Jump to content
Haji 2003

Donald J. Trump [OFFICIAL THREAD]

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I think people are underestimating the serious nature of this issue. 

I don't think he has a good chance of winning, but he is still the Republican front runner with only a few months before the Republican convention where they nominate their candidate. 

He is very dangerous because he is not a typical politician. In the past, there were some limits that a normal politician would not cross, not because they care about things like 'the people', 'the Constitution', etc but because they wanted to be viable as a candidate in the future, i.e. they were worried about career and reputation in the future. 

Trump doesn't seem to care about any of that. He is old, and he knows he doesn't have that many more years left on earth. He is power hungry and after becoming a 'legend'. He is looking for any kind of short term gain he can get for himself like media coverage, name recognition, etc. He has no religion, no morals and no ethics and he is willing to cross any line to get what he wants. There is a population, though very far from the majority, that are his die hard supporters. Because all the other candidates and their supporters are so fractured into different smaller groups, (except maybe Hillary) he may have a chance. 

His style and tactics remind me of Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan(la). We know that Muawiya(la) did take power long enough to implant his son Yazid(la) into the Caliphate for a short time, with very disastrous consequences. I don't think we should panic, but yes I do think we should have a strategy to deal with a reality of a Trump presidency. If you underestimate people like this, you do so at your own peril. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Asad_127 said:

Salaamalikum :') 

Well let me ask you this. Is wiretapping or the patriot act constitutional? How about waterboarding? 

The fact of the matter is, there is no first amendment in reality. It's nonsense. There is no freedom of speech. There's no free media. They all toe the line. The right of the people to peaceably assemble is not true either. I protested once and police asked me to move somewhere else or they would arrest me. 

If there were freedom of speech, SC would let us air our grievances in public but they don't lool. :') I'm just kidding lol. 

So yeah there is no first Amendment. We have no rights. :') 

I've protested more times than I can count. Backed the police down more times than I can count. Had the Feds literally come into the school district to protect my kids on First Amendment and civil rights violations against them. We have rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Asad_127 said:

I second this post.

You have to understand, if the president needs something done, they will get congress to pass it. You mentioned gun control, that has nothing to do with congress or the president but everything to do with the NRA. It's one of the strongest lobbies and they pay big money to keep congress from doing anything. If it wasn't in existence, GOP would support gun control the next day. It's not that hard to think about. Just look at our nation post 9/11. All the president has to do is play the fear card and prove his point, like false flags etc.

The NRA has nothing without the Second Amendment. The Amendment is what gives it  teeth. Countries without the right to bear arms usually have far less problem controlling them. Obama would like stricter gun control , more health care, and a lot of  things he hasn't been able to pass through Congress. There are a lot of checks on Presidential power, formal and informal. Your post just proved my point. Trump will face the same. I think he would be a major mess for this country, but he won't just run rampant.

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^I was listening to the pinko-feminist-propaganda forum, To the Contrary, and this week they were citing a study that 60 or 70 or 80 % of women are now buying firearms. I forget the number.

The panel was aghast that women are buying firearms --particularly they hounded the Orwellian  "but the children"/"the children" sob stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Asad_127 said:

Salaamalikum :') 

Well let me ask you this. Is wiretapping or the patriot act constitutional? How about waterboarding? 

 

Yes, wiretapping with a warrant on American citizens is constitutional . The NSA's " broad " form of warrantless wiretapping in possible violation of FISA laws might be unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has refused the case so far, in my understanding, on lack of standing. That could easily change and the Court could have a case brought ,probably again by the ACLU,and rule.

Same with parts of the Patriot Act. Everything gets measured against the Constitution. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

 

He is very dangerous because he is not a typical politician. In the past, there were some limits that a normal politician would not cross, not because they care about things like 'the people', 'the Constitution', etc but because they wanted to be viable as a candidate in the future, i.e. they were worried about career and reputation in the future. 

 

And just to add to Br. Abu Hadi's points, even if he doesn't win (a bit of a stretch), look at the danger of how normalizing it's becoming to make such blatant remarks simply on the basis of religion. It's not only  totally Ok for a primary candidate--it leaves them to be front runner. Even if he doesn't get elected, what does this type of rhetoric and fear-mongering do in the long-run? And for the safety of Muslims living in America? Getting through day to day life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sumayyeh said:

And just to add to Br. Abu Hadi's points, even if he doesn't win (a bit of a stretch), look at the danger of how normalizing it's becoming to make such blatant remarks simply on the basis of religion. It's not only  totally Ok for a primary candidate--it leaves them to be front runner. Even if he doesn't get elected, what does this type of rhetoric and fear-mongering do in the long-run? And for the safety of Muslims living in America? Getting through day to day life?

IMHO, it just makes Trump look like a jerk. Even his fellow Republicans are slamming him for it. 

He's after all the old bugaboos...illegal immigrants, etc. ..but it's all rhetoric. 

He knows undocumented labor is a sad pillar of ag and factory economy in this country and he knows Muslims aren't a real threat ...has " Muslim friends" ...lol!

you're right...he's less of a threat than his shrinking demographic of wingnut followers. I've always said they would try to do some damage on their way out. So best thing is to fight them using several available tactics, including getting politically active.

personal note: The " progressive/ liberals" in politics, often bashed here and whose number would include the two serving Muslim members of the US Congress, are probably your best bet if you want your civil rights protected. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Yes, wiretapping with a warrant on American citizens is constitutional . The NSA's " broad " form of warrantless wiretapping in possible violation of FISA laws might be unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has refused the case so far, in my understanding, on lack of standing. That could easily change and the Court could have a case brought ,probably again by the ACLU,and rule.

Same with parts of the Patriot Act. Everything gets measured against the Constitution. 

 

 

13 hours ago, Asad_127 said:

Salaamalikum :') 

 How about waterboarding? 

 

Lol...forgot this. Waterboarding is definitely against several Constitutional  amendments and against international law on torture. The issue there is the US agreeing with that definition of torture and whether federal law applies in overseas situations. You'll notice American citizens in jail on US soil aren't waterboarded. The one idiot sheriff in Texas who tried it whilst Bush was Governator there was prosecuted, convicted...and Bush did not pardon him. There have been US soldiers prosecuted in history for it as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sumayyeh said:

@LeftCoastMom Did you see the Muslim lady who was escorted out of the Trump rally? Omg, she had some guts... :)

 

 

And you see how much press she is getting. Lots. She is using one tactic to expose Trump's followers and daylight their behavior. Good for her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

^^^^I was listening to the pinko-feminist-propaganda forum, To the Contrary, and this week they were citing a study that 60 or 70 or 80 % of women are now buying firearms. I forget the number.

The panel was aghast that women are buying firearms --particularly they hounded the Orwellian  "but the children"/"the children" sob stuff.

You mean 80% ...or whatever... of current gun-buyers are now women?

I doubt 80% of women are armed. Lol. 

Disclaimer from the Leftist Coast:

I am a true "libtard"and never let my kids play with toy guns.

Guns are not toys.

I let them use real ones.

I made sure all my kids knew how to use a gun, under proper instruction, whether or not they want to own one.  Daughter is a certified expert level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sumayyeh said:

Even if he doesn't get elected, what does this type of rhetoric and fear-mongering do in the long-run? And for the safety of Muslims living in America? Getting through day to day life?

 

9 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

 I do think we should have a strategy to deal with a reality of a Trump presidency. If you underestimate people like this, you do so at your own peril. 

Okay, first if all, if it were me, I'd be contributing to the legal  war chests of the ACLU and organizations like CAIR. They'll likely be bringing the lawsuits.

also, I'd make sure nothing that came out of his or his followers mouths regarding Muslims went unanswered.

I'd  get incredibly politically active and form Muslim political action groups, preferably with allies, to officially challenge him.

There are other things, but the idea is to put up a good strong intelligent " American-style" resistance and not look like easy prey.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

 

Okay, first if all, if it were me, I'd be contributing to the legal  war chests of the ACLU and organizations like CAIR. They'll likely be bringing the lawsuits.

also, I'd make sure nothing that came out of his or his followers mouths regarding Muslims went unanswered.

I'd  get incredibly politically active and form Muslim political action groups, preferably with allies, to officially challenge him.

There are other things, but the idea is to put up a good strong intelligent " American-style" resistance and not look like easy prey.

Glad you mentioned CAIR--that organization actually helped secure my community's rights in terms of getting a license to build a Masjed (mosque)....I mean we had to go through so much just to have that simple right, because the neighbors complained lol.

You guys mentioned waterboarding in the posts above...that is no joke. Or, the racial discrimination against African American and police...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all cut our teeth on native tribal rights and racial discrimination around here. In fact, will be in court again on treaty rights shortly.

 

People need to "warrior up "when folks try to step on them, figuratively speaking, like you did with the mosque. Don't let them get away with it. The LGBTQI etc. community in the US did and they had far fewer legal protections than Muslims do with Constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. 

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

 

Okay, first if all, if it were me, I'd be contributing to the legal  war chests of the ACLU and organizations like CAIR. They'll likely be bringing the lawsuits.

also, I'd make sure nothing that came out of his or his followers mouths regarding Muslims went unanswered.

I'd  get incredibly politically active and form Muslim political action groups, preferably with allies, to officially challenge him.

There are other things, but the idea is to put up a good strong intelligent " American-style" resistance and not look like easy prey.

 

 

 

The one bright spot in a Trump presidency would be that it would unite (if only temporarily) every group from moderate muslim professionals and intellectuals to legal and illegal immigrants to the left and the moderate Republicans (if there is such a thing anymore) against him. This would be something to see, and I don't think I've ever seen this nor thought I'd see it in my lifetime. It would be crazy in the streets, that's for sure. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2016 at 3:13 AM, LeftCoastMom said:

Doing the things the OP described would require blatant violations of the Constitution, not just borderline disputed illegal things such as racial profiling, bad as it is and an actionable offense, Congress authorizing the President to stretch the 1973 War Powers Acts ( they can still deny funding and,in fact,have),or public defender office underfunding and case overload ( the Sixth Amendment still applies,though)..so ,even if he could,which he can't... I don't think he would or wants to try to monkey with the Constitution just to discomfit Muslims. That would initiate a Constitutional crisis for religious freedom and the actions would be struck down by the Supremes tout suite. In fact, the only way I could see Trumpo trying it would be with the knowledge that the  Supremes would kill it so he could blame not getting it done on them. But I don't think he would risk impeachment just to please the wingnuts he is currently lying to about his " concerns" about Muslims. I don't think he really cares about Muslims. He'd be happy to have any rich American Muslims fund him or as business partners. I don't think he has many actual concerns about Islam or "terrorism."

I disagree with this too. I don't know if you've read about it but a while back, there was a huge controversy in Indiana and Ohio about gays and bakeries. Christian bakery owners refused to sell wedding cakes to people who were gay because of their Religion and the gay people wanted a wedding cake with two females or two males. Which goes against the concept of Marriage that we believe in. They were sued and ultimately some even had to shut down. They argued that it was their religious freedom but they were denied. There has been many other incidents similar also. If a Christian or Muslim were to goto a "Gay Friendly" bakery and ask for a wedding cake with a Male and a Female, they would be discriminated against the same way. This has happend too. But nothing happens to the Gay Bakeries. Point is, there isn't really any religious freedom anymore. Try exercising your religious freedom at a Walmart and refuse to sell alcohol or work as a teller and refuse something minor. They don't care about religious freedoms. :')

On 1/10/2016 at 11:55 AM, LeftCoastMom said:

The NRA has nothing without the Second Amendment. The Amendment is what gives it  teeth. Countries without the right to bear arms usually have far less problem controlling them. Obama would like stricter gun control , more health care, and a lot of  things he hasn't been able to pass through Congress. There are a lot of checks on Presidential power, formal and informal. Your post just proved my point. Trump will face the same. I think he would be a major mess for this country, but he won't just run rampant.

What is the second amendment specifically? It's the right to bear arms. That can be twisted to fit whatever purpose they want it to fit. Hence bearing arms can mean something as little as a pocket knife etc. It's very vague. Which makes my point very clear too lol. The NRA lobby is strong and that is why the second amendment fits the current definition of what it does lol. :) 

On 1/10/2016 at 5:04 PM, LeftCoastMom said:

 

Okay, first if all, if it were me, I'd be contributing to the legal  war chests of the ACLU and organizations like CAIR. They'll likely be bringing the lawsuits.

also, I'd make sure nothing that came out of his or his followers mouths regarding Muslims went unanswered.

I'd  get incredibly politically active and form Muslim political action groups, preferably with allies, to officially challenge him.

There are other things, but the idea is to put up a good strong intelligent " American-style" resistance and not look like easy prey.

I totally agree with this. Actually @Abu Hadi had a topic which discussed something similar. We have to make lobbies and have unity to face these challenges. Imagine if we had a Muslim Lobby similar to AIPAC. It is truly sad that the Armenian Lobby is so strong and our Arab Lobbies aren't. Money buys people(in this case Politicans) their jobs depend on it. Hence they would listen to our opinions and do we say. Otherwise they would lose our vital contribitons and eventually their jobs. Media, Businesses, Everything we need to have a presence in if we are going to succeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

You mean 80% ...or whatever... of current gun-buyers are now women?

I doubt 80% of women are armed. Lol. 

Disclaimer from the Leftist Coast:

I am a true "libtard"and never let my kids play with toy guns.

Guns are not toys.

I let them use real ones.

I made sure all my kids knew how to use a gun, under proper instruction, whether or not they want to own one.  Daughter is a certified expert level. 

I re-watched it on the net. The premise piece said:

Episode Title: "08Jan16 "the Well-Armed Women"

-the majority of women have been in favor of 'gun-control' "for decades"

now, 1/3 of women who own guns "bought them recently"

-women's gun ownership "rose 80% from 2004-2011

In the whining (or whinnying) session, Congresswoman Norton was making statistics up, such as -and no joke- that "60% of guns in the home go for suicide" :hahaha: opine: what a shameless ___ she is. then how-come there isn't a massive drop in population?

The NIH in the late 80s had in their Cause of Death statistics that all gun deaths for that year -murder, suicide, accidents- was a cause of death that ranked between blood poisoning and kidney failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Asad_127 ( Love your avatar,btw)

First, the gay wedding cake issue was not a religious freedom issue. A religious freedom issue would be not allowing you to go to your mosque or church or interfering with your practice of religion in some of the ways Trump is supposedly supporting. So everyone still has plenty of religious freedom.

You do not have a "religious right "to run a business and break the law. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in " places of public accommodation". Many states also forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If you pull a business license you should know basic business law,just as if you get a driver's license you should know basic rules of the road. Ignorance of the law does not mean the law ceases to exist or that you will not be punished for violating it.

You can, within limits, avoid this by running your business as a private co-op or club not open to the public. You will probably lose tax breaks and other benefits, but that will allow you to serve whom you please as long as you do not cross the line into " public accommodation" territory again.

The Civil Rights Act is basic US history , has been the law ,and has been upheld for 50 years now as a part of the fabric of the common good of our society ,started as a response to white-owned businesses refusing service to black customers in the South and was expanded to include protections for race, religion, ethnic origin, etc. There is no excuse for a business owner to not know it by now, IMHO.

As well, one wonders if those "strict "Christians refused divorcees wedding cakes ( remarriage after divorce, unlike in Islam, is considered adultery by many evangelical Christians). Did they make second time brides and grooms bring in the death certificates of their former spouses ( the only way they are spiritually free of the first marriage ?)

One of those bakers admitted he'd made a wedding cake for two dogs. (The article didn't say if the dogs were the same gender or not)

I have not heard of " gay friendly bakeries" refusing straight couples wedding cakes. Where are those cases?

As well, it is your job to do your due diligence and decide if you can take or keep a job at a place that violates  your religious principles. That is not the job of WalMart. If Walmart sells pork and you convert to Islam and perhaps feel you can't sell it ,they may make accommodations for you...or not. That is not violating your religious freedom as you are not forced to work there. You cannot force your religious beliefs onto your employer. If you were, say, imprisoned and forced to work a prison job, different matter. The State may have some accountability there.

**********

 

The right to bear arms, in American common law understanding, has meant fire-arms, due to its tie to a " militia', the primary weapon of which was a firearm at the time of the framing of the Amendment.

It is usually defined thusly: "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." 

Knives, axes,shovels, rakes, picks, etc, can be weapons, but they are primarily considered tools and are commonly used for other things. Guns are meant to be weapons.

 

Hope this helps.

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

 

Lol...forgot this. Waterboarding is definitely against several Constitutional  amendments and against international law on torture. The issue there is the US agreeing with that definition of torture and whether federal law applies in overseas situations. You'll notice American citizens in jail on US soil aren't waterboarded. The one idiot sheriff in Texas who tried it whilst Bush was Governator there was prosecuted, convicted...and Bush did not pardon him. There have been US soldiers prosecuted in history for it as well.  

The Bush Administration, a.k.a. la Boche, chose waterboarding because they knew it was pointless and no way to gain information. You saw it also in the man who was chosen to lead the interrogation -forgot name- who had no experience in interrogation. Reason: he would not know any better. Then there was the man that got imprisoned later for talking to reporters, his actions were directed over the phone by Cheney et alia: "now, slap him again", etc.

The purpose of all this nonsense was to get the prisoners -most handed over to the US for the monetary rewards- to say anything that could be used to justify pre-determined policy decisions. The infamous "cherry picking", such as using fire engines as flamethrowers or filling apartments with TNT and other such crazy stuff so as to panic the public.

And besides the "say anything under duress" garbage there as Abu Zubedah (sp?) who the FBI said publically at the time he was insane --and so medically determined later. Which is one reason -besides the above and others- why the FBI and other trained interrogators were restricted/barred from access to the prisoners. [Every Armed Service has an interrogator school and there was literally a pool of thousands from which to draw upon -even native Arabic speakers.]

As for gaining information, that is extremely easy. The interrogation "technicians" administer one of several drugs, three of which are commercially available, the effects of which is: "You walk, you Talk, but you are not conscience and you do not remember anything." Just like we were told in "POW Class" within Survival, Evasion and Escape Classes.  And as far as the "technical" goes, I myself went through that.

But the Guantanomo victums were the lucky ones. Others were held in cargo containers until they died, slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

@Asad_127 ( Love your avatar,btw)

First, the gay wedding cake issue was not a religious freedom issue. A religious freedom issue would be not allowing you to go to your mosque or church or interfering with your practice of religion in some of the ways Trump is supposedly supporting. So everyone still has plenty of religious freedom.

You do not have a "religious right "to run a business and break the law. 

...

Exactly, you cannot sell anything you suspect that will be used in a sinful way: like providing material support for religious rituals that inflict bodily harm or death. Like in 1992 when the Voodoers in Florida sacrificed a baby --with Mommy's full consent.

So, do I have to sell fuel to Baalists so they can burn their children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LeftCoastMom

 

"Leftist" and "libtard" are two very different things. Unfortunately in this country, where there was never a "left," the term has been perverted and so liberal scum are referred to as "left," both by themselves and by their rivals.

 

To clarify the difference...

 

This is left:

 

18gl6jjovylbojpg.jpg

 

and this is liberal:

 

therachelmaddowshow_l_0.png?itok=_TUi0Tq

 

 

The former has honor, he has courage, he has morals, he has identity, he has culture, he has purpose and principle and so on.

 

The latter is a worthless creature with no morals, no identity, no culture, no tradition, no roots, no brains, no ability, no intelligence, no sentiment, no good characteristics whatsoever.

 

I'm not saying left is always good. But throughout the last century or two we have at least a few figures from the left who have possessed such characteristics. Liberals, meanwhile, whether they are writing for Der Spiegel or spewing nonsense on MSNBC, have never been worth a damn. Not a single one of them. What's worse is their facade of being bastions of enlightenment. They have nothing to justify that pretence.

 

The New York Times will tear down Trump until the cows come home, but when a hard-core fascist rabbi in "Israel" dies, they write his hagiography. GW Bush's wars were criminal, but they will lobby for Libyan and Syrian wars all day. This mockery of principles, this self-imagined position of moral superiority is what makes them worthless.

Edited by baradar_jackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Exactly, you cannot sell anything you suspect that will be used in a sinful way: like providing material support for religious rituals that inflict bodily harm or death. Like in 1992 when the Voodoers in Florida sacrificed a baby --with Mommy's full consent.

So, do I have to sell fuel to Baalists so they can burn their children?

But there is a difference between what religions consider " sinful" and what the State considers " illegal". Sometimes they sync up, sometimes they don't.

I doubt anyone is going to tell you the cord of wood you sell them is going to be used for child sacrifice . If they did or you knew or suspected it would be, you'd have to report them to the authorities. It's sinful ...also a crime.

Same sex marriage may be sinful to some religions, but it is not a crime in this country. Likewise legal -age drinking is still sinful to some faiths, but it isn't a crime here. Therefore, you'd have no standing to refuse them a cake or liquor. You can decide if your moral code allows you to open a business or take a job that violates it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • 3.142. Muhammad b. Abdallah b. al-Hasan b. al-Hasan al-Mujtaba al-Nafs al-Zakiyya https://sites.google.com/site/mujamalahadith/vol1/book-of-narrators/muhammad-b-abdallah-b-al-hasan-b-al-hasan-al-mujtaba-al-nafs-al-zakiyya   [-/1] بـصـائـر الـدرجـات: عبدالله بن جعفر ، عن محمد بن عيسى ، عن صفوان ، عن العيص ، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: ما من بني ولا وصي ولا ملك إلا في كتاب عندي ، لا والله ما لمحمد بن عبدالله بن الحسن فيه اسم [1/-] Basair al-Darajat: Abdallah b. Ja’far from Muhammad b. Isa from Safwan from al-Iys [b. al-Qasim] from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: there is not a prophet or a successor or a king except that he is found in a book which is with me. No by Allah! the name of Muhammad b. Abdallah b. al-Hasan is not there. NOTES: This is one of the great signs of the Imama of al-Sadiq for he prophesied that the revolt of Muhammad b. Abdallah b. al-Hasan [a descendant of Imam al-Hasan] would end in failure and that this pretender who claimed to be the Mahdi would be put to death by the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur. The Imam repeated this prediction a number times and did so many years before the actual occurrence, most prominently at the meeting of the Hashimis at Abwa. This became widely known from him, such that even Sunni authorities like Ibn Khaldun in his Muqadimma and al-Dhahabi in his Siyar make a mention of it. al-Muhsini: Perhaps what is meant by ‘kings’ are those up to the time of the ‘Aimma. To have the names of all kings from the beginning of creation to the end of the world, over all countries and for all time, would require several volumes, how large would this book be in size? In any case, al-Muhsini does not accept the reliability of this particular narrations because of his doubts about Basair as a source.
    • Bruv. Costs an arm and a leg (means it costs a lot of money)  
    • Salaam Alaykum Inshaallah on your effort. Allah put you on the right path. Be grateful for that. About your question, yes you need to pray and fast for those days, but don't worry. It's not that much hard. For example, I do one day Qadha pray everyday, so after two years and half from now I'll be done with Qadha prays. You can also come up with a program for Qadha fasts as well. Here are two posts for Qadha prays and fasts:   Keep going brother
    • Brother, offer thanks to Allah & instead of inventing questions like these, ask Him to grant you the steadfastness on deen.  Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 54:
      يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مَن يَرْتَدَّ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِي اللَّهُ بِقَوْمٍ يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ يُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَلَا يَخَافُونَ لَوْمَةَ لَائِمٍ ذَٰلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah's Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.
      (English - Shakir) Surah Muhammad, Verse 25:
      إِنَّ الَّذِينَ ارْتَدُّوا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الْهُدَى الشَّيْطَانُ سَوَّلَ لَهُمْ وَأَمْلَىٰ لَهُمْ Surely (as for) those who return on their backs after that guidance has become manifest to them, the Shaitan has made it a light matter to them; and He gives them respite.
      (English - Shakir) Try to take benifits from the blessed nights like shab e qadr, shab e bara'at, last friday night & day of Ramadhan. They will makeup your account & removes your burden In-sha Allah. And no, its not too late. A true & sincere repentence is all what one need for his success before death approaches him. Just try to offer obligatory prayers with sunnah & salat al layl regularly from now onwards. And try to use the blessed nights. Dont worry, put your trust on Allah. He is the Most Merciful. Learning is a continuous process which never ends. We even learn something from our own death. You're Alhamdolillah alive, start your journey with prayer "Rabbi zidni ilma". 
    • Great quotation from the FT today.  https://www.ft.com/content/f1d5571c-d119-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc Note how: 1. an undemocratic putsch is now defined as being 'popularly backed' making a weak attempt at legitimising it 2. the previous democratically elected government is now disparaged by simply being labelled Islamist. Black is white and white is black.
×