169 replies to this topic

[ילדת מלך]

[ 25061 ] 5 ـ محمد بن الحسن بإسناده عن علي بن الحسن بن فضال ، عن محمد بن عبدالله ، عن محمد بن بى عمير ، عن معاوية بن عمار ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : ان رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) زوج ضبيعة بنت الزبير بن عبد المطلب من مقداد بن الاسود ، فتكلمت في ذلك بنو هاشم ، فقال رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) : إنّي انما أردت أن تتضع المناكح .

5 – Muhammad b. al-Hasan by his isnad from `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Faddal from  Muhammad b. `Abdullah from Muhammad b. Abi `Umayr from Mu`awiya b. `Ammar from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام.  He said: Verily the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله married Dabi`a the daughter of az-Zubayr b. `Abd al-Muttalib to Miqdad b. al-Aswad, so the Banu Hashim talked about that.  So the Messenger of Allah (sawa) said: Verily I only want that the women be humbled.

Like as an act of admonishment for arrogance or what ? I mean to ask was that marriage arranged to sort of humble ( in what sense ? ) like as a punishment for taking pride in her blood line or what ?

I am sorry I could not understand the last part--in blue

Edited by ילדת מלך, 20 June 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

ילדת מלך, on 20 June 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

[ 25061 ] 5 ـ محمد بن الحسن بإسناده عن علي بن الحسن بن فضال ، عن محمد بن عبدالله ، عن محمد بن بى عمير ، عن معاوية بن عمار ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : ان رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) زوج ضبيعة بنت الزبير بن عبد المطلب من مقداد بن الاسود ، فتكلمت في ذلك بنو هاشم ، فقال رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) : إنّي انما أردت أن تتضع المناكح .

5 – Muhammad b. al-Hasan by his isnad from `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Faddal from  Muhammad b. `Abdullah from Muhammad b. Abi `Umayr from Mu`awiya b. `Ammar from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام.  He said: Verily the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله married Dabi`a the daughter of az-Zubayr b. `Abd al-Muttalib to Miqdad b. al-Aswad, so the Banu Hashim talked about that.  So the Messenger of Allah (sawa) said: Verily I only want that the women be humbled.

Like as an act of admonishment for arrogance or what ? I mean to ask was that marriage arranged to sort of humble ( in what sense ? ) like as a punishment for taking pride in her blood line or what ?

I am sorry I could not understand the last part--in blue

Yes this narration is true and the reason was to eradicate worldly tribal pride,but for Syeds its due to Prophet(saww) that we feel honoured not due to any worldly definition of respectable family.This Hadees was to put that sort of pride in place which was common in Arabs at that time.

[Aliaabbas]

ילדת מלך, on 20 June 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

[ 25061 ] 5 ـ محمد بن الحسن بإسناده عن علي بن الحسن بن فضال ، عن محمد بن عبدالله ، عن محمد بن بى عمير ، عن معاوية بن عمار ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : ان رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) زوج ضبيعة بنت الزبير بن عبد المطلب من مقداد بن الاسود ، فتكلمت في ذلك بنو هاشم ، فقال رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) : إنّي انما أردت أن تتضع المناكح .

5 – Muhammad b. al-Hasan by his isnad from `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Faddal from  Muhammad b. `Abdullah from Muhammad b. Abi `Umayr from Mu`awiya b. `Ammar from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام.  He said: Verily the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله married Dabi`a the daughter of az-Zubayr b. `Abd al-Muttalib to Miqdad b. al-Aswad, so the Banu Hashim talked about that.  So the Messenger of Allah (sawa) said: Verily I only want that the women be humbled.

Like as an act of admonishment for arrogance or what ? I mean to ask was that marriage arranged to sort of humble ( in what sense ? ) like as a punishment for taking pride in her blood line or what ?

I am sorry I could not understand the last part--in blue

To be honest I think all this Syeda cannot marry a non Syed is all a bit like the Hindus and their caste system.

Vanity is never a good thing

[Marbles]

ילדת מלך, on 20 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

I did not say that you were imposing your views, I just asked that does it mean that such Nikah is not valid in the first place or simply just not liked ?

I was just asking a simple question, not attacking anyone' stance---

The children of a non-sayed/syedah marriage are of illegitimate birth and all Islamic rules regarding illegitimate birth apply to their children. (Can't become mujtahids, can't lead prayers, can't enter heaven proper). It also means that the couple engaged in this marriage are sinning by engaging in haram relationship.

This is the logical and ultimate conclusion of their viewpoint. I am not saying this. If you probe them further you will get these answers.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Aliaabbas, on 20 June 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

To be honest I think all this Syeda cannot marry a non Syed is all a bit like the Hindus and their caste system.

Vanity is never a good thing

Can you bring any constructive post instead of personal opinions,everyone has personal opinions so what?
The rule of discussion is provision of evidence from both sides,not mere opinions.

[Aliaabbas]

Marbles, on 20 June 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

The children of a non-sayed/syedah marriage are of illegitimate birth and all Islamic rules regarding illegitimate birth apply to their children. (Can't become mujtahids, can't lead prayers, can't enter heaven proper). It also means that the couple engaged in this marriage are sinning by engaging in haram relationship.

This is the logical and ultimate conclusion of their viewpoint. I am not saying this. If you probe them further you will get these answers.

Surely they are in the minority with that viewpoint?

Kaniz e Zahra, on 20 June 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Can you bring any constructive post instead of personal opinions,everyone has personal opinions so what?
The rule of discussion is provision of evidence from both sides,not mere opinions.

Unless you can talk to me with some respect, I don't want to talk to you.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Marbles, on 20 June 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

The children of a non-sayed/syedah marriage are of illegitimate birth and all Islamic rules regarding illegitimate birth apply to their children. (Can't become mujtahids, can't lead prayers, can't enter heaven proper). It also means that the couple engaged in this marriage are sinning by engaging in haram relationship.

This is the logical and ultimate conclusion of their viewpoint. I am not saying this. If you probe them further you will get these answers.

Who gave these answers previously ,please post a link,just curious.
Well personally i did n't think about that what you posted here.I am content with my beliefs but does n't mean i should start using them as tool against others.

[Marbles]

Aliaabbas, on 20 June 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Surely they are in the minority with that viewpoint?

A very small minority so far as I can tell interacting with my larger Shia community. And that means Pakistan and there are none of this sort outside the Subcontinent who consider such marriages haram. So yes, a pretty small, albeit vocal, minority.

There are some desis who dislike such marriages for reasons of "respect" to sayeds. But they definitely don't believe and go around declaring it haram.

Kaniz e Zahra, on 20 June 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

Who gave these answers previously ,please post a link,just curious.
Well personally i did n't think about that what you posted here.I am content with my beliefs but does n't mean i should start using them as tool against others

I have received those answers multiple times from people who don't believe in the legitimacy of such marriages. That was one to one so no weblinks sorry.

If you didn't think about what I posted then you must think. After all, if such marriages are not halal, what does it mean in practical terms and according to Islamic Law?

[Aliaabbas]

Marbles, on 20 June 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

A very small minority so far as I can tell interacting with my larger Shia community. And that means Pakistan and there are none of this sort outside the Subcontinent who consider such marriages haram. So yes, a pretty small, albeit vocal, minority.

There are some desis who dislike such marriages for reasons of "respect" to sayeds. But they definitely don't believe and go around declaring it haram.

Thank goodness for that brother - it is quite horrible to think that others believe that this kind of union is haram and that the children are illegitimate.

We need better unity for all Shias - if we cant stick together than what chance of there is getting Shia Sunni unity?

[Marbles]

Aliaabbas, on 20 June 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

Thank goodness for that brother - it is quite horrible to think that others believe that this kind of union is haram and that the children are illegitimate.

We need better unity for all Shias - if we cant stick together than what chance of there is getting Shia Sunni unity?

That's awful. But I stopped paying heed to them a long time ago.

These marriages are more common in DesiLand than ever before. I have decided to make a point. For me, if it finally comes down to an arranged marriage, I will limit my pool of potentials to the Sayeds.

Ah the blessings of having a sayedah as your wife

[Aliaabbas]

Marbles, on 20 June 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

That's awful. But I stopped paying heed to them a long time ago.

These marriages are more common in DesiLand than ever before. I have decided to make a point. For me, if it finally comes down to an arranged marriage, I will limit my pool of potentials to the Sayeds.

Ah the blessings of having a sayedah as your wife

You go for it  I can't see the Desi's intimdating you

[GreyMatter]

Kaniz e Zahra, on 20 June 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

All i can see you are comparing material status to lineage,being a Syed is such a bounty that even if someone sacrifice his/her whole kingdom he/she can't get it this way.
Moreover Islam is for every age what Imam(as) did does n't stop to one era its eternal.As for Eiman there are many pious syeds as well,i have seen many in life.It depends what kind of Syeda you have,if she is not of very strong faith,whats the point of finding a syed of strong faith for her.What Allah says in Quran ''pious men for pious women,and vicious men for vicious women''.Of course the lineage continues from father so how can it remain intact in any other case.

And very important point ,its also being said that infact ulema tell this that 'rizq' is bound in women's destiny so whats the point of finding established man.That would be same when Bibi Fatima(as) married Imam Ali(as) people used to criticize that inspite of having proposals of affluent men Her father gave her hand to the poor one(nauzbillah).
So this argument does n't carry weight.

Yes I know that Islam is perfect and for every age. But some social practices can be given up. It was very common to marry young girls as soon as they reached puberty and people at the time used to keep many wives at ones. Our own Prophet   did it, those practices were the norm in those times. Sure we can follow this Sunnah even today, but it would be impractical to do so in our society.

Likewise, what Imam Musa al-Kadhim did made sense, as that time was highlighted by Harun rasheeds tyranny.
But in today's world, it does not make sense to limit Syedas only to marry Syeds.
Islam will remain; as it is great, but certain social practices alter as time progresses.

The Quran states:  ''pious men for pious women,and vicious men for vicious women'' which is ideal and it is the way it should be done.
The Quran did not say:  'Syeds for Syedas and non-Syeds for non-Syedas'.. Thus, it is fine if a Syeda marries a pious non-Syed.

Edited by GreyMatter, 20 June 2012 - 07:48 PM.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

GreyMatter, on 20 June 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

Yes I know that Islam is perfect and for every age. But some social practices can be given up. It was very common to marry young girls as soon as they reached puberty and people at the time used to keep many wives at ones. Our own Prophet   did it, those practices were the norm in those times. Sure we can follow this Sunnah even today, but it would be impractical to do so in our society.

Likewise, what Imam Musa al-Kadhim did made sense, as that time was highlighted by Harun rasheeds tyranny.
But in today's world, it does not make sense to limit Syedas only to marry Syeds.
Islam will remain; as it is great, but certain social practices alter as time progresses.

The Quran states:  ''pious men for pious women,and vicious men for vicious women'' which is ideal and it is the way it should be done.
The Quran did not say:  'Syeds for Syedas and non-Syeds for non-Syedas'.. Thus, it is fine if a Syeda marries a pious non-Syed.

Quran did n't clearly elaborate the names of Aimma(as) so you won't believe in them too?
How can something practiced by Aimma(as) be altered over time? Yes those were tyrannical times,but these are not that is one of the advantage that there are millions of Syeds in today's world,there is no Taqqiyah,Syeds are much educated ,and established now.Its not difficult to find one if intention is good,and material desires are controlled.

Marbles, on 20 June 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

That's awful. But I stopped paying heed to them a long time ago.

These marriages are more common in DesiLand than ever before. I have decided to make a point. For me, if it finally comes down to an arranged marriage, I will limit my pool of potentials to the Sayeds.

Ah the blessings of having a sayedah as your wife

Why its blessing to have a Syeda? When all are equal,Syeds are like others how comes its a blessing?
And are pakistanis/indians minority for you,there are 50 million Shias here,with most of them against such marriages especially the most educated ones too,with few rare exceptions,as well as around the same figure of indians there with shared feelings.

And what if other regions don't follow it,when did Iran becomes Shia? 800 years back,when did Iraq becomes Shia 200 years back,and here Syed saints arrived more than thousand years back,all of whom propagated Islam here,converted millions of hindus and prohibited such marriages to their generations.So where Shi'ism reached and spread fast and earlier?

[Marbles]

Kaniz e Zahra, on 21 June 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

And are pakistanis/indians minority for you,there are 50 million Shias here,with most of them against such marriages especially the most educated ones too,with few rare exceptions,as well as around the same figure of indians there with shared feelings.

Ah you wish!

The rare exceptions are those who prohibit these marriages. Look around, observe and talk to people. The vast majority of Indo-Pak Shia in fact believes it's halal. The fact that you and your family view such marriages as being haram doesn't mean most desi Shias are against such marriages.

Quote

And what if other regions don't follow it,when did Iran becomes Shia? 800 years back,when did Iraq becomes Shia 200 years back,and here Syed saints arrived more than thousand years back,all of whom propagated Islam here,converted millions of hindus and prohibited such marriages to their generations.So where Shi'ism reached and spread fast and earlier?

Which Indo-Pak "sayed saints" prohibited such marriages? Let us see the list.

If there were Islamic grounds for the impermissibility of such marriages, you can be sure that non-IndoPak Shia would have something about it. Most scholars come and have always come from Iran and the Arab world. Not a single one would endorse your view. Shi'ism of the Subcontinent is influenced by the Hindu culture. Don't try to portray it as authentic compared to the Shi'ism of the rest of the world.

Can't believe the sheer amount of ignorance in your posts, with due respect.

[ImAli]

wow....another sayyed non sayyed thread

I have never seen such an obsession with this until reading SC

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Marbles, on 21 June 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Ah you wish!

The rare exceptions are those who prohibit these marriages. Look around, observe and talk to people. The vast majority of Indo-Pak Shia in fact believes it's halal. The fact that you and your family view such marriages as being haram doesn't mean most desi Shias are against such marriages.



Which Indo-Pak "sayed saints" prohibited such marriages? Let us see the list.

If there were Islamic grounds for the impermissibility of such marriages, you can be sure that non-IndoPak Shia would have something about it. Most scholars come and have always come from Iran and the Arab world. Not a single one would endorse your view. Shi'ism of the Subcontinent is influenced by the Hindu culture. Don't try to portray it as authentic compared to the Shi'ism of the rest of the world.

Can't believe the sheer amount of ignorance in your posts, with due respect.

What do you think i have n't talked to any Shia here(pk),its not about my family,its about majority here.Have you conducted the poll here.I am  much more active in my community than you can guess.I won't know how halal they think of it?
As for scholars yes Sadooq in classical ones prohibited and in recent Ayatollah Bashir Hussain from 'Pakistan' is one such example,and i came to know from somewhere Ayatollah Sadiq shirazi also disapprove it.Even the one like Muhammad Hussain najafi(dhakoo) said that if i say it halal then i allow Syeds to do whatever they suit with me.So are all of them 'racists'.Though i am not dhakoo follower but even he disapproves it,then which majority you are talking about? Giligit-baltistan?
As for saints,i myself is descendant of seventh most highly reverred saint of Pakistan,you don't know about these things,go visit their shrines,ask their descendants to show you where and how they married their daughters? And how strict they were? but being an outsider you have no idea,the children know more than outsiders what their ancestors willed for.

Anyways i am stunned by your ignorance.Shi'ism here is influenced by hindu culture? then what do you say about fire jumping on Nowroz in Iran? And which are hindu inspired things?Tawwasul and knowledge of Aimma(as) which i often found you calling ghuluw is believed by Shias everywhere,and what do you think was Sadooq racist? or from indo-pak?who emphasized that Syeds are kufv for each other. Height of ignorance,lack of research with due respect i must say that.
Read the post from page one,all i came across were tons of personal remarks though gave many authentic refutations.So which party is ignorant?

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 21 June 2012 - 10:37 AM.

[Waiting for HIM]

Imam As -Sadiq was approached by a Khawarij and asked the hand of a Syed Woman and Imam replied:-
“Your ‘‘kufv’ is in your own blood, your own ‘Hasab’ and your own people (Qoum) and positively Allah (swt) has kept Sadaqah away from us which is the dirt of the hands of people and we desist to include in that virtue given to us by Allah سبحانه وتعالى, someone for whom Allah (swt) has not given the superiority that he has laid down for us”.
Furooh – e – Kafi volume 5, Bihar – Al – Anwar,
Rasoom – Ush – Sharayya Fi Mizan Asharayya by Mohammed Hasnain Sabqi Najfi

Given the fact that according to Islamic Sharia (Shariat-Muhammadi which people call Fiqh Jafaria)
(i)   Sadqa given by a non-Syed is HARAM to be consumed by Syed.
(ii)  Sadqa given by a Syed is HALAL to be consumed for a deserving Syed
(iii) Sadqa given by a Syed is HALAL to be consumed for a deserving non-Syed.
(iv) Khums is only to be HALAL for a consumption by a Syed.
(v)  Khums is HARAM for a non-Syed.
Note: i, ii, and iii above are also valid rules among the 4 Sunni Fiqhs.

Based on above quoted Hadith and Sharia rules (these Sharia rules are already emerging from the most authentic of traditions and Al-Quran) , here are a couple of technical questions:
Q1. A non-Syed gives Sadqa to another non-Syed. This non-Syed man's wife happens to be a Syed lineage. Now should this Syed woman be fed with a Sadqa of a non-Syed or she should make a separate kitchen for her own needs?
Q2. A person pays Khums to a Syeda woman. Her husband happens to be a non-Syed. Her husband is not entitled to the use of this Khums money. All the while the family is extremely poor. Wouldn't it create issues again which are detreimental to their family life?
Q3. Where does the ORDER of finding Kufv fit in a non-Syed and Syed marriage?
Q4. Where does the matter of superiority fit in?
Allahs (swt) says in Quran:
....Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other... 4:34
....Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above all the nations. (Of all times)... 33:3
Combining the two, a Syed man can marry multiple non-Syed women but a Syed woman can not marry a non-Syed man just based on this superiority rule in Quran. Again combine the order of "Kufv" for a spouse; and things will get even more complicated.

This is not an issue of RACISM either (adding one more dimension) - O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (notice TAQWA); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware. .. 49:13

Conslusion: Let's don't make it a issue of Black and White. There is a lot of evidence that suggests the discouragement of union of non-Syed man and Syed woman. There might be some instances which suggest otherwise too. Taqwa requires to be more closer to what is Mustahib than pick something which is neither mustahib nor makrooh.

P.S. : I did not quote all the numerous hadiths and Ayat about the superiority of:
Husband over Wife,
Impostance of Kufv,
Prophet's family being superior to the rest of humanity,
Ale-Imran (progeny of Abu Talib: this includes Jafar and Aqeel as well) being superior to the rest of humanity.

Edited by Waiting for HIM, 21 June 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

^^

Bro a women was given something as sadaqah and she offered that same thing o rasool Allah saww . Ayesha interrupted and used the same logic that sadaqah is haram on prophet saww. To which he saww replied: it was sadaqah for her but a gift for us and a gift is halal on us.

Cent remember the source as I read it long time ago.

Although I am not implying to fit this rule for husband and wife but there are ahadees in furoo al kafi on how a non hashimite with a hashimi wife extracts his dues. Someone can look it up for u in furu al kafi.

Ya ali madad

[Kaniz e Zahra]

siraatoaliyinhaqqun, on 21 June 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

^^

Bro a women was given something as sadaqah and she offered that same thing o rasool Allah saww . Ayesha interrupted and used the same logic that sadaqah is haram on prophet saww. To which he saww replied: it was sadaqah for her but a gift for us and a gift is halal on us.

Cent remember the source as I read it long time ago.

Although I am not implying to fit this rule for husband and wife but there are ahadees in furoo al kafi on how a non hashimite with a hashimi wife extracts his dues. Someone can look it up for u in furu al kafi.

Ya ali madad

Oh brother have n't you read the tradition where someone gifted dates to Prophet(saww) which were sadqa,Imam Hassan(as) just picked one and was immediately prevented by Prophet(saww) with words ''Hassan(as) don't you know its haram on us'',even i 'll look up for the source inshAllah,but this tradition is being narrated by Howza trained ulema to prove ilm e luddani of Aimma(as) as Prophet(saww) addressed the two years old by saying ''don't you know'',that means He knew,anyways the point is that if someone will gift a haram thing Prophet(saww) was not going to accept that. I don't need to tell what other things fall into haram.We just can't take such ridiculous traditions even if posted with reference,these are beyond the stature of Infallibles(as) to accept haram as gift.Then what do you say about bribery?Even that is the gift then?

The Ahlebait(as) who did n't accept sadqa on the way of Syria when they were prisoners,thirsty,and hungry,how could they take it as a gift,when could n't take in that state when for ordinary people even haram becomes halal if they fear death from starvation.
We must remember their ranks ,in effort of proving ourselves we should n't forget their Status.

Peer Maula Ali(as) madad

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 21 June 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[Marbles]

Kaniz e Zahra, on 21 June 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

What do you think i have n't talked to any Shia here(pk),its not about my family,its about majority here.Have you conducted the poll here.I am  much more active in my community than you can guess.I won't know how halal they think of it?
As for scholars yes Sadooq in classical ones prohibited and in recent Ayatollah Bashir Hussain from 'Pakistan' is one such example,and i came to know from somewhere Ayatollah Sadiq shirazi also disapprove it.Even the one like Muhammad Hussain najafi(dhakoo) said that if i say it halal then i allow Syeds to do whatever they suit with me.So are all of them 'racists'.Though i am not dhakoo follower but even he disapproves it,then which majority you are talking about? Giligit-baltistan?
As for saints,i myself is descendant of seventh most highly reverred saint of Pakistan,you don't know about these things,go visit their shrines,ask their descendants to show you where and how they married their daughters? And how strict they were? but being an outsider you have no idea,the children know more than outsiders what their ancestors willed for.

Anyways i am stunned by your ignorance.Shi'ism here is influenced by hindu culture? then what do you say about fire jumping on Nowroz in Iran? And which are hindu inspired things?Tawwasul and knowledge of Aimma(as) which i often found you calling ghuluw is believed by Shias everywhere,and what do you think was Sadooq racist? or from indo-pak?who emphasized that Syeds are kufv for each other. Height of ignorance,lack of research with due respect i must say that.
Read the post from page one,all i came across were tons of personal remarks though gave many authentic refutations.So which party is ignorant?

That's a fine and potent example of hearsay.

You can't bring a single fatwa by the scholars you mentioned who supposedly prohibit these marriages. If you can, then bring them. Let us see.

Your circle of malangs may think they are in the majority in declaring such marriages haram but trust me, they are not. If you get out of your little enclave and talk to Shia people active in local communities, you will see that.

The fact that there are enough Pakistanis on this very forum, including me, who do not agree with you should be a good pointer.

Oh and please refrain from accusimg me of things I have never said. Where on this forum did I equate "tawassul and knowledge of Aima" with guluw? For God's sake, think before you write.

The rest of your post is irrelevant rambling and not worth commenting.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Marbles, on 21 June 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

That's a fine and potent example of hearsay.

You can't bring a single fatwa by the scholars you mentioned who supposedly prohibit these marriages. If you can, then bring them. Let us see.

Your circle of malangs may think they are in the majority in declaring such marriages haram but trust me, they are not. If you get out of your little enclave and talk to Shia people active in local communities, you will see that.

The fact that there are enough Pakistanis on this very forum, including me, who do not agree with you should be a good pointer.

Oh and please refrain from accusimg me of things I have never said. Where on this forum did I equate "tawassul and knowledge of Aima" with guluw? For God's sake, think before you write.

The rest of your post is irrelevant rambling and not worth commenting.

Most of the Pakistanis here on SC are resided in west,and my social circle is so vast Alhamdulillah,and i know which 'pakis' you are talking about.They are majority for you,because you want to see them as majority,and you love to interact with those kinds.
Anyways i have Ayatollah Najafi's reply,let me find from my inbox and post it here.And Shirazis have mentioned 'kufv' as one of the neccessity in their risalah about marriages,or women,go and check for it.
Even i know many on SC who are against such marriages,check the old threads,but most of them feel tired becuse other party barely have any sound answer.The example is a member posted one very nice refutation of your claims above,you entirely ignored it,and pick few points of my posts on which you can give your heresay.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 21 June 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[Marbles]

Waiting for HIM, on 21 June 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Conslusion: Let's don't make it a issue of Black and White. There is a lot of evidence that suggests the discouragement of union of non-Syed man and Syed woman. There might be some instances which suggest otherwise too. Taqwa requires to be more closer to what is Mustahib than pick something which is neither mustahib nor makrooh.

A simple historical matter is blown out of proportion.

First, there is principally nothing wrong with having preferences and priorities with regards spouse selection. If a sayed family wants to wed into a sayed family, even though one may not agree with that on a personal level, one also cannot condemn their decision. That being said, many Indo-Pak sayed families do prefer to wed within sayeds. But hardly any of them believes that a marriage of sayedah with a non-sayed is actually impermissible by Islamic Law.

The most we hear is the matter of "respect" for sayeds. To give you the commonly cited example, a non-sayed marrying a sayedah is discouraged because the husband has authority over wife and may, in the event of a conflict, end up saying disrespectful things to his wife. He may also take liberty to hit his wife, so much as it is mandated in the Quran. If any of that happens, they argue that it would constitute grave disrespect to a woman of sayed lineage and by that extension to the Prophet and Ahlul Bayt. The non-sayed man as a result will incur great sin if he did those things. Far-fetched and nonsensical I hear? But that's the worst I have heard from people who advise against such marriages but do not go around declaring it haram.

Second, and more important, is that during the times of the Imams all sayedah women were either daughters or grand-daughters or great-granddaughters of the Imams themselves and due to close proximity with the Infallibles they had high level of imaan and taqwa not comparable to any other set of Muslims anywhere in those times. For this reason alone they were usually wed to sayeds (usually cousins) of the same level of imaan and taqwa and not to ummati layman who were mostly not good matches so far as imaan and taqwa are concerned.

The current sayeds are far removed from being the progeny of the Prophet and nowhere near in taqwa and imaan as the immediate families of the Imams. Contemporary sayeds are just the descendents of the Prophet from male line and most can't even prove it. Now to advise that sayedah women shouldn't marry a non-sayed due to her superior lineage is bad enough. Too claim that such marriages are prohibited by Islamic Law is worse and akin to inventing a new religion.

But that's Indo-Pak Shindu'ism for you in a nutshell. Replace Sayed with Brahmin and we might be talking about Hindu caste system.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Can someone tell,how to copy documents that come along with emails,its not getting copied.

Anyways i advise all of you who wants to see the fatwa i was referring to.Send a query to Ayatollah Bashir Hussain's office,inshAllah you will get an immediate reply.He clearly stated where such marriage is considered 'be hurmati' of Syeda,its forbidden in Sharia.
Try yourselves.

Marbles, on 21 June 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

A simple historical matter is blown out of proportion.

First, there is principally nothing wrong with having preferences and priorities with regards spouse selection. If a sayed family wants to wed into a sayed family, even though one may not agree with that on a personal level, one also cannot condemn their decision. That being said, many Indo-Pak sayed families do prefer to wed within sayeds. But hardly any of them believes that a marriage of sayedah with a non-sayed is actually impermissible by Islamic Law.

The most we hear is the matter of "respect" for sayeds. To give you the commonly cited example, a non-sayed marrying a sayedah is discouraged because the husband has authority over wife and may, in the event of a conflict, end up saying disrespectful things to his wife. He may also take liberty to hit his wife, so much as it is mandated in the Quran. If any of that happens, they argue that it would constitute grave disrespect to a woman of sayed lineage and by that extension to the Prophet and Ahlul Bayt. The non-sayed man as a result will incur great sin if he did those things. Far-fetched and nonsensical I hear? But that's the worst I have heard from people who advise against such marriages but do not go around declaring it haram.

Second, and more important, is that during the times of the Imams all sayedah women were either daughters or grand-daughters or great-granddaughters of the Imams themselves and due to close proximity with the Infallibles they had high level of imaan and taqwa not comparable to any other set of Muslims anywhere in those times. For this reason alone they were usually wed to sayeds (usually cousins) of the same level of imaan and taqwa and not to ummati layman who were mostly not good matches so far as imaan and taqwa are concerned.

The current sayeds are far removed from being the progeny of the Prophet and nowhere near in taqwa and imaan as the immediate families of the Imams. Contemporary sayeds are just the descendents of the Prophet from male line and most can't even prove it. Now to advise that sayedah women shouldn't marry a non-sayed due to her superior lineage is bad enough. Too claim that such marriages are prohibited by Islamic Law is worse and akin to inventing a new religion.

But that's Indo-Pak Shindu'ism for you in a nutshell. Replace Sayed with Brahmin and we might be talking about Hindu caste system.

Was it a refutation to his post? Obviously one can expect this from opponents on this issue;

Daughters,and grand daughters were high in taqwa so no one was compatible? Not the close companions?
Then tell us.Was Bibi Rubab(as) equal to Imam Hussain(as)?
Was Bibi Ummul banin(as) equal to Imam Ali(as)?
Was Bibi Umme Salma(saww) equal to Prophet(saww)?
So how comes equality required for females? and if it is required then admit,its for every age.Piety or non piety is not an issue here.I ask again can you make sadqa halal on sinner Syed? So how can be same rules changed for marriage?

And why are you comforting yourself again and again ,that most of the Pakistani syeds don't condemn it? I live here too,and goes on to interact from usulis to akhbaris,to malangs to the neutrals,so come out of your shell please.
If its hinduism,then again i would ask those Sons and grandsons of Imams(as) were inclined to hinduism?(nauzbillah).
And for verification we have family trees,and indo-pak history has saved the arrival of Syeds and have discussed their lineage in their writings,where they are? who they are?

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 21 June 2012 - 02:52 PM.

[Marbles]

Kaniz e Zahra, on 21 June 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Most of the Pakistanis here on SC are resided in west,

Why does it matter where they are resided?

Ok. I am a Pakistani IN Pakistan. Now talk to me.

Quote

and my social circle is so vast Alhamdulillah,

I can tell that.

Quote

and i know which 'pakis' you are talking about.

Tell me which.

Quote

They are majority for you,because you want to see them as majority,and you love to interact with those kinds.

Please stop projecting. You are making a fool of yourself. Only if you stop talking to malangs and go out to other Shia communities in the length and breadth of the country you will meet those who don't agree with you. And trust me. they are more than you can imagine.

Quote

Anyways i have Ayatollah Najafi's reply,let me find from my inbox and post it here.And Shirazis have mentioned 'kufv' as one of the neccessity in their risalah about marriages,or women,go and check for it.

No more claims without evidence please. Let us see.

You are resorting to what I assumed you would. Twisting and interpreting Shirazi's fatwa in a way you like. Kufv is one of the necessity but you are taking it to mean that sayed women have no kufv among non-sayed men due to her superior lineage. How did you make that conclusion? Did Shirazi say that? Show us where.

Show us the direct and plainly worded Shirazi's fatwa which prohibits such marriage unequivocally.

Quote

Even i know many on SC who are against such marriages,check the old threads,but most of them feel tired becuse other party barely have any sound answer.The example is a member posted one very nice refutation of your claims above,you entirely ignored it,and pick few points of my posts on which you can give your heresay.

Be original please. Don't use my phrases and arguments on me. You are guilty of hearsay as you have claimed that so and so marja says those marriages are haram but you have failed to produce even a single fatwa to back your claim.

And by the way, which part of my post you are calling "hearsay"? LOOL.

I have replied to the brother above. Even he isn't calling those marriages haram. So you have no support for your view anywhere apart from what you heard in your local malang circle.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Marbles, on 21 June 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Why does it matter where they are resided?

Ok. I am a Pakistani IN Pakistan. Now talk to me.



I can tell that.



Tell me which.



Please stop projecting. You are making a fool of yourself. Only if you stop talking to malangs and go out to other Shia communities in the length and breadth of the country you will meet those who don't agree with you. And trust me. they are more than you can imagine.



No more claims without evidence please. Let us see.

You are resorting to what I assumed you would. Twisting and interpreting Shirazi's fatwa in a way you like. Kufv is one of the necessity but you are taking it to mean that sayed women have no kufv among non-sayed men due to her superior lineage. How did you make that conclusion? Did Shirazi say that? Show us where.

Show us the direct and plainly worded Shirazi's fatwa which prohibits such marriage unequivocally.



Be original please. Don't use my phrases and arguments on me. You are guilty of hearsay as you have claimed that so and so marja says those marriages are haram but you have failed to produce even a single fatwa to back your claim.

And by the way, which part of my post you are calling "hearsay"? LOOL.

I have replied to the brother above. Even he isn't calling those marriages haram. So you have no support for your view anywhere apart from what you heard in your local malang circle.

Complete farce,how can you claim which circle i have?
Yes it does matter if they reside in west,their mindsets take a new turn in those societies,not for everyone.

Why should i bother your opinion if you are pakistani? You are not representative of Shias of Pakistan.
As for fatwa i said try yourself if you get it as halal post it here,i am unable to copy it here but giving you open challenge,why are you hesitating sending him an email?And for shirazis i said before that i did n't read it with my own eyes as Ayatollah Najafi's reply i personally got,but for Shirazis somebody told me he despised such unions though i am not sure about his opinion.

Yes it was heresay,nothing academic ,just like others clutching to the straws.

Interestingly,as many members came here to fight,(as without logic its fight not debate) mostly had personal reasons,someone's aunt was married outside,someone's mom,two wanted to marry syedas,including you.So which majority you talk about,all we can see is personal reasons,without which nobody would have been coming here to defend a thing without any defense.

He,the above poster was calling it haram or not,but you are failed to produce any substantial response to it,so what it should be called other than heresay?

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 21 June 2012 - 03:07 PM.