Leaderboard

The line of poetry in my 'interests' came from a quatrain of Omar Khayyam as rendered into English by FitzGerald. It's been there for ages and no one from the mod team objected to it. But I was asked to remove it because hey presto it had become unIslamic. This is really not my problem if people want to turn poetry into an invitation for haram but you do know that is not what it is intended for don't you. There are countless references to wine and women in Persian poetry. Most in fact all of it is metaphorical with a sufi background. It is your choice if you want to agree with certain Orientalists and declare Khayyam et al as Hedonists. He was anything but. Anyway, in case you did not know, poetry readings, including those with references to wine and women, are taught in the classes of literature in hawzahs. I hope you wouldn't mind that. There are references to wine in the ghazals of Sayyed Khomeini of all people. I hope you also don't find that offensive. He was more Shia, and aware of the tradition of Persian poetry and its meaning, than all of us put together. SC is like a drawing room, or a meeting place, frequented by mostly Shia Muslims and everything, religious or otherwise, gets discussed here. Look at Off-topic and Sports subforums. Urdu section wouldn't exist if it wasn't for poetry. I would accept your point if SC was a mosque or a hussainiyah for it wouldn't be appropriate to talk about anything other than religion at a place of worship. I don't understand what is so secular (or non-secular) about poetry and literature. To avoid giving offence to the brittle senses of 'observant' Muslims, I tried to Islamise Khayyam from "A book of verse, a flask of wine and thou" to "A book of hymns, a flask of non-alcoholic wine and a mutah with thou" but it wouldn't permit me for the lack of space. Not very funny I admit. The outrageous literalism of Salafism and cheapening of the label 'unIslamic' has well permeated into Shia mindset. This is a sorry state of affairs to say the least.

The Iranian exiles and westernized pro-american Iranians are disgusting

(wasalam) If this is not what you expected, it is understandable that you are upset and confused. However, Islamically, he can have a different mutah every hour – and if this is where he wants to put his energies – it is his choice. If he is providing housing, clothing and food for you and his children, as he should, he is doing all that is minimally required of him. As for the impact of his actions, only time will tell...it is his road to travel. But, YOU need to lift your depression and sadness. If his actions are upsetting you – you need to remove your thoughts from them by making an active life for yourself that is meaningful and rewarding and that cannot be impacted by his actions. You cannot change him, but you can definitely change how you react to him. This will take concentrated effort – but you can do it!! You have a basic human right to be happy. Find the good in this situation. Perhaps the good in this situation is the motivation to be stronger. Be the best you can be; make it a number one priority to care of your health. The better the shape you are in, the better you can cope with stress. If you are anxious and depressed, your children will be upset. If you are strong and healthy, your daughters will view you with pride and emulate your lifestyle – another bonus! These three things will make you stronger physically and mentally: Eat well – think about the nutrition of everything that you put in your mouth – is it deserving of you :P? If not, put it down. Exercise, exercise, exercise!!! – find a formal program for motivation to start (aerobics, pilates, yoga, etc) and as a way to meet other women so that you can start an informal program (meet for walks, hikes, swimming, etc.) Self study - Read and immerse yourself in an area that you always wanted to explore. Let it be an ongoing interest that you have a hunger to know more and can also be used to distract you when you are feeling weak and upset. All of this will give you more confidence to find your own direction now and in the future. What he does to satsfy himself outside of your marriage to him, will impact you less and less.

Har ghar ka diya gul na karo tum ke na jaane Kis baam se khurshid-e-qayamat nikal aaye

(salam), I don't think there's a problem with going in, and posting there. It would have been password protected if the admins did not want brothers to go snooping in the girls' forum, like on CYC. But do avoid looking at, or atleast posting in, topics where the topic name, description or OP requests brothers not to reply to, or view the topic. Girls have complete right to discussing their own private matters, without guys butting in. :) ... and don't tell me there's the SCG for that. :dry: Sometimes, a person is just not content with views and advice of one person, and needs all the opinions he/she can get! (wasalam) Basim Ali Jafri

Salam everyone, , I am here to inform you that as a member of persianfootball.com this site is being attacked by many members over there. These Iranians hate and despise the Islamic Repblic of Iran and as a result constantly ridicule and bash Islam. I do not care about their political views, but my only problem is that they bash the beautiful religion of Islam and have double standards when it comes to "peace and tolerance." I remember digusting, vile comments they said about Muslims, and ironically they are becoming the people they hate. I just thought it is my duty and responsibilty to tell you not to reveal any personal information about yourself if they befriend you, because these people are dangerous. I specifically remember one of the members saying that he would kill a hijabi woman he saw at the beach because of her "stupidity." Others said, they will go to Basiji's houses and attack them. May Peace be with you. http://www.persianfootball.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5 Please see for yourself some of the comments they are making to sabbotage this site, and their hatred and ridicule towards Islam. You do need to sign up, which only takes 5 minutes, but this is a serious problem which needs to be resolved.

Put your phone on vibrate and put it inside the pillow slip of your pillow. It works and "sounds" loud to you but only you.

Not only did I read the first reply, I responded. Let me repeat what I said. I am very familiar with the chivalrous connotations of "Arabism," which was often used in political pan-arabism to justify the degradation of non arabs who were deemed lesser. Anyway I don't believe that the core of Arab character is "honour, courage, etc." I don't believe this is the core of any ethnicity, but I won't digress. It wasn't that important a point but you picked up on it so I wanted to clarify it. I know it existed before Saddam (other people also used it to justify their own deeds) but since this woman is IRAQI and this video is about the WAR, it kind of works in that context. Listen, I don't know if the ins and outs of this website are apparent to you yet (although I urge you to figure it out because it is compromising your posts), but people tend to "reply" to "threads" when they have "opinions." It would have remained simply that, an opinion, had you not had something to say to me that required a response and I was obligated to respond accordingly. Other people gave their opinions about how heart wrenching this was and you were absolutely fine with that, but when I called it out for what it is, it seemed to bother you. In such a context it would be an inevitable fail, which is why I set it up in such a context. I believe that it, like any other bit of propaganda, is a fail. Why should Ba'iths and Al Qaeda even bother with propaganda videos when this woman is doing it for them and people are eating it up? I mean I realize there is no "BAATHI" title in bright red on the video, but if this woman is saying the same stuff that they push through those videos, surely you can connect the dots and understand why I felt the need to criticize? And for you to pretend that this video or others like it don't have any implications is very naive on your part. Propaganda is out there for a reason, if not this woman exploiting the image of a dead child to peddle her homemade videos, it is evident in much bigger groups who are doing the same without any care or interest in the people of Iraq. This issue was close to my heart because I have seen the impact of this filth on people, and while I know it will always exists, it is important at least SOMEONE calls it what it is. If that bothers you, feel free to skip over my posts rather than drag out some long, convoluted discussion where you have no desire to do anything but be simultaneously condescending and half witted (bad combo i assure you).

(bismillah) (salam) Allah’s Pharmacy! Allah left us great clues as to what foods help what part of our body! A sliced Carrot looks like the human eye. The pupil, iris and radiating lines look just like the human eye… and YES, science now shows carrots greatly enhance blood flow to and function of the eyes. A Tomato has four chambers and is red. The heart has four chambers and is red. All o f the research shows tomatoes are loaded with lycopine and are indeed pure heart and blood food. Grapes hang in a cluster that has the shape of the heart. Each grape looks like a blood cell and all of the research today shows grapes are also profound heart and blood vitalizing food. A Walnut looks like a little brain, a left and right hemisphere, upper cerebrums and lower cerebellums. Even the wrinkles or folds on the nut are just like the neo-cortex. We now know walnuts help develop more than three (3) dozen neuron-transmitters for brain function. Kidney Beans actually heal and help maintain kidney function and yes, they look exactly like the human kidneys. Celery, Bok Choy, Rhubarb and many more look just like bones. These foods specifically target bone strength. Bones are 23% sodium and these foods are 23% sodium. If you don’t have enough sodium in your diet, the body pulls it from the bones, thus making them weak. These foods replenish the skeletal needs of the body. Avocadoes, Eggplant and Pears target the health and function of the womb and cervix of the female - they look just like these organs. Today’s research shows that when a woman eats one avocado a week, it balances hormones, sheds unwanted birth weight, and prevents cervical cancers. And how profound is this? It takes exactly nine (9) months to grow an avocado from blossom to ripened fruit. There are over 14,000 photolytic chemical constituents of nutrition in each one of these foods (modern science has only studied and named about 141 of them). Figs are full of seeds and hang in twos when they grow. Figs increase the mobility of male sperm and increase the numbers of Sperm as well to overcome male sterility. Sweet Potatoes look like the pancreas and actually balance the glycemic index of diabetics. Olives assist the health and function of the ovaries Oranges, Grapefruits, and other Citrus fruits look just like the mammary glands of the female and actually assist the health of the breasts and the movement of lymph in and out of the breasts. Onions look like the body’s cells. Today’s research shows onions help clear waste materials from all of the body cells. They even produce tears which wash the epithelial layers of the eyes. A working companion, Garlic, also helps eliminate waste materials and dangerous free radicals from the body. http://hafizoon.com/

I was under the impression that in order to be a Muslim, one must become one with conviction. Aren't you, perhaps inadvertently, supporting/promoting hypocrisy by ensuring that your daughter dresses up according to the state's definition of Islamic attire out of fear or coercion rather than conviction?

(salam) You know what else is natural? Human excrement. Why don't you roll that up?

[salam to brothers and sisters. I have a question re mutaa. I found out my husband was having an affair on the internet. I read some of the emails and he asked her to be his temporary wife before speaking about very intermit things. She agreed. What I am trying to say is, how can Mutaa be halal and is mustahab, If your husband and wife find out that their partner is doing this behind their back. It gives the man more power , when his wife finds out he just has to say this is halal. Ok fair enough, but what happens to our relationship. We have 3 young girls and i no longer has any trust in my husband at all. Do you believe it have been nearly 1 year since i caught him and i am close to severe depression. I am very sad about this because I feel i can not speak to anyone who is muslim as I am feared their answer will be, "hey your husband did nothing wrong". I feel like my marriage has suffered tremendously . I have become so paranoid , that everytime he is on the computer, everytime he leaves the house, i think he is doing something. Please someone respond to me, as i am devestated , My husband says it was harmless fun but also says islamically he did nothing wrong, and if he chooses tommorow to marry another wife i have no say.

No, I am not going to use the Saddam "card," although I think it is a tad unfortunate that you are that dismissive about it and act as though its an unnecessary digression. You are the one who implied that those people who say it was worse under his regime are "apologetic," so i replied accordingly. I am always open to constructive dialogue and debate about the war and its faults and all I was doing was pointing out that this was, by your own admission, simply a cheap shot taken at a public park by an angry woman. I am very aware of degrees of bias in academics, but you must admit that there is a difference between degrees of bias and outright propaganda. You stated that everything out there was propaganda and I disagreed with you, not because I am naive and unaware of how bias is present in everything and anyone, but because you stated that everything out there is propaganda, which is simply not true. Again, as I stated in the beginning of this thread, everyone has an agenda and the loaded words she used simply did not provoke any sympathy. I don't know the young man in the video either and I have no clue who he is so I certainly do not feel any sympathy for him either. All I did was call a feather duster a feather duster and you seemed to take offense for some reason.

What does Saddam have to do with anything? Are you going to play the Saddam card any time someone says something against the occupiers, or the post-2003 government? Academics present views, all academics are biased to one view or another, they just have different degrees of bias. If they didn't don't you think there would be a lot less disagreement in their arguments? Why do you think such widely discussed events like Hiroshima or Dresden are still hotly debated? Why are there wars between the likes Dershowitz and Finkelstein or Chomsky? It's not a hard science, and even in the hard science, academics have bias, and politics plays a big part. I see it all the time as someone who works in an academic environment.. So again, prime example of your naivety. Yes, you can critcise her, perhaps if it hit a little closer to home you would sympathise with her anger a bit more rather than feel the need to criticise. Fact is, I couldn't care less about some Yemeni American soldier being slated on camera. Propaganda that works in the favour of causes I support will always be welcome, it doesn't matter if it's simplistic - it's a [Edited Out]ing youtube video in a park - no one expects it to be anything more. And I don't care if the poor little boy in the video goes crying to yumma/mommy about the stripping down he's getting. Those soldiers are there to serve Iraq's interests, once they have expired in that capacity (if they haven't already), they need to be gone.

(salam) okay well lets get back on track. what about scholars who are in Lebanon and thus providing Hezbollah with khutba and fatwa and such things? and is hassan nasrallah considered a scholar? or is he just a political leader? if so who was his teacher? (wasalam) (salam) i agree this rating things should be taking away. because it is wrong to harm someones reputation thus many may see this red or even the red marks on the post and consider what that person is saying is wrong. SC you should take this feature away. that is my advise. because it is harming peoples reputations. many truthful things are being giving the negative and many lies the positive. so it would be better to leave it to the reader to consider it deeply and read and research and not going on rep marks. (wasalam)

Badalte rehte hain mausam guzarta rehta hai waqt Magar yeh dil ke wahin ka wahin judai mein bhi

Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) in one of his Tawqee (letter) has exhorted his followers:–“Pray more for my reappearance because in it is your salvation (Kamaaluddin, p.485, H.4) Imam Ja'far E Sadiq(a.s.) says in a tradition, "When Bani Israel had given up all hope from the oppression of Firaun, they gathered in a Jungle and cried before Allah, seeking a solution to their problem. The result of their prayer was that Allah(the Most High) advanced the birth of Hazrat Musa(a.s.) (who was to be their Saviour) by 400 years." Then the Imam(a.s.) continued, "My Son will not appear till the time the Shias(of the last period) do not pray for him.(a.s.)"

Imam Ali, Abu Turab (as) said: "O Ammar, grieve not if the pleasures of this world are kept away from you. Honey, the best and sweetest food, is the saliva of an insect, the bee. The nicest dress is made of silk which is the refuse of a small worm. The most refreshing scent, musk, is the blood of an animal, the deer. The best drink is water which is also used by animals to quench their thirst. The most passionate act is cohabiting in which urinative organs are used."

Is daur-e-bejunun ki kahani koi likho jismon ko barf khun ko pani koi likho koi kaho k hath qalam kis tarah hue kyun ruk gai qalam ki ravani koi likho

I don't see how this hadith can be confidently said to be referring to Reza Shah I. Plus it's a daeef hadith due to Muhammad b. Sinan in the chain.

(wasalam) It's best not to become overly obsessed on it, but in itself it is a good thing and recommended as such. Notice how many of them speak of reviving the Sunna by it? That should answer at least part of the first question. As to the second, who said that sexuality weakens the soul?? The Prophet (pbuh) was a man who loved women as were the Imams (as). Such an idea of sexual desire going against spirituality is a Buddhist concept, not at all an Islamic one. Sure, if you have such available to you. If you do, hats off to ya :P I have not verified all of their isnad, but I don't see anything that strikes me as false. Evidently al-Mufid (ar) would have considered them correct to have included them. Because people often prefer their cultural prejudices to what Allah has ordained for us.

who says don't insist on it? Mustahab means you should insist on its ligitimacy and the bst way to insist on the ligitimacy of something is to practice it as the prophet said " whoever amongst you saw an evil let them change it with their hand and if they can not then with their toungue......." Because god knows that majority of people are weak and they fornicate or do other sexual sins so he wants to leave them with absolutely no excuse by giving them many easy hallal options. He also knows that people will forbid the lawful and forbid the mut3a and also knows that people's evil will create poverty and create cultures that make permanent marriage very difficult and force the nation into fornication and buggery and other ugly things. So he knows the society's desperate need for mut3a instead of the corruption that they are on now therefore he orders that: practicing this act and enforcing its legitimacy through practice is Mustahab. encouraging the sexual desire doesn't weaken the soul... one of the attributes of the prophets is the love of women and sex with women. god encourages hallal relationships. actually staying without marriage will make you psychologically sick and will encourage your sexual desire to control you and force you to evil like the priests... do you think if the priests followed the lifestyle of the prophets and took multiple wives as prophet Jacob and many other prophet5s did then do you think they would have gotten to a stage where they allow two gay priests to marry eachother in a church? forbidding any lawful is catastrophic... our society forbade early marriage and mut3a and multiple marriage and even permenant marriage they put a million barriers therefore god cursed us and we are now scum. absolute scum just like qawm lut... gays everywhere,,, even in hawza ,,, fornication widespread and so on the meaning of this hadeeth is that there is no number limit on mut3a i can giev you an example you say how many apples am i religiously allowed to eat?? answer: eat a million if you want... this means the number is not limited but israaf (wasting) is haraam could be right could be wrong Thank You

(bismillah) (salam) "Oh man, you come from a drop of semen and you leave as a piece of dust. You don't know when you came and you don't know when you're leaving. Yet you go around thinking you know everything." Or it went like this: "Man comes from a drop of semen and leaves as a piece of dust. He doesn't know when he came and he doesn't know when he's leaving, yet he goes around thinking he knows everything."

OK - have your fun. I am really upset by your attitude. I dont want to be here ever again. Please get rid of my account.

Racism may be against site rules and it is not permtted towards some races, but it is definitely permitted against whites, in this and in other threads. It is rarely spoken against or edited out. It is totally acceptable. If it was not permitted, there would not be so much of it on SC .

Sharing a banana? That sounds a little ... funny. I'd share a Guinness 0.1%? Does Guinness make such a thing? Probably not, eh?

You know, I've thought of this as well. As much as we disagree on a number of details and even some principles as to how to understand those details, at heart the fact of the matter is that we're both members of the same religion, believing the same Prophet (pbuh), same Holy Quran and same Ahl al-Bayt (as), and as such, brothers in faith. But as we know, the most heated disputes can be family disputes, so that is perhaps where we can find emotions get inflamed, especially as it is on something we all believe and care so much about. Honestly, I think most of these types of arguments that go on on this site (whether one religion against the other, or people within the same religion such as us) to be a huge waste of time. It usually serves only to inflame egos, enrage tempers, further divisions and not really further the good. Now that said, I do feel there is a trend that exists nowadays wherein there is an attempt to revise a number of our laws and beliefs in order to better harmonize ourselves with those who are outside of our faith, whether in making them more accepting of us, or, in making our religion more acceptable to ourselves. Whether in toning down the shia-ness of some of our beliefs to make ourselves more acceptable to Sunnis, or whether as Muslims to do away with laws and ethics that conflict with those of a secular, liberal viewpoint (which does largely originate, though is certainly not at all exclusive, to the West). I have absolutely no problem (in fact, I believe in it) with a scholarly endeavor to get back to a pure understanding of Imamism, to peel away the layers of centuries of cultural, scholastic, popular, and otherwise, accretions that have come into our madhhab. I do have a big problem though when it is done in opposition to the clear message and letter of the sources themselves, whether out of ignorance of them or out of dishonesty and twisting of interpretation, which frankly I believe a lot of this is doing. It has nothing to do with either side being "Western" or what have you, nor is it stemming from some irrational hatred of that latter. Personally, I would consider myself one of the more "western" guys around whether in my expression, appearance, mannerisms, culture and so on, in particular with a certain attachment to my ethnic identity beyond what most European-descended folks in this parts would share. But, nonetheless if I find a conflict between that latter and our identity as Muslims, I believe (though don't always live up to) it's the Islam that has to win. But anyhow, you likely already know this anyhow of me. So anyhow, can we try de-personalizing the postings even if we disagree? In sha Allah, let's try. Doesn't mean we have to cover up such disagreements, and never say a nay in fear of offending, but still, what matters here is truth, not our egos. We all know this place could use some improvement in the quality of what's being posted and discussed, and again, ultimately for those of us who are Shi`a (i.e. most of the members of this site) we're on the same side. Now as to the kerfuffle about reputation points, then I do agree with you that right now it's being used more like a junior high popularity contest, and that really ought to stop. Folks, don't vote down a post because you don't like the person, and don't vote it up because you do. If you want to be really fair, try your best to ignore who it is that you're voting up and down. Done right, it has the potential of being a decent tool in calibrating some of the quality here by making people somewhat more conscientious of what they're writing, and yes done in the right spirit it can even be fun. Done wrong, it's just silly and turns into petty squabbling, like most of this thread until here (I'm including the post I'm replying to as one of the good ones. If I could vote, which I can't, I'd vote you up for it)

The commentary says, "if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish". So the Jewish Rabbis themselves say that this generalization is from the Scripture itself, and not from themselves.

No, a girl cannot marry a non-Muslim. No - I didnt say the ME was perfect - lots of areas to be improved there - some are pretty darn ugly. But lets not cloud the issue at hand. When within our ability, a girl needs to be protected or her life could be altered in way that is immediately damaging to her and possibly impact her future. If a guy's intentions are to be respectful, he knows how to go about meeting her and her family. If he avoids this, it speaks volumes about him. If the girl is going out and meeting guys - there is something wrong in her homelife and the family needs to do something about it.

If she is really in love with this guy, and he is just a misguided but well intentioned type - there are halal ways of going about getting to know one another with the supervision of her family. I think "western" families are too lax when it comes to supervising and supporting their daughters and sisters. Being involved in their life is one of protection and love for their well being. I think you would agree that there are too many girls being hurt needlessly because no one is watching out for their best interest. They meet up with guys that may be using them and will hurt them. From my view, it is pure neglect not honour and respect. However, it is also part of a bigger picture of love and connection for the girl within her family so she does not unintentionally become someones practice mat.

That says nothing about any top 100 scientists, let alone 27 Iranians being in that list. Looks like PressTV has fabricated a news story yet again.

Any source for this apart from PressTV??? No other news organization even mentions this story, and the ISI website states no such thing either. Keep in mind how eminently unreliable PressTV is; they're the ones who broke the "news" a few months ago that Shi'as in Saudi Arabia had declared independence, and were creating a country called the "The Republic of Eastern Arabia". :lol: Soon after realizing their colossal blunder, they deleted this "news" report and replaced it with "Saudi Shias still discriminated against". ps. The correct link for this article is the following: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105331&sectionid=3510212

This what women who date have to deal with. :!!!: http://melodymaker.posterous.com/the-reason-some-girls-stay-single-very-funny

Pigs to fly, for one.

Because YOU are the one who said that those instructions were for laypeople like us (you said: Imam tells us to follow the verdict of the one who has more better understanding of Fiqh). So can you please make up your mind about who those instructions are for. Are they for laypersons, or are they not for laypersons?

You did not answer my question. Are the instructions in that hadith supposed to be acted upon by laypersons? It's a yes/no question.

But why would the layperson even act on this hadith if it is not applicable to him. You said, and I quote here, that the "Hadith does not say that these stepwise instructions are for the layperson." So if the instructions in the hadith are NOT applicable to the layperson, then the layperson does NOT need to act upon them. So can you please make up your mind. Are the instructions in this hadith for the layperson, or are they not for the layperson?

Did you even read what I wrote? I said: Just because some experts say that a certain marja is the most knowledgeable, does NOT mean he is I did not say: Just because some experts say that a certain marja is the most knowledgeable, it means he is NOT so. What part of my actual statement do you disagree with? Are you saying that just because some expert says that a certain marja is the most knowledgeable, it means that he is so? That's irrelevant. I said that determining who the most knowledgeable marja is not practically possible. You have already agreed to this. Because you say so? What if the two experts disagree on who the most knowledgeable marja is? What if several experts' differing answers all give him certainty and confidence? So do you agree that picking and choosing rulings from different marja's is acceptable in Islam? If you say that it is not acceptable in Islam, then you are saying that Sayyid Fadhlallah's ruling is unIslamic. Because YOU are the one who said that this hadith is not applicable for the layperson. If you now say that it is applicable, then, as I mentioned earlier, this hadith says that a LAYPERSON himself is allowed to judge (according the the method described) which hadith is more appropriate if two scholars, who are both knowledgeable, disagree on a given hadith. Only if it is applicable to laypersons. So make up your mind. Is it, or is it not applicable to laypersons? Not necessarily. Where's the evidence that they do? But YOU are the one who made the claim that cancer specialists all over the world follow the treatment instructions established by some specific "authority". Again, where is the evidence for this claim? If you don't have the evidence, then just admit it. Why do you keep pretending that you do?

I'm not missing the point, you're making strawmen arguments. I've already explained this several times to you. Different experts give different answers to who the most knowledgeable marja is. You keep circumventing the issue, so I'm going to break it down into points again: 1 - Just because some experts say that a certain marja is the most knowledgeable, does NOT mean he is, since there will be other experts who disagree. 2 - Hence, determining who the most knowledgeable marja is not practically possible. You have already agreed to this. 3 - Ihtiyat is not practically possible, since there are too many marja's and mujtahids and obtaining the rulings from all of them is not realistic. Hence, the last option is the only feasible option. Different experts have different answers. Which expert's answer should the layperson follow in this case? If you say that you can follow any expert's answer, then there are experts who believe that Sayyid Fadhlallah is the most knowledgeable marja, and he allows you to pick and choose rulings from different marja's as you see fit. So again you are allowed to pick and choose rulings from different marja's as you like. Okay, so that hadith is completely irrelevant then in this thread, correct? Since it is not for us laypersons. I wasn't talking about mechanics or moderators. You're avoiding my question again. You had argued that cancer specialists all over the world follow the treatment instructions established by the "authority". Where is the evidence for this? The site that you linked to provides no such evidence.

Great, so we're also in agreement that it is not practically possible for the layperson to determine who the most knowledgeable marja is. So that hadith is not applicable to laypersons? So what was the point of even mentioning that hadith if it is not applicable to us? However, we agree that it is not possible for a layperson to know who the most knowledgeable marja is, and ithiyat, where a person compares the rulings of ALL the mujtahids and acts on the strictest ruling, is also not practically possible, because there are so many marja's and mujtahids that even getting all their resalahs is not practical, let alone getting them translated into a language you are familiar with. Hence the last option is in fact the only feasible option for laypersons. I agree that some of them might not, but none of them do??? Where's the evidence for this? But this doesn't state that doctors all over the world have to, or do, follow these guidelines. In fact, this doesn't even state that all American cancer institutes follow these guidelines.

This does not address the issue. Different experts and scholars think that different marja's are the most knowledgeable. So, in practice, there is still no way for laymen to determine who is the most knowledgeable marja. Great, so we're in perfect agreement here then. I was also arguing all this while that we can refer to multiple mujtahids in matters of taqlid. If you also believe taqlid allows us to do so, then we don't have a disagreement on this point. That hadith actually confirms my argument about taqlid being non-obligatory (by the way, it's actually hadith number 10 from that chapter). Because the narrator then asks the Imam about how to act if both scholars are equally knowledgeable. The Imam replies, "One must consider and study the hadith that each one of them narrate from us to see which one has received the acceptance of all of your people. Such hadith must be selected and the one, which is rarely accepted and is not popular in your people, must be disregarded." [ÝÞÇá: íäÙÑ Åáì ãÇ ßÇä ãä ÑæÇíÊåã ÚäÇ Ýí Ðáß ÇáÐí ÍßãÇ Èå ÇáãÌãÚ Úáíå ãä ÃÕÍÇÈß ÝíÄÎÐ Èå ãä ÍßãäÇ æíÊÑß ÇáÔÇÐ ÇáÐí áíÓ ÈãÔåæÑ ÚäÏ ÃÕÍÇÈß] So the Imam is saying that if the person sees conflicting hadith from two scholars, both of whom are knowledgeable, then it is up to the person himself to decide which is the correct hadith by seeing which one is the more common hadith among the people and which one isn't. But in taqlid you don't have that choice, because you would have to follow the hadith of the scholar whom you are doing taqlid of. But even in this case, there isn't just the one most knowledgeable cancer specialist that people all over the world go to. There are LOTS of cancer hospitals in almost all countries all over the world. So just like you don't have to go to the best doctor in the world for cancer treatment, you don't have to resort to the most knowledgeable scholar present for resolving fiqhi problems (according to this particular analogy). But you already agree that if there are several knowledgeable scholars, then we can resort to whichever one we like, right? (Referring to that question from the office of Ayatullah Khamenei)

There are several problems with this approach. First, for the layperson it is practically impossible to determine who the most knowledgeable marja is. For example, just because I think Sayyid Sistani is the most knowledgeable marja alive today, doesn't mean he is. Millions of other Shi'as obviously disagree. So if the obligation of taqlid was based on the reasoning that the most knowledgeable marja would be the best suited to provide the correct answer to fiqhi questions, then the task of determining who the most knowledgeable marja is cannot possibly be carried out with certainty by the layperson. Second, even if we are to assume that there is a particular marja who is most knowledgeable, this doesn't necessarily mean that he is most knowledgeable in every single aspect of Islamic law. The marja could be most knowledgeable overall, but for a particular issue, another marja might be more knowledgeable. For example, Ayatullah Khoei smoked for most of his life and didn't consider it haram. If during his lifetime there was another marja who was more learned in the biological sciences, and knew the effects of cigarette smoking better than Saayid Khoei, and hence declared smoking to be haram, then in this particular issue, this marja would be more knowledgeable than Sayyid Khoei. So, in this case, aql dictates that the second marja's ruling should be followed because he is more knowledgeable in this particular issue, even though Ayatullah Khoei is most knowledgeable overall. Finally, the Qur'an and hadith don't tell us to refer to the most knowledgeable scholar. As long as we're confident that the particular scholar we are referring to is knowledgeable enough to provide the correct answer to the fiqhi problem, there isn't a logical necessity to seek the most knowledgeable one. To use your doctors analogy, whenever someone in your family falls ill, do you travel all the way across the world to find the most learned doctor, or do you just visit a professional doctor in your area whom you are confident will give you the right medicine? If we all had access to the most knowledgeable doctor in the world all the time, then obviously that would be a very good thing, but it's not like patients in clinics of all other doctors are being provided wrong medicine that is causing them to die, while only the most knowledgeable doctor is providing the correct medicines. So again aql dictates that you don't have to refer to the most knowledgeable faqeeh to get the correct answer to your fiqhi questions. As long as the faqeeh is knowledgeable, that is good enough for the layperson to refer to him. So, to summarize, even IF we could determine who the most knowledgeable marja is, it would still not be obligatory to follow only him. Of course I agree that it is a good idea to do so, but there could be cases where a less knowledgeable marja knows a particular issue better, or cases where referring to other marjas is also acceptable (just like taking the patient to other doctors, instead of the most knowledgeable one). That is correct. Islam doesn't forbid ra'ey absolutely. It simply forbids ra'ey when determining the answers to fiqhi problems. Like I've mentioned to Orion above, in most cases the layperson cannot determine which is the more accurate ruling. In this case, if the person is confident of the knowledgeability of both marjas, then he can assume the benefit of the doubt and act on either ruling. Depends on how you define aql. Ra'ey need not be an outcome of qiyas, it might simply be an outcome of ignorance as well. However, if you define aql to be "intelligence" or "intellect" in the manner that it is used in English, then ra'ey (opinion) is indeed an outcome of aql. However, as I understand it, the type of aql that is permissible in fiqh is purely deductive analysis, where each proposition is directly an outcome of the valid premises (for example, a syllogism ). Most aren't because of ra'ey, but some are. For example, the differences among the scholars in the conditions and requirements of taqlid are almost all due to ra'ey. Sayyid Fadlallah, for example, believes that you can pick and choose rulings from different mujtahids as you please: 5. Suppose there were many jurists around. Is it permissible to emulate any of them, or does it have to be the most learned among them? A. It is not obligatory to emulate the most knowledgeable. It suffices to follow any one of them, provided that he is a practicing mujtahid as has been discussed. http://english.bayynat.org.lb/Fatawa/ijtihad.htm Most marjas say you cannot do this. This difference is due to ra'ey. Yes, he says it is aqli: ãÓÃáÉ 1 : íÌÈ Úáì ßá ãßáÝ (1) . (1) æåá åÐÇ ÇáæÌæÈ ÔÑÚí (äÝÓí Ãæ ØÑíÞí Ãæ ÛíÑí) Ãæ Ãäå ÚÞáí ¿ ÇáÕÍíÍ Ãäå ÚÞáí The detailed explanation is given here: http://www.al-khoei.us/books/index.php?id=3

One of the other options would be to refer to the rulings of multiple scholars (living or dead) and follow the rules provided by them. The only condition is that you have to be convinced that these scholars are pious as well as deeply knowledgeable in fiqh. So, for example, if there is a conflicting ruling in the risalahs of Ayatullah Sistani and Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi, then the person can opt to follow the ruling of whichever marja' he prefers, even if the fatwa is not one of ihtiyat. Or a person living at the present might start off using Ayatullah Khoei's risalah as a guide, even though his own risalah states that this is not permissible. The only condition extra that needs to be checked when following a dead scholar is that the issue whose ruling is being taken from the risalah isn't related to a recently emerged issue. If it is, then the person would need to consider whether any other scholar has better understanding of this issue, and if that is the case, then this living scholar's rulings need to be followed. But for traditional matters, the person can still resort to the rulings of Ayatullah Khoei, even though both Ayatullah Khoei and the living scholar might state that referring to the rulings by a dead mujtahid is not allowed. I think taqlid is the most sensible option particularly for my case, not necessarily in general. I think that because I believe Ayatullah Khoei was the most knowledgeable scholar of his time, and since he picked Ayatullah Sistani to take his place as the head of the hawzah in Najaf, then this is a strong indication that he considered Ayatullah Sistani to be most knowledgeable of the scholars in Najaf. Which is why I prefer to do taqlid of Ayatullah Sistani. I see. I wasn't aware of the contents of these texts. But bringing this back to the issue of taqlid, these scholars did not indicate that if you referred to one scholar, then you would have to stay with the instructions of that particular scholar, correct? You did have to resort to scholars, and not rely on personal opinions in such matters, but you were not bound to the rulings of that particular scholar for all other issues, unless he granted permission to resort to others. I could, for example, seek the ruling of a particular scholar when living in one city, and then another when I've moved to a different city. And when asking the second scholar about the issue, he would not ask me whose rulings have I been following prior to this issue, correct? This part is clear, since the Qur'an and ahadith instruct us to refer to the actual fuqahaa. The case of resorting to hadith texts like al-Faqeeh, as I've mentioned earlier, is only when La Yahduruh al-Faqeeh. However, for fiqhi rules about taqlid, such as the impermissibility of referring to a dead mujtahid's risalah, or impermissibility of referring to more than one marja' as a general rule, these don't have any basis in naqli sources, and are ra'ey to a large extent, correct?

Seek the opinion of the scholars of hadith. The seeking of scholars was not in the form of taqlid like we have today, where we pick a scholar and follow the rulings in his tawdheeh. Rather the person was supposed to seek a scholar and ask him how the Ahlulbayt have instructed them to act on that particular issue. The scholar would then always quote a hadith or refer to one that explained the issue. The reference to scholars regarding questions about religion when a layperson is in doubt is explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an [Question the people of remembrance if you do not know." (21:7)], so this wasn't a strange or new principle for even the laypersons (as long as they had read the Qur'an, I suppose). A problem with this approach was that sometimes people had urgent fiqhi issues that they needed to deal with right away, but there wasn't a scholar in the area where they lived. It is because of this problem, and the letters that people sent to our great early scholars due to it, that they compiled their books on hadith. Shaykh Saduq's Man la Yahduruh al-Faqeeh explains its purpose in its very title [For whom a jurisprudent is not present]. Basically, this book was intended as a reference for those people who could not gain access to a scholar, so they could read the hadith provided within, and resolve their own fiqhi problems. In fact, Shaykh Saduq intentionally did not include the chains of narration in this particular work (unlike his other works), because it was specifically intended for laypersons who wouldn't find the chain useful as they wouldn't be able to grade it anyway. So Shaykh Saduq believed that you yourself could read the hadith he had provided about a specific topic in his book and act accordingly (he believed all the hadith in al-Faqeeh to be saheeh). In the introduction to al-Kafi, Shaykh Kulayni also expresses the same reason for compiling his text; so that students can learn about Islam from it, and people who need guidance in all Islamic affairs (including fiqh, obviously, since most of al-Kafi deals with fiqhi issues), can resort to it for determining the correct approach to take. So according to all early scholars, a layperson wasn't supposed to do as he liked when in doubt. He had to seek guidance from the scholars of hadith, or the texts of hadith. This is a very different approach from the taqlid that we have today, since there was no restriction of sticking to only one scholar of hadith, or any of the other taqlid-specific rules, such as the impressibility of resorting to the hadith quoted in a text of a dead scholar. But in either case, a layperson is certainly not allowed to act on his or her own opinion.

A couple of comments: First, that hadith is graded daeef by Allamah Majlisi and Shaykh Bahboodi. But coming to the crux of the issue, which is whether or not using aql to derive laws of fiqh is valid, that particular hadith does not answer this question. Because it simply emphasizes the importance of aql, but, like I mentioned earlier, I am already aware of that. I had asked for a reference that "allows the use of aql specifically for deriving the laws of fiqh." Let me explain in a little more detail why this is important. `Aql is fallible. It can be argued that no one but the Ahlulbayt have perfect aql. Hence, ghayr ma'soom scholars replying on their own aql in fiqh would make it liable to errors. A particularly relevant example is the issue of taqlid itself. The law obligating taqlid on the general population is based on aql. However, none of our early scholars considered taqlid obligatory. Shaykh Sadooq did not believe in the necessity of taqlid, nor did Shaykh Mufeed, nor Shaykh Tusi, nor Shaykh Kulayni, from whose book you have quoted the above hadith. So these great pillars of Islam, using their own aql, did not see the need for taqlid upon the layperson. So, if the requirement of taqlid is clear from aql, then none of our early scholars had this aql (since none of them accepted the requirement of taqlid). However, I don't think any reasonable Shi'a will accept that their aql was missing, hence it is perfectly clear that even religious, pious, knowledgeable scholars can come to vastly different conclusions in matters of fiqh by using their aql. Hence, using aql for deriving laws of fiqh is an invalid approach, since it can lead to differing laws depending on the aql of the person who is deriving the law. And this would make the very first rule (that taqlid is obligatory on the layperson) invalid, since it is based on aql.

:lol:

Sis Iman - binte ali is a guy. You should check out his posts in the muta forum for confirmation :P :rolleyes:

Very wise. I was going through the posts and feeling depressed because the sisters with the lists will have to wake up to the reality one day and the longer your list, the worse it is gonna be for you. But sis Maryaam, how can anyone fulfill the need for love/ companionship on their own? What do you mean by that?

Awwwww soooo shwweeeet :wub: :wub: :wub: Me too. :D Go away you little misogynist :angry: