can see from what I posted says Y chromosome of mammals and X chromosome of humans are the same(a single cell functional) and sex was determine by environmental temperature which means baby gender was not a result of Y or X chromosome until mutation took place and chromosome recombined diverging X and Y(in offsprings) Evolution is evolution it took stages for humans to evolve to homo sapiens.

A little history of Science Adam.

The Book of Genesis puts Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden, but geneticists’ version of the duo — the ancestors to whom the Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA of today’s humans can be traced — were thought to have lived tens of thousands of years apart. Now, two major studies of modern humans’ Y chromosomes suggest that ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ and ‘mitochondrial Eve’ may have lived around the same time after all.

When the overall population size does not change (as is likely to have happened for long periods of human history), men have, on average, just one son. In this case, evolutionary theory predicts that for any given man there is a high probability that his paternal line will eventually come to an end. All of his male descendants will then have inherited Y chromosomes from other men. In fact, it is highly probable that at some point in the past, all men except one possessed Y chromosomes that by now are extinct. All men living now, then, would have a Y chromosome descended from that one man — identified as Y-chromosome Adam. (The biblical reference is a bit of a misnomer because this Adam was by no means the only man alive at his time.)

Similarly, the theory predicts that all mitochondrial genomes today should be traceable to a single woman, a 'mitochondrial Eve'. Whereas the Y chromosome is passed from father to son, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed from mother to daughter and son.

http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews
The above is what science believe in.

From the history it shows other men chromosome died out, one man chromosome can be traced to all living humans. There is no where it says science Adam had X chromosome from what I posted.

I have given different link talking about science Adam, I think I will take a break.

There is no way you want to talk about human reproduction and evolution without discussing haploid and diploid, the fact remains that humans are diploid, and nowhere in the science world claim haploid for humans. All what you had presented only states how the Y chromosome can be traced back to the Y chromosomal Adam for the MALE. It did not state that this science Adam had only the Y chromosome. You are the one claiming so, which I had tried to explain how impossible that would be.

You amuse me when you say that the quote was talking about mammals and not humans, what are humans if not a subset of mammals?! It is either you state that the science Adam and Eve evolved from closely related mammal, or just came into existence by magic or chance! The evolution you are talking about did not happen within the science Adam and Eve (except for probably the shrinking of the Y chromosome), they were already having their X and Y chromosomes fully developed, which are in pairs of either XY or XX. As stated earlier, the mitochondrial DNA which can only be passed down from the mother is not the X chromosome, and it is not responsible for sex determination! So how did the X chromosome came into existence?! mutation and recombination of the Y chromosome which was said to be from the X chromosome (according to the evolutionary history of Y chromosome which you presented)?!

You should understand that, Y chromosome, which is said to be carrying the male gene, was as a result of a pre-existing chromosome, and this is said to be the X chromosome (this is the point were evolution occurred). In the process of favouring sexual reproduction, chromosomes, which are in pairs, aggregate and recombine in an orderly manner for proper gene transfer, as well as eventually undergo meiosis, which result in the donation of one chromosome from each partner to bring about a new offspring carrying pairs of chromosomes. I had brought evidences that suggests that meiosis and sex must have evolved together, because it is quite impossible to reproduce sexually, without meiosis. The reason I was asking if humans had a history of reproducing asexually.

The above quote of yours, especially the bold, only proposes that all men (during this Y chromosomal Adam) possessed the Y chromosome which are all extinct except one which the scientist can trace the male ancestry to. It does not suggest otherwise, and it does not negate that those men had X chromosome. The story of Adam and Eve would have been easily countered by scientists, if such men's Y chromosome still exists today.

To help put this my long story into proper perspective, read this:

"But in life forms that do set aside a pair of chromosomes to specify sex – from fruit flies to mammals and some plants – the two X chromosomes inherited by females look nearly identical to the other non-sex chromosomes, so-called autosomes, Bachtrog said. The Y chromosome, however, which is inherited by males in concert with one X chromosome, is a withered version of the X, having lost many genes since it stopped recombining with the X chromosome.

In mammals, that probably took place about 150 million years ago, while in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, a laboratory favorite, the sex chromosomes arose independently about 100 million years ago. In both humans and fruit flies, the Y chromosome has dwindled from a few thousand genes to a few dozen."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090416125209.htm

Personally, I do not believe anything about evolution, perhaps, maybe some aspects that can be verified, but all these speculations, and hypotheses are just imaginations of scientist with little known facts and evidences.

Many thanks for your time though...

@tintingz

You cannot try to explain the origin of man with evolution, and then neglect the species in which man is said to have evolved from, more so, if the said ancestral Adam and Eve science is talking about are already fully formed, with reproductive organs, then it makes no sense arguing about having just one sex chromosome. The reason I had to ask whether humans had any record of reproducing asexually. I would love to ask you, how did the ancestral male, Y chromosomal Adam, and female, mitochondrial DNA Eve came into existence?! Who did science say were their ancestors?! Were they also distinguished as male and female?! If you want to talk evolution and science, you can’t cherry pick; you should be ready to follow through with scientists’ hypotheses.

Again the nomenclature of Y and X chromosomes, are just what they are, labels to identify each distinct chromosome. Mutation and recombination of the chromosomes, would not have happened in this ancestral Y chromosomal Adam, and ancestral Eve, we have already a fully formed distinguished male and female, in fact, it is said that there were other males and other females, are you trying to tell me that those males and females where carrying other forms of chromosomes and they are still humans?!

To your request for me to show you where science says the first man carried both X and Y chromosome, fortunately, your quote supports my arguments,

"One hundred and eighty million years ago, the Y chromosome of placental mammals was the same as our X chromosome, and sex was determined by other means, perhaps by environmental triggers such as temperature (as is the case in some turtles, lizards, and snakes today). These two proto-sex-chromosomes underwent recombination in the same way that our other chromosomes do. Then a male-determining gene originated on the would-be Y, and the two chromosomes started to diverge from one another. Once the Y started to become specialized for male genes, recombination between the X and Y became detrimental for individuals because the process sometimes mixed up the sex-determining genes."

If you read the bold above carefully, you would see that the Y chromosome was the same as our X chromosome, meaning the X and Y chromosome, at some point were the same, and sex was determined by other means, the word perhaps (in bold) suggest a speculation, unsubstantiated and unverified.

Now the TWO proto-sex-chromosomes (i.e Y and X, although similar), underwent recombination, just as other chromosomes do. Then the gene, which should not be confused with the Y chromosome, that determines male, was established on the Y chromosome, which eventually made recombination between the chromosomes problematic.

From the site you quoted from, it then continued:

"Ultimately, this process resulted in Y chromosomes that barely recombined with the Xs at all—just a little near the tips of the chromosomes, enough to keep cell division orderly, but not enough to move genes bits from one chromosome to the other. Of course, in females (bearers of two X chromosomes), the Xs could still recombine with another X. It was only in males that repressed recombination was advantageous. This innovation worked well for keeping sex determination straight, but it also had a detrimental side effect for the integrity of the Y chromosome."

Here it says how the Y and X chromosomes are associated in males, establishing order and restriction of gene transfer and continuous sex determination.

I hope you can see that there were two sex chromosomes 180 million years ago. This would also answer how the females were having two X chromosomes, that can exchange genes, only in the males that repressed the recombination between X and Y, due to that fact that the male-determining gene is present on it.

Again with this facts, then if the Ancestral Adam and Eve had just Y and X respectively, then their offspring would only be male. I didn't want to go back to discussing haploid and diploid, there are so many unsubstantiated hypotheses, there are large dark areas which science have not been able to answer and clarify.

This should put this argument to rest bro.

tintingz:
Sir... Diploid, Haploid, ploidy etc are all cells in humans reproduction system, you have not shown any scientific theories that says our ancestors had both X&Y chromosome.

Didn't mutation and recombination occur?

Am not talking about sex differentiation which is physical am still talking about mutation and recombination that occurs. Do you know evolutionary stages of the homo sapiens? Maybe you should read more on evolution of the Y chromosome.

This shows it was only the females that donate the X chromosome, if we assume Adam had both X and Y chromosome then logicaly and scientifically Adam must have had a mother(parents) but science has shown that the early man had only Y chromosome, i have not read where scientist said science Adam(the father of humans) had both XY chromosome.

I have explained that about mutation and recombination.

If we read back about Acient and science Adam his first two children were male.



I have not read where it says the early men had both X and Y chromosome.

Like have said earlier in the post I said something about pre-adamite(a believe that humans existed before Adam).

The only genetic science were able to trace back was Adam, other human genetic died out with their linage.

Y chromosome was the only link to all humanity.


Alright.

Firstly, I had already stated that the issue of sex is a major problem for the evolutionist, they propose theories which are not verifiable, you shouldn't trust them so much.

Secondly, are you in the biological sciences?! You are claiming that humans were haploid, this statement is problematic, it would be impossible for such a multicellular and complex organism like a man to be haploid. Again, the mitochondrial DNA from the mother is not the same as the X chromosome. They are located in different places in the cell. Although you are right that if the said Adam had both X and Y chromosomes, then it means that he had a parent. Well if we go with the speculations of the evolutionists, indeed the Y Chromosomal Adam would have parents, definitely the ones he evolved from. Bro, this would just be based on unsubstantiated hypothesis and speculations. I don't know which scientist proposed the mutations and recombination that gave rise to the diploid, the XY and XX chromosomes in humans, care to share?!

Thirdly, here is something for you to peruse:

The road to sex

In trying to understand how this transition occurred, most scientists thought that meiosis and sex evolved together, as a package. But Adam Wilkins of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom and Robin Holliday of the Australian Academy of Sciences have recently argued that some key steps in meiosis—namely, the reduction of diploid cells into haploids—took place long before fullblown sex existed. “It turns the conventional thinking on its head,” [/b]says Wilkins.

Wilkins and Holliday's scenario starts with the ballooning of the genomes of the early, [b]asexual eukaryotes. Although the most ancient single-celled, amoebalike creatures were probably haploid, like modern bacteria, today the eukaryote genome can be thousands of times the size of a bacterial one, and many studies suggest that it was inflated billions of years ago by invading viruslike segments of DNA called mobile elements.

At first, these early eukaryotes reproduced simply by duplicating their giant haploid genomes and dividing. But at some point, Wilkins and Holliday propose, diploid cells arose. Two haploid cells might have fused, for example, or a cell may have failed to divide after duplicating its DNA. Today, some fungi pass through these kinds of diploid stages.

The combination of a big genome and a new diploid stage raised the risk that eukaryotes would make fatal mistakes while copying their DNA. A chromosome can potentially join any other chromosome wherever they share similar sequences. It's safe for this to happen between homologous chromosomes, because they will swap versions of the same genes during recombination. But when one chromosome recombines with a nonhomologous chromosome, “that leads to terrible problems,” says Wilkins. Each chromosome donates some of its genes but doesn't get the same genes back. A cell that inherits one of these deficient chromosomes may die.

Wilkins and Holliday argue that this risk drove the evolution of a new defense. In one or more lineages of early eukaryotes, homologous chromosomes began to line up tightly with one another before cells divided. Now recombination could take place safely. If a chromosome swapped some of its genes with another chromosome, it would get versions of the same genes back. Meiosis thus evolved as a way to reduce the damage from mismatched recombinations.

It would take millions of years more before eukaryotes shifted from a mostly haploid existence to spending most of their life cycle as diploids (as we do) and only sometimes producing the haploid cells necessary today for sexual reproduction. That shift to a sexual life cycle, however, still had to overcome the twofold cost of sex.



http://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5932/1254.full

So I ask again, did humans reproduced asexually?! when the ancestral male and female cohabit, what happened?! what was their gametes carrying?! did they undergo meiosis?! did their offspring carry diploid or haploid chromosome?! When did humans developed (or evolved) the diploid chromosome?!

tintingz:
You're welcome.

There is no record or scientific theories that shows early men(ancestors) having XY chromosome because during those stages humans were still evolving, then along the centuries mutation occured and sex chromosome recombined during procreation.

Bro, the fact is that Humans have diploid chromosomes, for reproduction; meiosis occurs given rise to haploid chromosome which would be donated to fuse with the haploid donated from the partner to give rise to a new diploid individual. i.e humans, be it ancient or new had always been diploid

I don’t know where you are getting your information from, but evolution in terms of sex differentiation had already been completed before the advent of humans (according to evolutionist), only if you want us to believe that humans had the ability to reproduce asexually! The reason why I stated that tracing the origin of sex differentiation would have to go back to simpler organisms.

tintingz:

The only genetic scientist can trace back as the father and mother of humans is the Y-chromosomal-Adam and Mitochondrial-Eve.

And yes there are other men years back that had Y chromosome and other genes which died out with their linage, there was only one man his linage can be traced which scientist called the science Adam and there is something called pre-adamite(a believe that people existed before adam).

And science as shown that it is only women that donate mitochondrial Eve to thier children years back.

The Y chromosome is passed down identically from father to son, so mutations, or point changes, in the male sex chromosome can trace the male line back to the father of all humans. By contrast, DNA from the mitochondria, the energy powerhouse of the cell, is carried inside the egg, so only women pass it on to their children. The DNA hidden inside mitochondria, therefore, can reveal the maternal lineage to an ancient Eve.

But over time, the male chromosome gets bloated with duplicated, jumbled-up stretches of DNA, said study co-author Carlos Bustamante, a geneticist at Stanford University in California.
http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

We can see in above research that mutation, chromosome recombination also occurred.

Indeed, the above still proves that the male is the determinant of the sex of the child, and the fact that we can trace the paternal and maternal lineage of a male child to a Y chromosomal Adam and a mt Eve. If you read carefully, the quote states clearly of tracing the male line, while in regards to mt Eve, it only states “only women pass it on to their children” i.e either male or female. The reason why we have to go into the mitochondrial DNA rather than the X chromosome donated by the female is the fact that only the female parent is responsible for this in their offspring, unlike the X chromosome which is present in both the male and female.

I had stated earlier also, if we go with the idea that ancient Adam had only Y chromosome, then how did he get female children?!

tintingz:

Yes, it was said the Y chromosome shrinked and the X chromosome recombined, something like chromosomal cross over.

I understand you here, but there is no scientific record or discovery that a particular early homo sapiens had both X and Y chromosome.

Scientist were the one that discovered the X and Y chromosome and we all believed in it.

You do not need to be told brother, humans and other mammals as well as other classes of animals, are diploid. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, of which 22 are autosomal and 1 sex chromosome called gamete. As I asked earlier, were humans or the ancient humans said to have reproduced asexually?! Again the reports says there were other males and females during this period, definitely, sexual reproduction of humans as we know it, had been established. You do not need anyone to tell you that these humans are carrying a pair of chromosomes, either XY for male, or XX for the female.

tintingz:

And @bolded, Al.baqir said something about the interpretations of those words.

I had presented the two views from tafsir Ar Raazi, and the arguments for and against. I hope you did find it useful.