Jump to content


Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Ayuoobi

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Facebook
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Muslim

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,534 profile views
  1. Religious Studies

    Where are you from?
  2. Crying after night prayer

    You are blessed. It would be best not to mention this great blessing otherwise it will be rewritten as a good deed done in public. And if you keep telling people it will be rewritten as the evil deed of boasting, and it will become the sin of riyaa'. Thank Allah and remember others in your duas.
  3. #metoo

    Great post OP.
  4. Is Rape Allowed in Islam?

    I don't think people here are appreciating what it means to be a slave. Being a slave means that you are a) personally b) socially and c) metaphysically obliged to obey your master. This is within the limits of morality and reason - i.e. if your master asked you stand all day for no reason at all, or he asked you to commit murder, or the like, one is not obliged to obey him. Now ultimately all men are slaves to Allah. He owns us in every way imaginable and regularly dictates what we can or must do sexually. A man must try to satisfy his wife; at minimum, he must go to her once every four months if he is distant from her, or once every four days if he is available. A wife must satisfy her husband's sexual needs whenever he calls her unless she has a valid excuse. We are prevented from all sorts of sexual behaviour because our Master forbids it (e.g. zina). Now, does this mean that if some other human being fails to obey Allah ta'alah, that we can automatically use the most brutal violence against them? For instance, if a wife refuses to satisfy her husband for no shariah valid reason, does this give the right to the husband to immediately hold her down and violently take what he wants, while she screams in horror? No. But is such a case considered "rape"? According to classical Islamic categories, such an action would fall under domestic abuse, not rape. The reason is because rape is defined as forcing someone who is unlawful to you in principle to have sex with you. In a case where a man forces his lawfully wedded wife to have sex with him, he has committed an act of violence - a domestic abuse case, but not "rape" in the classical definition. What is now called "marital rape" is therefore recognized as an abuse in Islam, but the construct is rejected. The reason is because in Islam consent is not the ultimate criterion of judgment - rather what Allah has made lawful or unlawful is. "Marital rape" is a contradiction in terms from an Islamic point of view, because marriage just means (among other things) that the man is legally entitled to his wife's body. You can therefore have domestic abuse and even sexual abuse in a marriage (as when one encourages or psychologically pressures one's spouse to engage in a sexual act that is haraam, like using unlawful toys or the like), but not "marital rape" in the modern sense. A woman could seek compensation in court, and possibly even a divorce for this kind of behaviour (especially if it was repeated), but the man would not be put to death as in the case of what Islam defines as rape. The punishment for rape is death. Forcing one's lawfully wedded spouse into relations does not carry nearly as heavy a penalty, and any person of reason can see why there is a distinction between the two. The real insanity is to categorize these two as if they're the same thing; as if a woman's consent exists in a vacuum independent of the history she's had with a particular individual. A random stranger and a husband a woman intimately knows for many years are thus equated, where no such equation exists in reality. The reason why this is triggering to the modern mind is because modernity is built on the idea that we're all just atomic individuals related to one another through contractual relationships. This is not how Islam sees things, and in fact it is an objectively false way of viewing human beings. Human beings are related to one another through a much more organic way. We are not just in a giant social contract, we have actual relations and feelings for one another, from family to friends to enemies. And ultimately we are metaphysically related through our wilayah to one another. A father is a walee over his family; there is a bond of wilayah between siblings or between a son and his mother which is slightly different than the wilayah between a mother and her daughter. The Muslims are awliayaa of each other and we are not to take the kufaar as awliyaa. The Ummah is one body. The ties of kinship are sacred. The Islamic view is based on the fitrah and is more organic; it is speaking about reality (which is organic and spiritual) and not simply a mental construct, which is what the atomic individual model is. From the modern point of view consent is made sacrosanct as opposed to one of many considerations, precisely because modernity is based on the idea that "I" determine right and wrong, not some objective standard outside oneself (i.e. God or even nature). It is entirely based on the worship of the nafs, rather than the worship of Allah, and the latter is viewed as optional. All of this being said, how does one treat a female slave under one's authority, from an Islamic perspective? From the above, it is clear that she would be obliged to obey her master's wishes, but also that a master also has obligations towards her. Suppose she refuses her master's advances. Is the Islamic akhlaq to therefore pin her down and take what you want like an animal, like Daesh did? Obviously not. People need to distinguish between "what is my right in principle" and "what I am allowed to do if my rights are violated." If I steal from you, it does not give you the right to kill my child, for instance. Yes, I might have violated your right, but your response must be just and proportionate; preferably merciful. The Muslim man, therefore, is to treat his slave with magnanimity, as he would his own kith and kin, not as a farm animal who in any case is to be treated honourably as well from an Islamic point of view. A female slave is a human being. Even if she is a disbeliever, her dignity must always be allowed to flourish as Allah honoured Bani Adam. This is not to say a Muslim master would not be allowed to take some disciplinary measures and assert his authority, but it must be coupled with mercy, magnanimity, and dignity. One last point that I think is of interest in this discussion is that in some historical texts I've found regarding the practice of concubinage among the Muslims is that slave women were seldom so hesitant as one might think. I've read texts from the 1700's of European spies who were mapping out the Ottoman empire and who detail their friendships with certain slave traders. They record how young women captured as slaves would be eager to be sold so as to practice their art. They relished their sexual role. It was in fact young boys who were terrified of being sold (I'll let you imagine why. Honestly when I read stuff like that I understand why Allah humiliated the Muslims and punished us by allowing the colonialists to take over.) From an older, Andalusian Muslim point of view, there is a book called Ring of the Dove which details a bunch of the romantic exploits that high-status Muslim men would have, typically with a slave woman who a particular noble had fallen in love with. Slave women were fetishized and relished for their beauty (as opposed to their wives who they usually married based on family status, preservation of wealth and so forth). In fact, most slave women would seek to be promoted to "concubine" status because it meant an easy life; whereas to be a slave woman without concubine status would relegate one to more mundane labour tasks like cleaning, fetching water etc, Being a concubine meant one would be dressed in the finest clothes with perfumes, make-up, etc. and not have to do labour; rather she would have attendants. (Concubines of the aristocracy were thus treated, at any rate, but there is reason to think concubines were a feature of relatively high-status men anyway. Thus we can assume this general preferential treatment for concubines over non-concubine slave women was a common social feature even among upper-middle class men, say.) Concubines thus had a much different life than we would expect in the modern age, where the abuses and racialization of American slavery have led to a popular myth-history about what slavery was actually like in different eras and societies. People don't realize that human beings are human beings, and that for instance, a slave woman could hurt her master's feelings, or vice versa. Relationships between people, especially in that age when you would live in one or two places your entire life, with mostly the same people, were a lot more organic and deep. It's not as straightforward as people like to think. This is not to say that there weren't slave women who were not abused, or that all of them were eager or the like - but merely that the picture is far more complex than one would think. Oh and before I forget: TRIGGER WARNING Woops, maybe that shoulda gone at the top. @Qa'im @alidu78 @Sumerian
  5. Marriage with a christian girl

    It is valid once the nikkah is done the Islamic way. Yes.
  6. Is the Qur'an from GOD?

    @MohammadAli1993 It is not circular to quote the Quran about its innerancy if we have independent grounds for affirmin that te Quran is a Divine revelation. These include its coherence, philosophical depth, balagha, scientific predictions, but most importantly - the direct witness of it's truth with the eye of the heart. There is an implicit argument that your line of thought seems to be making, which is as follows: 1. If God revealed a Divine text that is protected, then no variants can occur. 2. Variants occur. 3. Therefore, God did not reveal a Divinely revealed text that is protected. Here's the problem with this argument. First of all, it ignores the fact that a Divinely revealed text that is protect nevertheless is transmitted through a human medium. The Quran was memorized by the early companions and then taught to subsequent generations; the vast majority of people could not read and write for centuries even when the Quran was written in a codex. For the Quran to be perfectly preserved through a chain of oral transmission without any failings in the memory of any of these chains of transmissions would require that God created men infallible. This is obviously not the case, nor should it cause one to have an entire upheaval of faith because one chain of transmission moved a thamma or a fatha. The truth of the matter of what the correct reading is, is to be determined like all other aspects of our Deen - through scholarly analysis. Does it cause you to have an upheaval of your religion because currently we don't have an Imam present to issue fatwas - consequently the entirety of our understanding of the Shariah is an almost certainly flawed approximation based on human reasoning? If not, then why do the extremely minor variants of the Quran create such discomfort? Our deen is based on the witness of the heart that the Quran leads one to - the Quran performs this function and is a rope from the heavens to the earth. The meaning of the Quran being "protected" is not that nobody can physically change it. If i were to take a magic marker to a mushaf right now and change some ayaat, is a lightning bolt going to strike me from the sky? No. So when someone memorized the Quran and made a mistake with a fatha or a dhamma, Allah SWT did not cause a thunderbolt to strike him from the sky or something. Rather, the Imams affirmed that what is read with the people is sufficient for us until the return of the Mahdi, when all disputes in the Deen, from fiqh to variant readings will be resolved. It is important to note that the Imams affirmed that there is only one correct reading; so the question is simply epistemological rather than ontological (i.e. how do we know which reading is correct for what verse, not that there are multiple correct readings in principle). One might argue that there is more to the Quran than simply the direct witness of the Truth in the heart it leads one to - that the Quran is filled with doctrine. Okay, so then in order to show that the Quran is not preserved in a way undermines this function of explicating doctrine, the opponent must show how a variant reading of the Quran changes a fundamental doctrine of the Deen. And of course, they will not be able to do that, because the Quran is preserved regarding the essential doctrines of the Deen. The Quran is the verbatim word of God, but it was transferred from human being to human being. Given how the Quran was transmitted and how many variants we have of any other ancient oral transmission of that period - heck even written texts of that period, the overarching unity of the Quran and the fact that these variants are so minor and so few is in fact a miracle that attests to Allah's preservation of it. I mean seriously, I do not think you can find another ancient text in history prior to the modern period that has been so well preserved, with so few and so minor variations, and ones that do not change the fundamental doctrines is remarkable. If you look at other texts, many times the variations create significant differences in meaning and so the debate actually matters. In the case of the Muslims, the variations are something only scholars discuss on very minute issues and one that does not in any way affect the practice or beliefs of the Muslims. If you doubt the Quran has been preserved in this meaning - then consider the following. If tomorrow the entire Muslim ummah switched from reciting Hafs to reciting Warsh, and all the current Qurans were switched to Warsh, would there be any difference in anyone's life? No. The Muslims would remain entirely the same as they are now. Compare this to the Bible, where the addition or subtraction of John 1:1 or the inclusion of some books which the Catholics include versus exclude, etc creates fundamental changes in their belief. You might wonder why Allah did not "perfectly" preserve the literal text itself, from any variation in dhamma, kasra etc itself. The reasons are threefold. First, as stated earlier, it requires that men be infallible, which undermines the purpose of the dunya - for this precisely is the realm of fitna and misunderstanding and human imperfection and folly. Secondly, these minor variations teach us that in fact what is important about the Quran is that its literal correctness is still only of relative importance; what is of ultimate importance is its function as rope between heavens and the earth (i.e. its metaphysical perfection, which has been perfectly preserved.) If Allah had perfectly preserved its literal meaning, then men would be tempted to think that the Quran just is the words in human language, whereas the fact that these variations exist, however minor, shows that ultimately it is the metaphysical reality of the Quran which is primary and immutable. Thirdly, as with other aspects of our Deen - the fiqh, the details of Aqeedah and philosophy, etc. we are in a period without an Imam who is dhaahir, and hence we are in the period of fitna. The perfection of the Quran, and hence the Deen, will only be made manifest with the coming of the Imam. Prior to that, we are unworthy of perfection and must endure the period of fitna relying on none but Allah and doing our best given what we have. May Allah make it easy for us. @Qa'im please add your thoughts iA.
  7. Confused about my Beliefs.

    Actions are by their intentions. If a sunni did the taraweeh sincerely thinking this is part of the Deen and with the intention of getting closer to Allah, inshaAllah it may be accepted on yom al-qiyyamah regardless of being factually wrong. Otherwise, you've got an even bigger problem because if the shias are right your wudhu is baatil.
  8. Politician of the year 2017

    Bruh, you need to chill out on this Iraqi nationalism. Iraq is a broken country, with corrupt politicians and a largely corrupt population. We need collective tawbah and islaah. The only good i see in Iraq is their generosity, especially during Arba'een. May Allah forgive us and rectify our affairs.
  9. Tajikistan Now One Third Shia

    This is a question of definitions and the categories we want to impose on the world, rather than the phenomena themselves. The basic point is that Tajiks and what you are calling Persians, belong to the same ethno-linguistic group - regardless of the taxonomy you want to use. But their shared lineage is different than that of the Iraqs and Lebanese, for example, who might have largely different lineages (one being derived from Phonecian peoples, the other from a mixture of Arab and Assyrian/Caldean peoples) and simply share the same language. What I am saying is that Tajiks and Persians share an ethnicity by blood descent. This, of course, does not follow down to the last man, but is a generality that is mostly true. Now some linguists claim every dialect constitutes a different ethno-linguistic group but this is really a question of categories we're imposing on the world. If you want to get specific enough, each region in Tajikistan or Iran has a slightly different linguistic variation so you can divide people infinitely until you get to the individual man, who in some sense has a unique "language." I personally use mutual intelligibility, shared historical heritage (i.e. were the languages mutually intelligible a few centuries ago, if not today?), and blood descent as criteria. The reason I did not say "Tajiks are ethnically Iranian people" is because even Pashtuns are Kurds are "ethnically Iranian people" (or more properly perhaps, Iranic people?.) But this does not capture accurately what I am trying to say, which is that they are not only Iranic people, but of a more closely related subset (which I called Persian, perhaps in contrast to standard taxonomies). The category of "Iranian peoples" is too broad because it includes more distant groups who speak mutually unintelligible languages, unless there is a distinction between Iranian and Iranic peoples I am unaware of here. Tl;dr use whatever terminology you want (or what's standard among anthropologists/linguists/historians), but realize these are categories we are imposing. It's not wrong to say Tajiks are Persians, unless we are defining Persians not as the ethnic group that historically populated the greater Khorasaan region, but as a particular group within the borders of the Iranian nation-state today.
  10. Tajikistan Now One Third Shia

    The Persians were ethnically displaced and/or intermarried. The people there now are to be considered Turkic, not Persians. Turkmen even have slanted eyes like the Mongols. Azeris not so much as they mixed with the Causus region's native populations. This is the flow of history. In Iraq right now the people are not Sumerians or Babylonians, and very few Assyrians/Caldeons remain. The vast majority are considered Arabs. Likewise it is with the regions that were once upon a time Persian but are no longer.
  11. Tajikistan Now One Third Shia

    The turks conquered Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan like a thousand years ago, and have inhabited those regions since. They are not ethnically Persian. Tajikistan and Afghanistan, are Persians.
  12. Tajikistan Now One Third Shia

    It should be noted that Tajiks speak a dialect of Farsi and ethnically belong to the same group (broadly construed) as Persians. The "Iranic" culture permeated the entirey of Khurasaan, which includes most of Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and they are actually the same race of people. Therefore, it would not be surprising that many of these people would become Shia, as they are directly affected by the Persian speaking ulema of Iran for the last few centuries and have access to all the great works that have appeared in Farsi over the last 400 years. 33% in one year, however, sounds unbelievable. So does this:
  13. Atheism on the rise in Iraq

    Not to worry everyone. Sayyid Kamaal Al-Haidari has a youtube series called "Dialogue with the Atheists" in which he addresses atheism. InshaAllah this will stem the tide of atheism in Iraq.
  14. WS WR WB Fair enough.
  15. I understood the Al-Qumi quote. See my confusions with Sayyid Sadiq Al-Sadr (the part after he says "أقول: أما كونه" )