Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fatimahlover

Non sayed women married to the imams and sayeds?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Assalamualikum,

I read here alot about that its permissible for a sayed boy to marry a non sayed girl. Yet some people dont still allow their sons to marry non sayed girls. All i want is a proof from the family tree of the prophet that the imams actually married non sayed women " the only example that i know is about the persian wife of Imam Hussien" So are there more examples than that? 

And how to convince someone that actually its allowed for a sayed to marry half a sayed " my mom is only sayed"? I need very convincing answers to that topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's those who claim that Sayyids are only allowed to marry Sayyids who need to bring their proof, and the idea that Sayyid men can only marry Sayyid women is even more absurd than the usual claim involving Sayyid women. The Imams marrying Sayyid women seems to have been the exception rather than the rule. Most of the mothers of the Imams were not Sayyid.

As for other examples, I don't think any of the mothers of any of the Imams after al-Baqir Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã were Sayyid. The most famous examples would be the mother of Imam al-Kadhim and the mother of Imam al-Mahdi, who were both slaves.

Share this post


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

Assalamualikum,

I read here alot about that its permissible for a sayed boy to marry a non sayed girl. Yet some people dont still allow their sons to marry non sayed girls. All i want is a proof from the family tree of the prophet that the imams actually married non sayed women " the only example that i know is about the persian wife of Imam Hussien" So are there more examples than that? 

And how to convince someone that actually its allowed for a sayed to marry half a sayed " my mom is only sayed"? I need very convincing answers to that topic.

It is very simple and is not a Fiqhi issue.

Ayatullah Sistani allows Syed girls to marry non-Syed boys. If you accept that then all your subsequent questions are null and void.

The question arises if you are Syed and you do not allow you daughters to marry non-Syeds is it ethical to allow your sons to do so.

By ethical I mean population is split 50:50 men and women. If all Syed boys married non-Syed girls who is going to marry the Syed girls.

This isn't about religion it's about doing the right thing.

As already pointed out many of the Imams mothers and wives were non-Syed

Edited by A true Sunni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A true Sunni said:

It is very simple and is not a Fiqhi issue.

Ayatullah Sistani allows Syed girls to marry non-Syed boys. If you accept that then all your subsequent questions are null and void.

The question arises if you are Syed and you do not allow you daughters to marry non-Syeds is it ethical to allow your sons to do so.

By ethical I mean population is split 50:50 men and women. If all Syed boys married non-Syed girls who is going to marry the Syed girls.

This isn't about religion it's about doing the right thing.

As already pointed out many of the Imams mothers and wives were non-Syed

And i dont think its ethical too, if a guy loves a non sayed good pious girl that his family would reject his choice because she is non sayed. I guess thats like looking down on a person and committing zulm in the society. Making the lives of the guy and the girl miserable and thats against the prophet's teachings. 

Share this post


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

And i dont think its ethical too, if a guy loves a non sayed good pious girl that his family would reject his choice because she is non sayed. I guess thats like looking down on a person and committing zulm in the society. Making the lives of the guy and the girl miserable and thats against the prophet's teachings. 

Since I have already told you that Agha Sistani allows it, its a moot point.

If a Syed boy wants to marry a non-Syed girl then he should support his sisters marrying Non-Sayed boys in turn.  

Simple 

Share this post


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

And i dont think its ethical too, if a guy loves a non sayed good pious girl that his family would reject his choice because she is non sayed. I guess thats like looking down on a person and committing zulm in the society. Making the lives of the guy and the girl miserable and thats against the prophet's teachings. 

Ayotullah Seestani says that if a syed boy marries a non-syed girl and they have children, they will be syeds because Nasb runs through father. However, if a syeda marries a non-syed, her child will not be syed. For syed families, it is impossible to assume that their girls children should lose connection from Prophet's family and her children would not be connected to Prophet.  For a boy, the fear is that if he got involved with a non-syeda and marry her, in future her wife could influence her daughter or son to marry among non-syeds. And since the boy had the love marriage, he could not force his children on any basis to sacrifice something for blood relation to Prophet. 

People claim that Imams married non-syeds. I believe that they were chosen ones. They didn't force imams or had conflicts with them. And those who had conflucts with them, created problems for imams and destroyed themselves. 

Edited by Sindbad05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A true Sunni said:

Since I have already told you that Agha Sistani allows it, its a moot point.

If a Syed boy wants to marry a non-Syed girl then he should support his sisters marrying Non-Sayed boys in turn.  

Simple 

What Sayyid Sistani says is not binding on everyone, so it is absurd to try to end an argument by making reference to his rulings.

Share this post


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

What Sayyid Sistani says is not binding on everyone, so it is absurd to try to end an argument by making reference to his rulings.

Allowing it, doesn't mean you have to do it. Choosing a partner a personal choice so qute clearly Agha Sistani cannot rule on that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Ayotullah Seestani says that if a syed boy marries a non-syed girl and they have children, they will be syeds because Nasb runs through father. However, if a syeda marries a non-syed, her child will not be syed. For syed families, it is impossible to assume that their girls children should lose connection from Prophet's family and her children would not be connected to Prophet.  For a boy, the fear is that if he got involved with a non-syeda and marry her, in future her wife could influence her daughter or son to marry among non-syeds. And since the boy had the love marriage, he could not force his children on any basis to sacrifice something for blood relation to Prophet. 

People claim that Imams married non-syeds. I believe that they were chosen ones. They didn't force imams or had conflicts with them. And those who had conflucts with them, created problems for imams and destroyed themselves. 

"They were chosen" yes the mothers of the imams were indeed chosen as 'non sayeds' to break the rule of a sayed marrying a sayed thats it. Like during the prophet's days, Hashimitis were married to slaves and people from high ranks and levels married people from lower levels to show that islam isnt a religion of levels and racism. They were chosen by God because they were pious thats it. 

Share this post


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

"They were chosen" yes the mothers of the imams were indeed chosen as 'non sayeds' to break the rule of a sayed marrying a sayed thats it. Like during the prophet's days, Hashimitis were married to slaves and people from high ranks and levels married people from lower levels to show that islam isnt a religion of levels and racism. They were chosen by God because they were pious thats it. 

When there is Surah like Surah-i-Kausar, "Why do you say like that"....If God wishes to let the descendants of Prophet PBUHHP become innumerable, no one can prevent it. They were chosen by God for Imams and that is why there did not have any say for determining the pairs of children of Imams, look at Imam Musa al-Kadhim a.s that He a.s had 18 daughters but they were not married. Why that happened, because there was no equal for them. 

Yes, if there be an equal for a syed among a non-syed family and instead of getting conflicts with syeds for what they are and what she is not, marrying is alright, if she knows at least to respect their descent and linkage to Prophet. But here happens that every non-Syed stands to show that syeds are even lower than them, why are you jealous of what God has given them and you do not have ? This is the only difference between, the "Chosen ladies who were mothers of Imams", because they knew respect of house of Ahlebait a.s. 

I only have one thing to non-syeds brother and sister, listen. If there is a syed and he becomes a bad name to Prophet PBUHHP, Prophet PBUHHP would cut off his relation with him and that is what Imam Ali a.s says: "There will be 20 Dajals (deceivers) from my family and I do not have any relation with them". Like Agha Khan family who descends from Prophet PBUHHP, and now they do not show that anything among them resembles with Prophet and they look more Western than Muslims. 

Same is the case with non-Syeds, Instead of making yourself critics of Syeds, you should focus on your own well-being, And like Salman al Farsi, who loved so much that Prophet PBUHHP called him that "Salman is from us Ahlebait a.s", you could also become part of Prophet's huge family just on account of your good behavior and Eman and like "Those pious ladies who were wives and mothers of our Imams, they proved themselves syeds and part of family of Prophet just by their obedience to family of Prophet PBUHHP". I am a syed myself, if I get married to a non-syed girl whom I like, I am not sure whether she will keep up with me or just become strongest critic, So, it is better, I do not think about that, because every non-syed girl's opinion would be no different from you and all those who are unaware of our commitment to Syeda Zahra a.s.  I would rather be slave of Syeda Zahra a.s than become slave of a non-syed girl who says me and my children that cut your relations with syeds and bury this custom. 

Edited by Sindbad05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Hugo Boss said:

Our Imams married Africans.

And saying Sayed can only marry Sayed is like saying white people can only marry white people. Racism at it's best.

Ok, I am a syed, If I marry a non-syed white women what is the chance that my children will marry as per my wish within syeds and be more close to Prophet both physically and spiritually ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fatimahlover said:

Assalamualikum,

I read here alot about that its permissible for a sayed boy to marry a non sayed girl. Yet some people dont still allow their sons to marry non sayed girls. All i want is a proof from the family tree of the prophet that the imams actually married non sayed women " the only example that i know is about the persian wife of Imam Hussien" So are there more examples than that? 

And how to convince someone that actually its allowed for a sayed to marry half a sayed " my mom is only sayed"? I need very convincing answers to that topic.

:salam:

Why

millions

of

sayeds

from

Pakistan/Iran/India 

then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

When there is Surah like Surah-i-Kausar, "Why do you say like that"....If God wishes to let the descendants of Prophet PBUHHP become innumerable, no one can prevent it. They were chosen by God for Imams and that is why there did not have any say for determining the pairs of children of Imams, look at Imam Musa al-Kadhim a.s that He a.s had 18 daughters but they were not married. Why that happened, because there was no equal for them. 

Yes, if there be an equal for a syed among a non-syed family and instead of getting conflicts with syeds for what they are and what she is not, marrying is alright, if she knows at least to respect their descent and linkage to Prophet. But here happens that every non-Syed stands to show that syeds are even lower than them, why are you jealous of what God has given them and you do not have ? This is the only difference between, the "Chosen ladies who were mothers of Imams", because they knew respect of house of Ahlebait a.s. 

I only have one thing to non-syeds brother and sister, listen. If there is a syed and he becomes a bad name to Prophet PBUHHP, Prophet PBUHHP would cut off his relation with him and that is what Imam Ali a.s says: "There will be 20 Dajals (deceivers) from my family and I do not have any relation with them". Like Agha Khan family who were Prophet PBUHHP, and now they do not show that anything among them resembles with Prophet and they look more Western than Muslims. 

Same is the case with non-Syeds, Instead of making yourself critics of Syeds, you should focus on your own well-being, And like Salman al Farsi, who loved so much that Prophet PBUHHP called him that "Salman is from us Ahlebait a.s", you could also become part of Prophet's huge family just on account of your good behavior and Eman and like "Those pious ladies who were wives and mothers of our Imams, they proved themselves syeds and part of family of Prophet just by their obedience to family of Prophet PBUHHP". I am a syed myself, if I get married to a non-syed girl whom I like, I am not sure whether she will keep up with me or just become strongest critic, So, it is better, I do not think about that, because every non-syed girl's opinion would be no different from you and all those who are unaware of our commitment to Syeda Zahra a.s.  I would rather be slave of Syeda Zahra a.s than become slave of a non-syed girl who says me and my children that cut your relations with syeds and bury this custom. 

I dont think i hold the grudge against any sayeds or think that they are lower than non sayeds. We are all equal in the eyes of God. Actually being a sayed is a responsibility more than it is an honour " and actually it is an honour too". All i'm saying if there are religious and pious shias from the non sayeds, dont cut them off if they do respect the descendants of the prophet and the respect the responsibility of a sayed because they would feel that they are way lower than sayeds and it would break their hearts. As you can see around lots of good people were refused for just being non sayed girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

It's those who claim that Sayyids are only allowed to marry Sayyids who need to bring their proof, and the idea that Sayyid men can only marry Sayyid women is even more absurd than the usual claim involving Sayyid women. The Imams marrying Sayyid women seems to have been the exception rather than the rule. Most of the mothers of the Imams were not Sayyid.

As for other examples, I don't think any of the mothers of any of the Imams after al-Baqir Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã were Sayyid. The most famous examples would be the mother of Imam al-Kadhim and the mother of Imam al-Mahdi, who were both slaves.

Hayder nys one i agree with you because whole humanity  based on equality ...

Share this post


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

I dont think i hold the grudge against any sayeds or think that they are lower than non sayeds. We are all equal in the eyes of God. Actually being a sayed is a responsibility more than it is an honour " and actually it is an honour too". All i'm saying if there are religious and pious shias from the non sayeds, dont cut them off if they do respect the descendants of the prophet and the respect the responsibility of a sayed because they would feel that they are way lower than sayeds and it would break their hearts. As you can see around lots of good people were refused for just being non sayed girls.

I am not implying towards you, I am implying towards those who at every place come up with this issue always. If non-syed girls could guarantee to syed boys that they would not make their lives terrible every time by opening same issue again and again after marriage, there seems no issue, but the thing is that they cannot guarantee, so why should we jump in a blind whole ? Those syeds who keep eyes in the future, they care for those non-syeds more than they care for themselves, we do not have to think by heart always, but also have to keep our heart in future as well. 

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • frankly, i think it's the (takfiri) wahhabis that's causing havoc in muslim lands. let's not quarrel among ourselves. [8:46].....do not quarrel for then you will be weak in hearts and your power will depart,..... let's not misled others [16:25] Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in full, and also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled. Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear! don't have to unite. but let's strive as in a race with one another, towards good deeds [5:48]....therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;  
    • A Christian Nation? Ryan LaMothe Photo by Forsaken Fotos | CC BY 2.0 Over the years I have often heard Christians of various political stripes assert that the United States is a Christian nation. More recently, Christian evangelicals, who supported Trump and his campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again,” seemed nostalgic for a white Christian America. One might be tempted to call the belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation a myth, the seeds of which were sown in 1630 when John Winthrop challenged his community to establish a city on the hill, reflecting the covenant of God and Christian charity. Many myths contain a grain or two of truth. Nevertheless, the belief in a Christian nation is more illusion than truth. This might be a provocative claim to many people that requires justification. Let me begin by acknowledging that most of the people who immigrated to America, taking native peoples’ lands, were primarily of various Christian denominations. Some saw this country as the new Promised Land, overlooking the fact that by occupying the land they removed any possibility of promise to the non-Christian people who lived here for millennia. So, I am willing to concede that white European settlers were mainly Christian. This was also true after the War of Independence and in this sense one might say this was a Christian nation in that most of the settlers called themselves Christian. I will come back to this, but for now let me say that this new “Christian nation” was clearly neither a Christian theocracy not a parliamentary system advocating a particular religion. Indeed, the Constitution enshrined the free exercise of religion, while establishing a wall between church and state. If we were to call this budding nation a Christian nation, it was oddly one that proclaimed the freedom of individuals to practice other religions—at least ideally—or no religion at all. Proclaiming the inalienable right of religious freedom would leave open the possibility that another religion might be dominant, which would mean we would no longer be a “Christian nation.” While some people cite numbers or percentage of Christians as a reason for calling the U.S. a Christian nation, others have argued that the U.S. is a Christian nation because it was founded by Christians and, therefore, some of their beliefs and principles were woven into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In reality, the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights influenced those who penned the Constitution. Also, House Congressional Resolution 331 (1988) acknowledged the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations in writing the U.S. Constitution.  To be sure there are references to God in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution, which is not to deny that Christian principles, to some degree, shaped the writing of the Constitution, though it is not entirely clear which principles. More apparent is the secular political influences that shaped founding texts. Indeed, it is more accurate to say the U.S. was founded on English and Enlightenment political values. This will not deter those who will insist that since most colonial and later U.S. citizens nation were Christian, then the U.S. was, by and large, a Christian nation. Fast forward to the present and polls indicate that approximately 84% of people in the U.S. identify as Christians. So, our stalwart believer may proclaim that we are still a Christian nation by percentages alone.  Of course, we might look more closely at those numbers to discover that many of those who self-identify as Christians do not actually belong to a Christian community of faith. In some polling less than 38% of Christians actually go to church. What percentage do we rely on for being a Christian nation—51% or above of those who believe in Christ? Or do we count those who are actually practicing their Christian faith? If it is the latter, then we do not qualify as a Christian nation. Percentages and numbers, though, are hardly adequate measures for determining whether we are a Christian nation or not. It would seem fairer to consider not so much belief, but whether the majority of citizens and their elected representatives embody and live out core principles associated with Christianity. This would be akin to considering whether the claim that we are a democratic nation is valid based on whether citizens and institutions uphold and live out the principles and practices of democracy. Do citizens act in democratic ways? Are there state and non-state institutions that uphold democratic values and principles? Let’s shift to whether we are a “Christian” nation. Do citizens and elected officials adhere to the core principles of Christianity as reflected in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ? Do state and non-state institutions promote Christian principles and practices? The simple answer is no, but it is important to at least identify a few key principles of Christianity. It is apparent in any cursory reading of history that there are various renderings of what it means to live a Christian life. Yet, it is safe to say that the ministry of Jesus Christ incarnates the love and compassion of God, which includes mercy and forgiveness. As Karen Armstrong (1993) notes, the three Abrahamic faiths elevate compassion as a central principle for living a religious life. If we consider love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness as central principles of being a Christian, then it is evident that these principles are less about mere belief than they are about actions or practices. I think most individual Christians and communities of faith, if they are honest, would say that they fall short of living out these principles. Indeed, Kierkegaard, surveying the landscape of Christian Europe, asked whether a Christian could be found in all of Christendom. No doubt he was aware of how far he and others fail to live out and up to Jesus Christ. More importantly, his query was not just about individuals, but calling Christendom itself into question. Individuals who call themselves Christian should be assessed in terms of the principles of Christianity, not so much to deny their identity, but to indicate to what degree they live out this faith. Those of us who call ourselves Christian know we do not measure up, yet we retain a Christian identity. When individuals use the term Christian to describe their nation, which includes identity, then it is fair game to use the principles as criteria. What does it mean to be called a Christian nation given the violent appropriation of land from Native Americans, which may rightly be called ethnic cleansing? Our ruthless treatment of Native peoples, which continues today, seems a far cry from any Christian principle. Consider how many American Christians legitimated slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. By what Christian principle do these fall under? The exploitation of Cuban, Philippine, and Central American peoples during the decades when the U.S. was a colonial power seems more in line with the principles of the Roman Empire than Christian values. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Has the U.S. ever asked for forgiveness for these acts?  This kind of sociopathic brutality is a far cry from Christian compassion, though it is important to acknowledge that Christian communities perpetrated if not supported brutal actions (e.g., lynching). Let’s turn to the killing of around 2 million Vietnamese, which was more in line with the principles of realpolitik than Christian justice. Speaking of justice, read Acts and ask how Christian is it to have huge income and wealth disparities, millions of people without healthcare or inadequate healthcare, food deserts, and 7 million people in the penal system. Does this so-called Christian nation embody or even uphold any of the core values of Christianity? If this is not enough to dissuade people from calling the U.S. a Christian nation, I also raise the fact that I am not sure any nation could be Christian, except in only one sense and that is the view that we are a Christian nation because most citizens self-identify as Christian. That said, it is crucial to recognize that while religious communities can hold forth about their Christian values and principles vis-à-vis organizing the life of the community, nations abide by other principles, principles more in line with Machiavelli and Clausewitz, rather than Christ. To be sure, Constantine launched the West onto the idea of a Christian state, but this idea seemed to be far from anything Jesus had in mind. Moreover, Christ’s motivation, if I can talk about his motivation, seemed to be more about compassion, feeding the poor, healing the sick, etc., than it was about founding a nation. In short, Jesus’ kingdom is not to be found on earth, even though the kingdom of God is among us in acts of love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. These are virtues that are inimical the advancement of a nation state, let alone, an empire. So, let’s be honest and acknowledge that the U.S. and its government do not and, perhaps, cannot uphold Christian principles in organizing social or international relations. For this reason, we cannot claim the U.S. is a Christian nation. But I am not sanguine about people accepting this, especially those Christian individuals who are more likely to think of themselves as staunch patriots. By adhering to this belief, more accurately an illusion, they avoid facing the fact that the fundamental principles that actually operate in state-craft, namely, ruthless, rational calculation in the advancement of U.S. economic and political interests, are contrary to Christian principles used to organize the first Christian communities, namely sacrificial love, compassion, forgiveness, and distribution of resources according to needs. I also think there are a few other reasons why many Christian Americans are steadfast in their belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation. First, Christianity has long been the dominant religious tradition in this country and has become, for many, intertwined with a national identity. Even if people recognize that one can be American and from other faith traditions, patriotic Christians’ identity is wedded to national identity. To begin to believe we are not a Christian nation can evoke anxiety and rage because it is a threat to that identity. A second reason for retaining this illusion is that it deflects one from the inherent cruelty of the state’s actions (e.g., drone warfare and the killing of civilians, policing the poor). Even when we find ways to justify violence (e.g., they attacked us first—just war), we can continue to hold out that we are Christian nation. “Christian” denotes something good, unsullied by our excesses. It is analogous to someone saying, after being cruel to someone, “All have sinned. I know this as a Christian and that God still loves me.” Pasting the title Christian over the notion of the state or nation is like trying to cover over the indelible stain of our national sins. Third and relatedly, to come face to face with ourselves, as Carl Jung noted, is a terrible shock for we will see how far we really are from our cherished ideals of ourselves. Our shared histories, which undergird our shared identities, are, more often than not, facades that screen the reality of wrong on the throne and right on the scaffold (Niebuhr, 1941, p. 40).  Better to hold onto the soporific illusions of the title “Christian” than to face our collective past and present sins. As James Baldwin noted Americans “have the most remarkable ability to alchemize all bitter truths into an innocuous but piquant confection and to transform their moral contradictions, into a proud decoration” (1955, p.31)—the proud decoration that we are a Christian nation. Baldwin also wrote, “(F)or there is a great deal of will power involved in the white man’s naïveté” (p.166)—a naiveté fostered by the illusion of a Christian America. So, there are three basic rationales for citizens proclaiming the U.S. is a Christian nation. The first is the view that sheer numbers of people who believe in Christ indicates we are a Christian nation, but this fails because of the low percentages of people who actually practice some version of Christian faith. More importantly it also fails because the Constitution not only does not proclaim this, but actually leaves open the possibility of some other religion having greater numbers of believers, let alone practitioners. A second argument is that the founding documents of the nation are heavily influenced by Christian beliefs and principles. This might seem to be true, but the reality is that there were other influences, including those of Native peoples. Third, individuals may claim that we are a Christian nation because Christian principles and values guide how we understand ourselves and organize society. The truth, however, is that the United States has operated out of other principles more suited to Machiavellian principles of statecraft. One might ask why is it so important to rid ourselves of the illusion that we are a Christian nation. What good will come of it? Isn’t holding this belief an inducement to live out a more moral existence as a nation? As for the second question, one need only go down the depressively long list of cruel, destructive, exploitive, and oppressive actions perpetrated in the name of a Christian nation to see that it has not been an inducement to live a more moral life, though people like Martin Luther King Jr. and others used this to [Edited Out] the consciences of white Americans. If we work to get rid of or limit this illusion, people of other religious and secular faiths may feel more at home in the U.S. Perhaps another benefit would be a growing awareness of the misdeeds done under the name of Christian nation. In facing the sins of our past, there might be a sliver of hope for change. As James Baldwin (2010) notes, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” (p.34). Notes. Armstrong, K. (1993). A History of God. New York: Ballantine Books. Baldwin, J. (1955). Notes of a Native Son. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Baldwin, J. (2010). The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected writings. New York: Pantheon. Kierkegaard, S. (1846). Concluding unscientific postscript to the philosophical fragments: A mimic-pathetic-dialectic composition: An existential contribution, by Johannes Climacus. Responsible for publication: S. Kierkegaard. Trans. D. Swenson and W. Lowrie (1941). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Niebuhr, H. R. (1941). Meaning and revelation. New York: Collier Books.
    • If you are thinking that he'll be hurt by your decision then you are right may be he will,but that'll heal.. Moving with him further will make chances to return and heal difficult!! And if you are thinking about people pointing on you or your parents don't worry they will talk till they have that tongue(even if you do nothing they'll say oh!what a poor girl she does nothing :p) select your priorities and then act, it will ease your decisions inshaaAllah... May you find best in Allah's will 
    • Just remembering that incident today on 28th of Safar.  The noha I was listening today mentioning that coffin taken back to home again (may be to remove those arrows) and then taken to jannat-ul-baqee.
    • Well, I just saw your reply. You love what you yourself are? What does it mean? Does it mean that you even love your weak points and you dont love those who are better than you?
×