Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله


What are you working on?

8 topics in this forum

  1. Welcome

    • 21 replies
  2. Art

    • 8 replies
  3. Assalamu Alaykum

    • 6 replies
  4. Cottage remodel!

    • 30 replies
  5. Coloring pages

    • 0 replies
    • 3 replies
  6. DIY Ideas

    • 0 replies
  7. Home repair

    • 7 replies
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • Now Aliyev is claiming that he has Erdoğan’s support for anti-Iranian activities in and around Nagorno-Karabakh and in Iranian Azerbaijan, including pro-Azeri separatist activities. High-ranking Azerbaijani officials even have the nerve to claim that Iran is the one that is behaving aggressively toward Azerbaijan/Turkey, not vice versa! Right now Azerbaijani officials and media are openly talking about enlisting NATO and Israel on their side in a military campaign to “liberate” northwestern Iran and set up a pro-Azerbaijani Azeri puppet on behalf of “Greater Azerbaijan,” with the obvious support of the usual Sunni suspects in the GCC (at this time Turkey is once again mending relations with the Saudis and Zionists while amplifying Aliyev’s anti-Iranian rhetoric). Of course Hamas et al. are doing nothing to defend their Iranian benefactors against the Sunni and Zionist powers’ charges vs. Iran. Now Iran has a unified Sunni NATO on its northwestern and northeastern flanks, as Turkey strengthens its ties with Turkic Central Asia and reaches out to Pakistan (and the Afghan Taliban) via Qatar. I have to be honest: right now Iran is not only being treated like a minor power by a fake state, Azerbaijan, but is also being humiliated by Erdoğan, a ruler whom it saved from a pro-Western coup in 2016. Please explain to me why Iran tried to “save” someone who ended up siding with the Saudis and Zionists anyway...
    • ^ Based on the above, I decided to start a separate thread that concerns the mass killing of pagans—that is, religious people who are neither atheists nor Ahl al-Kitāb—in time(s) of war. Throughout history, various factions of Ahl al-Kitāb, including (self-declared?) Muslims, have sanctioned mass killings or even so-called “genocidal” actions vs. entire pagan societies. For example, the Catholic Inquisition and some Muslim rulers sought to forcibly convert or exterminate Indian Hindus, including women and children, on religious grounds. Even today Takfiri militants—sponsored by the West via the GCC, Turkey, and Pakistan—specifically target Hindus, to not mention Buddhists, Yazidis, and other “pagan” groups. Typically the aggressors undertake indiscriminate rather than selective actions, e.g., burning of crops, elimination of cattle, rape, use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), destruction of entire populated areas, etc. For example, the Christian Americans dropped napalm (“fire-bombs”) on populated areas of Shinto Japan during World War II (the nuclear weapons were dropped on Christian areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I might also note American colonists’ use of WMD vs. the native “pagan” Indians (smallpox etc.) Even if Islam condones offensive action vs. pagans after a “grace period,” in such a situation does it allow the use of indiscriminate tactics in wartime that it would otherwise not permit vs. Ahl al-Kitāb? Is one allowed to use, say, WMD vs. pagans, even if it is prohibited vs. Ahl al-Kitāb? How does the status of being a pagan affect the conduct of warfare by an Islamic power, once the war is actually declared? (Here I am not talking about preliminaries such as prewar negotiations, conditions, etc., but about the methods of warfare that are to be deployed once the war is initiated.) I am asking because a lot of Ahl al-Kitāb throughout history have argued that tactics that would be impermissible vs. other Ahl al-Kitāb would certainly be allowed vs. pagans, including, presumably, the use of chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare, along with other “uncivilised” means. Groups such as ISIS, al-Qaida, etc. have certainly had no qualms about using WMD in Chechnya, Syria, and elsewhere. They would probably claim that it is “acceptable” to use such weapons vs. “Devil-worshipping” (in their minds) Yazidis and similar groups. European colonisers used similar justifications vs. “pagan” Africans, Chinese, and Amerindians.
    • The shar'i intricacies aside, what kind of father with any gheirah in him would be content to lead a life freeloading off of his daughter? This looks seriously wrong to me. Sorry if this hurt you ya akhi, but I can't see it otherwise.  I don't see a way out for your sister unless she marries and moves out. Until then she has to consider this a trial and endure it.  May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) ease her difficulties.  Wassalam.  EDIT: OR, she can move out by saying that a part of her job will now entail work from home, and the atmosphere at home is not right, and see if there are female colleagues who're willing to move in and split rent with her for a place of their own. This is a stop-gap short term solution for her to escape the tyranny. 
    • No, it's not authentic.  According to the Ahlul-Sunnah, its grade is hasan - "good". They claim the hadeeth is true. However, Imam al-Jawad (عليه السلام) has already disproven this concept in a debate with Yahya Ibn Aktham. Here's a relevant extract of the hadeeth: (Source: Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 50, P. 80) If you would like to read the entire hadeeth in English, click here. If you would like it in Arabic, click here. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all.
    • @Quran313 thank you very much brother for your comment. I just made this thread to get some help on how can my sister have patient regarding my father’s behavior towards her, but everyone in here is talking about marriage as if this is her biggest problem.    I know brother, but sadly my family are not like that. My father and his sibling always slander and gossip about each other. That’s what they are good at, they hate each other.    it’s my mom who always help my dad yet he can’t respect her. 
  • Create New...