Leaderboard

No Muslim is superior to another. All Muslims are judged only on the basis of their faith and character, not their race, ethnicity, caste or tribe – or - gender. Women are given the same level of humanity as men..only what each does with this humanity and ability to follow Islam will give a measure of difference between them. “Whoever, be it a male or a female, does good deeds and he or she is a believer, then they will enter the Paradise.” (4:124) The dissimilarities of men and women are things of beauty and wonderment and are collectively ” one of the most wonderful masterpieces of creation” These are good things, not bad. Men and women are to co-exist in harmony – to bring out the best qulaities in eadh other to help us weather the tests of life together. Where does it say that men are to conquer and subjugate? From post above: http://www.al-islam.org/womanrights excerpt: DUALITIES From the physical point of view man, on an average has larger limbs and woman smaller. Man is taller and woman is shorter. Man is coarser and woman is finer. Man's voice is comparatively rough and heavy, and woman's delicate and delightful. The bodily growth of woman is quicker, and that of man is slower. It is said that even the growth of a female foetus is quicker than that of a male foetus. Physically, man is stronger than woman, and his muscles are more developed, but woman has a greater power of resistance than man. Woman reaches the stage of puberty earlier, and loses the capability of reproduction earlier. A girl speaks earlier than a boy. The average brain of man is larger than the average brain of woman, but, in proportion to the whole body, the average brain of woman is larger. The lungs of man can breathe more air than those of woman. The heart of woman beats more rapidly than that of man. Psychologically, man is more inclined to physical exercise, hunting and active life. The feelings of man are challenging and bellicose, whereas woman has a peaceful disposition. Man is aggressive; woman is comparatively calm and quiet. Woman avoids violence, and that is why the cases of suicide by women are fewer. Even when committing suicide, men tend to be more violent; they resort to shooting or hanging themselves or jump off lofty buildings, whereas women use sleeping pills, opium etc. for this purpose. Woman is more emotional than man and is more easily excited. Man is comparatively cool-minded. Woman is, by nature, much interested in ornaments, cosmetics, make-up and the latest fashions of clothes whereas man is not. Feelings of woman are not stable; she is comparatively fickleminded. She is more cautious, more religious, more talkative, more fearful and more ceremonious than man. Her feelings are motherly from childhood She cannot compete with man in deductive sciences and dry intellectual subjects, but in literature and arts like painting etc. she is not at all behind him. Man has a greater power of concealing his secrets. He can keep the unhappy happenings to himself and that is why he is more often afflicted with the diseases caused by introversion. Woman is more sensitive and soft- hearted than man; she can easily resort to weeping and sometimes even becomes unconscious. A COMPARATIVE VIEW OF EACH OTHER Man is the slave of his desires; woman is the bonds-maid of love. Man loves the woman whom he likes; woman loves the man who realises her value and proclaims his love to her. Man wants to own the woman; woman wants to dominate man's heart. Man wants to overpower woman; woman wants to penetrate into his heart. Man wants to capture woman; woman wants to be captured. Woman wants man to be courageous and gallant; man wants woman to be beautiful and charming. Woman wants the protection of man, and looks upon such protection as the most valuable thing she can possess. She can control her desires. Man's sexual urge is active and aggressive, woman's passive and excitable. DISPARITIES BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN An American psychologist, Professor Reek has published in a voluminous book the result of his researches into the affairs of man and woman. He says: "The world of man is totally different from that of woman. If woman cannot think or act like man, it is because they belong to two different worlds." He further says: 'According to the Old Testament, man and woman have come into being from the same flesh. That is true, but though they have come into being from the same flesh, they have two different bodies, which are totally unlike each other in composition. They never have the same feelings and never show the same reactions to various incidents and accidents. They are like two planets moving in two different orbits. They may understand each other and may be complimentary to each other, but they are never unified. That is why they may live with each other, love each other and may not get fed up with the temperament of each other." Professor Reek compares the spirit of man with that of woman and discovers many of their dissimilarities. He says: "It is boring to man to have to live always with the woman he likes. But nothing is more pleasant to woman than to be near the man she loves. Man always wants to be the same, but woman wants to get up every morning with a new and fresh look. The best sentence which a man can address to a woman is: 'My dear, I love you'. The most beautiful sentence, which a woman says to a man of her choice is: 'I am proud of you'. The man who has had several mistresses in his life becomes an object of attraction for other women, but men do not like the woman in whose life more than one man has existed. When men become old, they feel distressed because they lose the jobs on which they depended. The old women feel happy, because, from their own point of view, they come to possess all the best things one could desire, a house and a few grandchildren. Good luck from man's point of view means securing a respectable position in the society. But to a woman good luck means to captivate the heart of a man and keep it safe throughout her life. A man always wants to convert the woman of his choice to his own religion and nationality. For a woman it is as easy to change her religion and nationality for the sake of the man she likes as to change her family name following the marriage." A MASTERPIECE OF CREATION Irrespective of the question whether or not dissimilarity between man and woman causes the dissimilarity in their respective rights and responsibilities, dissimilarity itself is one of the most wonderful masterpieces of creation. It is a question which leads one to the recognition of Allah and His Unity. It proves that the system of this world has been most wisely and exquisitely planned. It shows that creation is not a matter of chance. Nature is not a blind force. It is not possible to interpret the world phenomena without recognising the Ultimate Cause'. With a view to preserving the species, the great creative mechanism has brought the reproductive system into existence. Males and females are continuously being produced. As the continuity of the human species depends upon their mutual co-operation, nature has seen to it that the males and females seek coexistence with each other. For that purpose self-interest which is essential to every living being has been converted into sentiments of service, co-operation and tolerance. To make the scheme practical, and to ensure that their bodies and souls fit in each other comfortably, certain physical and spiritual disparities between them have been arranged. These very disparities attract man and woman to each other. If woman had the same physical features, the same temperament and the same habits as man has, it would not have been possible for her to attract man towards her, in the same way as she does now. If man had the same physical and psychological features dissimilarities as woman has, she would not have regarded him as her ideal and would not have done anything to win his heart. Man has been created to dominate the world, and woman has been created to dominate man. The law of creation has so ordained that both man and woman seek each other and are interested in each other. But their relationship is not of that nature which they have with other possessions; that relationship emerges from selfishness. They want to possess things for their own use, and look on them as the means of their comfort. But, the relationship between man and woman means that each one of them wants the comfort and happiness of the other, and enjoys making sacrifices for the sake of the other.

If you live in an Islamic family environment , a sister is a blessing and symbol of love and care. Elder sis looks after you when you are a child, she always pray for you, helps you, assists you, sometime does your assignments, press (iron) your cloth and she always prefer you on herself. (Traditionally) She finds a suitable girl (rishta) for you :wub: and when you are away or she is married; she always calls you at least once or twice in a week even if you dont. How unfortunate are those parents who don’t have a daughter and how unfortunate are the guys who don’t have loving sister/sisters. But do we really do the same with her/them?

Salam 'alaykum. Shah Waliullah muhaddith dehalvi writes in his book ‘Al Intibah fi Salasil ul Auliaullah’ that he received the ijaza [permission] in Sattariya silsila [ tariqa] He gives the chain of this ijaza contaning names of different scholar including Ghaus Gwaliari who was the chief of Sattariya silsila in India. Shah Waliullah writes that through this chain he received the’Aurad and wazaif ‘ of Sattariya silsila which includes Dua e saifi and Jawahir Khamsa . . . . . Dua e saifi is a supplication which is taught to mureed by a shaykh who has ijaza to recite and teach this dua. The last part of Dua e saifi consists of Nad e ali which has words like “ Ya Ali , Ya Ali , Ya Abu Turab”. Do wahabis need more clear evidence for Istighatha? Wahabis should now stop projecting Shah Waliullah as ' [pseudo] salafi. And if they agree to his aqida then wahabis should stop calling muslims as mushrik . Jawahir khamsa is a book of different dua ( supplication ) . This book also consists of Dua e Haidari . The last part of Dua e haidari consists of “ Ya Ali , Ya Ali , Ya Abu Turab”. Let the wahabis take a note of this and declare their wahabi ruling on Istighatha upon Shah Waliullah. So it is clear that Shah waliullah and his shaykhs recited dua containing ISTIGHATA words. Also note , that Shah waliullah writes in his book Anfasul Aarifeen that his father ( who was also his shaykh), Shah Abdur Raheem [ Rh] not only used to celeberate mawlid every year but also did “niyaz” on food on that occasion . . Jawahir Khamsa is a collection of many dua (supplication) which is recited by the sufi shaykh of almost all tariqa in subcontinent. Jawahir Khamsa was compiled by Shaykh Ghaus Gwaliri. He wrote the foot notes and remarks to each dua in Persian language. It was translated into Urdu by many people . The urdu translation of Mirza baig Naqshbandi is the most famous one. One such dua in jawahir khamsa is ‘Dua e saifi”. There are many rules and conditions for reciting Dua e saifi and one such rule is to recite NADE ALI before reciting dua e saifi. As per the “nukaat’ of this dua , nade ali has to be recited a fixed number of time before starting Dua e saifi. Also after completing dua e saifi, nade ali has to be recited. See the scans for this condition . . . So any one who recites dua e saifi , first recitec nade e ali. Any one who gets ijaza to recite complete jawahir khamsa gets permission to automatically recite nad e ali , as nad e ali is one of the dua ( supplication) included in jawahir khamsa. Scan from jawahir khamsa showing nade is ali included in it. . . Also note ,another dua ( supplication ) which is called “dua e haidari “is an important dua ( supplication) of Chisti-sabri tariqa . As per sufi shaykh of chisti –sabri tariqa , this dua was taught to the great wali of Allah Shaykh Al Alam Abdul haq rudaulwi . He died in 836 AH. This dua is a special dua of Chisti-sabri tariqa . But sufi shaykh of other tariqa also recite it. As per senior sufi shaykhs this dua should not be recited by normal people. , , See the scan from ‘ Anwarul uyoon” which is malfuzat of Shaykh Shaykh Al Alam Abdul haq rudauli This is a rare book. See Dua e haidari from this book. . . . Please note that Shah Waliullah muhaadith dehalvi writes in his book Al Intibah fi Salasil ul Auliaullah’ that this faqir ( shah waliullah uses this for himself) recieved "khirqa" ( sufi cloak) from shaykh Abu Tahir Kurdi[Rh] and also the 'amal" ( special way of reciting ) mentioned in Jawahir Khamsa. Shah waliullah also recieved his sanad ( certificate/ chain) of Hadith from Shaykh Abu Tahir Kurdi al Makki , when shah walilullah spent time with shaykh abu tahir in makkah. Shah waliullah then passed this ijaza in hadith to his son shah abdul aziz muhaddith dehalvi (rh) . Shah abdul aziz passed this ijaza to many scholars including Shah Ishqa dehalvi The shaykh e kul of the wahabis in India , Nazeer hussein dehalvi learnt hadith sciences from Shah Ishaq dehalvi. Wahabis should stop calling shah walillullah as ' mushrik" for reciting Nad e Ali ,as this will also make Shaykh Abu Tahir kurdi al makki also as a mushrik. Alos note , Al Intibah fi Salasil ul Auliaullah’ is in TWO PARTS. In first part Shah waliullah has mentioned his chain in tasawwuf ( tariqa) in different sufi order In the second part he has mentioned his chain in hadith and fiqh. . . Wasalam

118 Days, 12 Hours, 54 Minutes On June 21, reporter Maziar Bahari was rousted out of bed and taken to Tehran's notorious Evin prison—accused of being a spy for the CIA, MI6, Mossad…and NEWSWEEK. This is the story of his captivity—and of an Iran whose rampant paranoia underpins an ever more fractured regime. ...Continued at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/223862/

(salam) Have you ever thought that you are no better than people who exploited her by keep posting topics about Neda. :unsure: Just let the poor girl rest in peace. She already paid with her life.

aliunwalliulla wajib banned for repeated violations of site rules.

You should know however, that Salafism or Wahhabism or whatever you might call it, doesn't view Waliullah and his writings as true anyway.. so it's really not evidence for them.

I don't really see the problem.. and I'm married.

They all seems marfu. Have you checked their complete isnad? w/s

(salam) I absolutely understand the concept of different duties and responsibilities. However, the presence of differences does not entail one-sidedness. I am aware and do not have an issue when it comes to accepting that with regard to certain social duties and responsibilities men have a higher authority. However, and this is the main point of this thread, in what issues, in which duties, when and where do women have higher authority over men? At home? family affairs? In other words, when must a man obey his wife? or accept a female advice? To say they are different and women always have to obey men, and men never need to listen to or take advice from women, does not indicate differences, rather one-sidedness. In short, that would mean that yes they are different and men are superior, because women must always obey men. What would be fair, would be to say, yes they are different, women must obey men in so and so, men must obey women in so and so. In this thread, I was/am seeking for the latter. However, so far it seems that there's no such case for the latter, and it's always one-sided.

Salam, Honestly the Muslim ummah is so incredibly sad, "fadlullah vs hizb" eids? This must be a joke. Anyway, Fadlullah has always been a key figure in Hezbulah , he was there from the beginning. The main difference is the wilayt el faqeh, Hizbullah's spiritual leader is Khameini but I don't see why that discredits Fadlullah in any way? Anyway, many of Lebanse and Hezbullah supporters are followers of Fadlullah. I find people's obsession with negatively portraying Fadlulah quite sad..as a brother always said, "we keep fighting while the enemies keep plotting.." Allahuma 3ajel Farajhu w sahel makhraja p.s Happy eid all. May it be a joyous time with your families

Yeah, true, we don't spend so much on cosmetics and clothes and jewelry. Well, aside from nice suits and silver and gold watches as we advance in our careers. But we certainly have our own particular "rubbish purchases," don't we. Women don't tend to drool so much over high end smartphones, laptops, computers, play stations and x-boxes, high performance desktops, 40 inch high def TVs, sports cars, car and home sound systems, etc, etc. But we do, don't we?

The link is in my signature, I was not specifically giving it to you, though you're free to read from it of course :-) A person who denies the finality of the prophethood, that says someone else was a prophet after the Holy Messenger (pbuh) is agreed upon as being a kafir. They are neither Ahl al-Kitab nor are they Muslims, thus it is haram to marry them. The fact she knows about Shi`a Islam, and is a sayyida herself, yet rejects it and prefers kufr only makes it even worse. If she repents of this and converts to Islam it would be different of course, but as it is if she believes what you say she believes, this is out of Islam. As to the permissibility of a non-sayyid man marrying a sayyida female, this is the generally accepted view of scholars as there is no good proof of it being forbidden. Those who argue otherwise most often are ignorant of our religion. Her being a sayyida doesn't automatically mean you could marry her though of course, her religious affiliation trumps that.

Salam Khomeini (qas) showed Authority wise, all Fuqaha have authority in absence of Imam. But he also showed only one needs to take active leadership for government. Now is Khamanei (ha) taking active leadership for all Muslims? No.. he is isn't. He always says to refer to scholars in that area. When Khomeini (qas) was asked to declare himself Khalifa of Muslim Umma by Hizbal Tahreer, he rejected their proposal and didn't do so. Where does this Wali Amral Muslimeen thing come from? Can you show me him claiming this? And it's not about acceptance and non-acceptance, he won't give commands to people that accept him from other parts of the World.. He always says to refer to Uluma of that region.

It's not completely Macisaac's problem. There could be many different ways to perceive this: 1. He does the translation and he's comfortable with what it says and so clearly are some other people. If this is what the religion says, so be it. 2. You read it and the equality warning signals start flashing red. 3. Kadhim reads it and it's ok, because it only applied to another period in time. 4. Personally the way I read it, is that someone has identified limitations of women, using words that are not politically correct today, but where the overall sentiment may still be valid, but you can't tell without reading more*. Just to reiterate what I said before, you can't dismiss hadiths because they are politically incorrect in today's world. If religion did that there would not be a lot of Shia fiqh left, because so much of it was politically incorrect during Sunni dynastic rule. *Let me explain. I don't know precisely what is meant by 'weakness, feebleness and incapacity', but I'll have a guess. I know someone who used to be the Finance Director of a lower market chain of women's clothing stores. In his assessment in the UK, of the types of stores that would survive on the the high street would be women's clothing stores. Because only they made margins high enough to be able to pay the rents. Now the hadith writer may be using politically incorrect language, but I can assure you the marketer of cosmetics, the shoe brand owner, the clothing retailer all know which segment of the population to sell overpriced rubbish to (repeatedly). But they'll never call their customers feeble-minded. So everyone is happy.

ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÏÑ ÇáãäËæÑ - ááÓíæØí 8 / 589 http://islamport.com/d/1/tfs/1/11/552.html ( ÃÎÑÌ ÇÈä ÚÓÇßÑ Úä ÌÇÈÑ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÞÇá : ßäÇ ÚäÏ ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã ÝÃÞÈá Úáí ÝÞÇá ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã : " æÇáÐí äÝÓí ÈíÏå Åä åÐÇ æÔíÚÊå áåã ÇáÝÇÆÒæä íæã ÇáÞíÇãÉ . æäÒáÊ Åä ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ æÚãáæÇ ÇáÕÇáÍÇÊ ÃæáÆß åã ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ " ÝßÇä ÃÕÍÇÈ ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã ÅÐÇ ÃÞÈá Úáí ÞÇáæÇ : ÌÇÁ ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ . æÃÎÑÌ ÇÈä ÚÏí æÇÈä ÚÓÇßÑ Úä ÃÈí ÓÚíÏ ãÑÝæÚÇ : Úáí ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ . æÃÎÑÌ ÇÈä ÚÏí Úä ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ ÞÇá : áãÇ äÒáÊ Åä ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ æÚãáæÇ ÇáÕÇáÍÇÊ ÃæáÆß åã ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã áÚáí : åæ ÃäÊ æÔíÚÊß íæã ÇáÞíÇãÉ ÑÇÖíä ãÑÖííä " . æÃÎÑÌ ÇÈä ãÑÏæíå Úä Úáí ÞÇá : ÞÇá áí ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã : " Ãáã ÊÓãÚ Þæá Çááå : (Åä ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ æÚãáæÇ ÇáÕÇáÍÇÊ ÃæáÆß åã ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ) ¡ ÃäÊ æÔíÚÊß æãæÚÏí æãæÚÏßã ÇáÍæÖ ÅÐÇ ÌÆÊ ÇáÃãã ááÍÓÇÈ ÊÏÚæä ÛÑÇ ãÍÌáíä " . ) ÇåÜ . ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáØÈÑí 24 / 542 http://islamport.com/d/1/tfs/1/41/2365.html ( ( ÃæáÆß åã ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ ) íÞæá: ãä ÝÚá Ðáß ãä ÇáäÇÓ Ýåã ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ. æÞÏ: ÍÏËäÇ ÇÈä ÍãíÏ¡ ÞÇá: ËäÇ ÚíÓì Èä ÝÑÞÏ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÇáÌÇÑæÏ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí ( ÃæáÆß åã ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ ) ÝÞÇá ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã: "ÃäÊ íÇ Úáí æÔíÚÊß". Úä : (1) ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä (2) ÌÇÈÑ ÇáÃäÕÇÑí (3) ÃÈí ÓÚíÏ ÇáÎÏÑí (4) ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ (5) ÇáÅãÇã ÇáÈÇÞÑ . . Do We Need More Shwahid !!

Yeah. Really. There's no "if." What I am saying is true. Please reference his posts in this thread, and in any number of other threads. The line "if you disagree with me, it's because you're weak in your religion" is consistent within his posts. You're not going to find him explicitly state, "this scholar or that is a heretic," but you will find him making the sort of characterizations I describe about those who disagree with him, and well, there are scholars who disagree with him. Apply the syllogism, and the conclusion follows inevitably. You will also often hear him dismiss certain scholars who consistently disagree with him with an "oh, that guy," or a roll-eyes smiley. I didn't "fail" to answer your question. I didn't answer it period. I found the question rude and a little beside the point. I don't have the Arabic to read philosophical texts in Arabic, and never claimed expertise in these texts. But you don't need expertise in these texts to inductively "reverse engineer" (from reading a lot of rulings and hearing discussion of rulings) some basic jurisprudential principles to a decent enough "working knowledge" level to participate in discussions. I don't buy the premise that my participation in a discussion is delegitimized by my not having read certain specific jurisprudential texts. That said, I am always open to learning. If there are any translated to English texts out there you recommend, let me know, and I'll add it to my heavily backlogged "to read list." I often hear this strange objection, but it's rather baseless, and shows a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of my perspective. What ahadith do I advance to support my point of view? Well, the same ones. My point of view is not based on saying, "oh, forget this hadith; take this one instead." It's not about which texts to use, it's about the methodology of analyzing them in the light of socio-historical context and in the light of the more general Islamic principles and goals. It's about saying, "OK, let's look at these narrations. The literal surface reading would imply not letting women be judges or leaders. But that's a restriction on women's freedoms, and generally Islam doesn't violate someone's freedom unless there's a good reason; let's make sure to see whether this is really something that was meant to be timeless advice or whether it was something meant for a specific time. What are rational arguments put forward to say women are inherently incapable of leadership? OK, listening...Oh, baseless chauvenistic ramblings. OK. Let's look deeper at the socio-historical context. Is there some historically or culturally specific good reason why leadership for women would not have been desirable or a good idea then which does not generally apply now? Let's think. Yes. Women were generally uneducated, and generally were involved in society mostly in the domestic sphere, and generally were not respected, and leadership politically generally involved some martial component of direct physical combat. Does the retort "what hadiths are you using for proofs" make any sense in this light? None whatsoever. It misses the point completely. My understanding is that generally permissibility of anything is understood by default, and that the burden is on providing proof that it should be prohibited. That people should be by default free in various regards unless there is a reason for them to be constrained. Evidently al-Khoei believed that narrations such as mentioned above were sufficient proof for this. Apparently he believed either that these ahadith were intended as general timeless advice or that the conditions up to his time were similar enough to keep the same judgement. Whereas I would disagree, and say that it seems clear to me that there were historically and culturally specific reasons for those advices at that time, and that therefore those narrations are not legitimate proofs to restrict the default state of freedom of women in general. So, again, you're being misleading when you suggest I advocate using only reason with no reference to textual proofs. Rather, I advocate a combination of the two. You will have to decide for yourself whether you will follow consistently the philosophy of respecting differences of opinion amongst the senior scholars. LOL. I viscerally loathe the man. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, isn't it?

False(it rarely snows here) Do ya like snow-fall?

True(but not that cold as it rarely snows here) Do ya get irritated easily?

I got your point precisely, but you seem to be missing mine that you apply your criticism inconsistently. Macisaac does not just drop the ahadith and state his opinion. He does this and then accuses anyone who disagrees with not only of being foolish, but irreligious, heretics, etc. He does this a lot. He does this even in issues where there is scholarly disagreement at the highest level. The opinion exists, for example, amongst our own maraja, that women can certainly be leaders, marjas, judges, etc. Macisaac is implicitly calling these scholars heretics for disagreeing with him. Where is your criticism of Macisaac's intolerance? I am not seeing it anywhere. Please clarify whether you wish to apply your principles consistently. I've done so in depth on this site very recently. I generally respect the institution of marjaiyyah but reserve judgement on the stands of individual, human, imperfect scholarws. These scholars are all well-educated people, but they have human weaknesses as well as strengths. From your description of him "demolishing" the lame "rational" arguments usually used by those who deny that women can be leaders, it sounds like he had some courage to a certain extent. I aplaud him for that. But for him to prove that there is no rational basis to deny women leadership todayy, and yet to persist in the position that women should nevertheless be denied leadership is in my view a failure in courage. That's the only way I can characterize it. But I aplaud him to the extent that his courage in refutating bad pseudo-rational arguments against women as leaders paved the way for others to step out and go a step farther. I recognize that these scholars are constrained to some extent in their exercise of ijtihad by a highly conservative, ignorant, and reactionary population that will often lash out at change, whether it is well-reasoned or not. I recognize the burden of leadership, and the various motivations for them to err on the side of caution. Many will scoff at the notion, but I am convinced that a lot of the maraja are much more ""liberal"" on these "modern issues" than they generally let on, but stay silent due to fear of backlash if they step forward too far ahead of what the lay religious followers are ready to hear. One of the reasons I speak so strongly in favor of reform is to encourage those who think the same to make themselves heard, so that there is enough visible support for our maraja to feel comfortable stepping forward to exercise their ijtihad freely, without fear of being cut down by ultra-conservative reactionaries. Ibrahim Jannaati and Yusuf Saanei are similarly up there in the ranks, and have similarly been teaching for decades. They have no problem with women as political leaders, judges, or even maraja. There is clearly a legitimate difference in scholarly opinion on this matter, and my point of view obviously has some basis. By the way, I have been quite harsh on Ahmadinejad in recent days. Let me give him however, some credit where credit is due for the putting forward of several women as ministerial candidates. Kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight, Mahmoud.

True Do ya like camping?

True(When i was on pilgrimage.I saw a handicapped boy who was tied with Imam Reza(AS) zareeh and he stood on his feet) Do ya like jokes?

In His Name, the Most High Salaams We are those who have been blessed by Allah during the Ghaybah of Imam al-Hujjah(AJ) with the sacred institution of Marja'iyyeh. We therefore, rely on our esteemed and respected Maraj'e in matters of practical laws. The issue of moonsighting is one such practical law. Therefore, for those who follow the line of Imam al-Hujjah(AJ), they should refer to the rulings of their respected Maraj'e Taqleed. From the best of my information; here in the United Kingdom, the Offices of Ayatullah al-Udhma Sistani(HA) as well as the Islamic Center of England, which is the office of the Wali Amr al-Muslimeen, Imam Khamenei(HA) have both said that Eid al-Adha is on Saturday, November 28, 2009. This is very simple. For those who say - well such and such group are doing it on Day 1, and another group are doing it on Day 2 - with respect; that is inconsequential, it doesn't matter as Br "orion" has outlined, we have to abide by the rulings of our Maraj'e in these matters. Naturally if you have seen the moon yourself, or have it from reliable and trustworthy as well as just (adil) people then it's a different matter. Insha Allah that helps. With Salaams and Dua's Shabbir

Tolerance goes two ways. Macisaac is not exactly the most tolerant person around here. This is not exactly the first time where he has come into a thread on a contentious, subtle, complex topic, dropped some ahadith, without notes on grading, without notes on the context of the narrations. And it is not the first time, when challenged about this, that he has responded in some glib manner along the lines of, "I'm just reporting 'what the religion says.' I take my religion seriously and believe what it says. Maybe you should too." Where is your response to this arrogant behaviour? As to why the accusations of incompetence, the basic problem I see is this. Macisaac is trying to step out above his paygrade here. He has some junior level hawza education (which basically means you learn Arabic and take a few generalist classes) and seems to think that is enough to go directly from the narrations to his own personal fatwas. The real jurisprudential scholars however take into account all these contextual complexities that Macisaac likes to ignore. You may not like the judgement of incompetence. Well, it's strong, but I can't really see any other way to call it. Assuming nothing meaningful has changed or progressed with women in the past 1400 years is plain just ignorant. Trying to conflate women getting respect commensurate to their God-given intellectual potentials with prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and family breakdown is obscene.

Excuse me, but i don't understand why members of each "side" have to defend each other when a member of the other "side" attacks him personally. For example, pro-iranians defending each other in every way possible. And now Zahratul Islam standing up for marbles and now kadhim as if she is their soul savior.

:huh:

No you don't. You believe in taking 1200 and 1400 year old statements addressed to social relations when most women could not read or write and applying them literally, with no consideration of this contextuality to a time when women make up the majority of university graduates even in Islamic nations. That's not "honest submission to the religion;" it's incompetent analysis of its texts.

Brother, now I'm not even sure if you're serious. Such claims are simply ridiculous. You're saying that Islam shows, based on fitra, that men are superior and women are inferior. Does this not bother you in any way? And why are you pointing fingers? How does showing the flaw in other systems, removes the flaws (flawed interpretation rather) of our system? There are millions of oppressed and suppressed muslim women as well. Except, it seems, they can't say much, since apparently men have been given a divine green light to think they're superior. They are being oppressed and suppressed in the name of religion. ... shocking to say the least.

If you want to talk about delusion or dishonesty, why don't we talk about you getting haddiths off www.google.com/whywomenareevil and pasting them without putting them in context or providing the grading for them. One of the haddiths states that you should not seek advice from women because they are incompetent.. you are suggesting that this is Islam's take on getting advice from women? Or that this is the Islamic viewpoint on the competency of women? You want anyone with two brain cells to take that seriously? Another suggests that a man cannot talk in confidence to a woman.. I don't know many Muslim marriages that could hold true to that haddith. I could go on.. Don't try to paint anyone who takes offense to your literal translations and your inability to take things into context as a feminist who is trying to sully "our religion." You are attempting to create a black and white picture in which the world is running around with immodest, immoral women and spineless men.. or your unique version of Islam. And then taking offense when SoRoUsH unapologetically questions this because she happens to be a thoughtful person Thoughtfulness doesn't seem to fit into the equation.. does it?

Evidence has been provided.. it is not my job to spoon feed you an article in farsi (a language I do not understand) where Ahmedinejad says "Let me just clarify once and for all (since me cultivating an image of a holocaust denier in order to win the heart of my fanbase has not been enough) that I am indeed a holocaust denier or a believer that the people killed in the holocaust were a few thousand. While I appreciate your blind support and you continuing defense of me despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, please stop trying to convince people that I am anything else because this has been my intention all along. Haven't you watched my interviews? Trust me.. if I had wanted it to be cleared up I could have :huh: " Also, please refrain from victimizing yourself because people on an online forum disagreed with your opinion. The other day I had a loyal Ahmedinajad supporter (whose posts you tend to agree with) imply that the heels in my display picture were worn exclusively by prostitutes and my intermingling with men on this forum *females discussing stuff with men outside of necessity* made me a dishonorable woman. I didn't dedicate my posts to all the women on this forum who speak their mind. While I appreciate your quest for civil discourse I feel compelled to offer a few suggestions so you are better able to achieve it. 1) Don't engage in the same condescending behavior as the insufferable intellectuals 3) don't claim to be trying to "understand the rational, intentions, and thought process" unless you are actually trying to do so (which means you can't simply be here to peddle your agenda) I never gloss over your posts, I actually find some of them rather informative and they gives me a different perspective on certain issues (I just happen to not agree in this particular case)

Assuming that is what he means, don't you think it would be prudent on his part if he chose proper words to speak his mind? I ask you. What does calling the Holocaust a 'myth' convey to you? You had the opportunity to seek clarification. Millions others who rely on the media don't. Is it not funny that he knows that he is ambiguous and delibrately tries to cultivate the perception that he denies it? If he can't choose proper words to express his views on a matter as important as this, not only per se but for Iran and larger Muslim world as well, then he is too foolish to be the president. If he delibrately choses these words to create consfusion and doubt among the masses, then he is too wicked to be the president.

Err. . .not really. Thanks for taking the time to 'research' my posts but sorry you did not go back enough. Your conclusion that I am against the regime "since the day I joined" are as faulty as your mind. I was a cheerleader of Iranian system of Islamic governance and had a very sobre picture of Sayyed Khamenei as my desktop wallpaper. My defences of Iranian government were mirror images of Bro Mahdaviat's post. Those posts are on record. Go find them and complete your thesis on me.

You speak both languages and you know very well how he views the Holocaust. There is nothing in his Farsi speeches that isn't available in English. As I have said, kadhim has made the point eloquently and I see no reason to repeat it. Anyway, forget Western media as they have a habit of distorting things [no pun intended]. Listen to PRESS TV, other Eastern media and his numerous speeches that are going to be collected and printed in the new book. Get back to us when you have done that. I really hope that will help. baradar_jackson was very honest when he explained why AN likes to play with the Holocaust. By the way, I'm waiting for Pro-AN posters to applaud his so called Holocaust Conference which included 'authorities' like Davids, Duke and Irving. Be my guest. But this is no pretext for making a travesty of history and justice, just like AN does. That hurts Palestinian cause more than it serves. Please reread what I wrote and see your reply. You have protested against 'condescending behaviour' but I am not sure what label to give to the quote above. You don't know which English media I read/watch. You also don't know which non-Western media I turn to for news. It's funny you accuse me of 'floping over and dying' on Western media's sensationalist claim but it was me who repeatedly called a spade a spade when every Western newspaper ran the story reporting that AN has called Israel to be wipped off the map. Ha!

Says the guy whose signature reads "uniting under The Leader" with a picture of Khamenai juxtaposed beside the word "Allah." Motes and beams, friend. Motes and beams.

What are you talking about? I'm basing these posts on his interviews. How do you construe such non-answers as "acknowledgements?" Answers like "even assuming such things happened, why have the Palestinians suffered" is not an answer to a pointblank question, "Why do you deny the holocaust" or "do you believe it happened." He always weasels out of any direct acknowledgement of the historical reality. Why? The answer is rather obvious: because he wants to be perceived as denying it, because that will score him more points with the historical illiterates of the "Arab street." At the same time, such weasel answers enable those apologists who, possibly for good intentions, desperately want to believe the best about him, to sift through the words like tea leaves and say "he didn't explicitly say the holocaust didn't happen, in those precise words." But when you see someone respond to "yes/no" questions about the history of Jews in Europe during WW2 with longwinded rants about post WW2 history of the Middle East, the objective listener can tell something funny is going on.

A number of factors. Weak and / or fabricated narrations in some of the cases. In the case of whatever is sound, a matter of the socio-historical reality of then and there being quite different from here and now, making a literal application of the advice contained in such narrations an act of absurdity.

This point has been responded to repeatedly. Engage meaningfully with that response. If he is simply misunderstood and misquoted, explain why in all his interviews with the Western press, why he has not taken the opportunity to "clear the air," even in response to point blank questions about his views. One of your compatriots has earlier shown the honesty to admit that, yes, Ahmadinejad actively promotes, both actively and passively, the perception that he is a denier, as part of his "defiance." If Ahmadinejad wants to be perceived as a holocaust denier, who are you to blame me for accepting this perception?

Just wanted to mention the gradings of these ahadith from al-Kafi by Allamah Majlisi: 1 - muwaththaq 2- sahih 3 - daeef ala mashhoor 4 - daeef ala mashhoor 5 - mursal 6 - marfoo` 7 - marfoo` 8 - daeef 9 - marfoo` 10 - marfoo` 11 - marfoo` 12 - mursal

May I ask where you live? Out of curiosity from another thread I extend the question to Mahdaviat as well.

jethmalani rocks...indian rocks lol this shows even hindu is more intellectual then billion wahabi morons

So Is there a reason why somebody is going through all my posts negativing them? Just wondering. Thanks :)

(salam) Is using the name Keyhan a sensitive issue now? I'll apologize. No point is getting distracted over this. Now, let me ask my very serious question. Why are all the reformist leaders being attack left and right on ShiaChat? :unsure: Can some one please explain what is going on here?

(salam) ShiaChat is not the kayhan newspaper where only one sided skewed view of the current event is accepted. When are you going to stop attacking all the reformists leaders and start addressing the real concerns raised by the student in this topic here. ()

(salam) I goggled the incident and apparently I also found a reply from the man himself regarding this incident reply Why would people start throwing shoes at each other? Totally undignified :(

through a local mutah organization administrator

^ it is for the man who makes her daughters " mominaat " there is also a hadeeth which says, " a bad girl will bring 4 men with her in the hell, her father,her brother,her husband and her son

unfortunately i cant edit the post , i had to add one more option , " i am a sunni/wahabie , i wanted to make fun of u people" because many sunis are using our posts to do propaganda on other websites and youtube specially "Mutah" topics :mad:

God told me in a Vision [ 3 ] [13.64%] who r these saints ?

r u a jew ?

i have friends who dont have any sis, thats y they dont respect any girl ( just think bad about them)