Leaderboard

(bismillah) (salam) i am willfully (it seems) ignorant of muta I have read these verses and i cant see how it means muta is halal. Anyway if you believe that verses in nisa 24 are for muta then i wonder where is the proof in quran of permanent marriage? and what is the point of a permanent marriage? when you could just renew every ......What woman in her right mind would marry a man permanently when he can.........you could imagine the possibilites (I dont even feel comfortable mentioning them.) permanent marriage seems like a lose lose situation for women :wub: who accept muta. It seems like a rip off to get permanently married. yes yes i know we have examples but is it specified in quran? specifically? I have presumed permanent marriage into evrything i read so is it specifically mentioned in the quran?(as muta is claimed to above verse) where is the proof in quran of permanent marriage? and what is the point of a permanent marriage? these are the questions appreciate any help.

:) A very happy, joyful, and fulfilling birthday to our Maryaam. For you have bagged reams of experience, sweetness, kindness and a few truckloads of wisdom in your last year. I pray for this year to be full of happiness, love, adventures and ALL things nice. Have a great time partying!!!

Rubaiyat, what you say has significant truth to it; however, the same holds true for Iran unfortunately. I know you would like us, and yourself, to believe otherwise; but, the bigger fool is the one who thinks he has fooled others, yet could not fool himself it seems. On the other hand, someone is confused and paranoid.

This is a complete sidetracking of the issue that you people engage in--as usual. Shias who criticize the 'Islamic' Republic do not do so on the basis of Western guidance or ideologies; they do it because of their own adherence to the Imami teachings and their understandings of that. Yes, the West is brutal and wrong in many aspects and yes they do so much wrong; but, so does Iran and it has been thoroughly proven. It makes no difference if the 'innocent' Supreme Dictator "didn't authorize it"; his clowns certainly commit all manners of the worst and most brutal acts of oppression, resembling Yazid and Saddam. The Shah's men also did many things he probably did not know about, but it is all irrevelant to the victims, don't you think? If Khamenei is in opposition to what his dogs do, then let him stop it or make the truth known. Why the rest of this hysterical nonsense?

(bismillah) (salam) I'd recommend these books: http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Self-Al-Hurr-al-%60Amuli/dp/1904063144/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250644270&sr=8-1 http://www.al-islam.org/adab/ (you can buy it HERE http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/lubb_al_lubab/ (you can buy it HERE) http://www.al-islam.org/lwm/ wa salam

^The official Imami position is also that Sufis are deviants and ahlul bidah. May Allah(swt) guide them. w/s

Naturally, human relationships are based on emotion; they can be explained but not justified. Unlike love, respect is a conscious effort; it is dependant on one's appreciation for value. In order for you to gain the respect of another, you must conform to their ideals, that is, if they have any to relate to. It would be wiser to be respectful than respected, and rather than moving out, be independent. Everybody will appreciate you even if they disapprove of it. Be compassionate when you have a choice and never compromise till you don't, otherwise, be rational. Parents, and people in general, often confuse right with privilege. The purpose of any relationship ought to be constructive, other than that, it would be meaningless, and one ought to be indifferent to it.

If they don't respect you because they were born and raised with this ideology that parents are superior no matter what (litterally), then you'll never get their respect If they don't respect you because you did something bad Something everyone would agree on is bad, then you'll never get their respect Or you did something only they think is bad, they'll never respect you... Because they will see that they failed to make you have there ideologies, thus making you a complete failure/disaster. My parents come from a generation where they think being abusive is the only way to ensure disipline and raise a "pure" hearted child... So I gave up trying to make truce... Just smile and be nice let them feel superior... which will result with them being even more abusive because you laid the red carpet for them... But what else can you do, without going to hell, talk to any religous authority/figure, explain to them all your abuse and all they will say is ... "He is your daddy", "She is your momma". LOL! But yea, theyre paretns, let's just learn not to do that with our babies (if we decide to be parents) :angel:

(bismillah) This would be evidence for Sufis............who already whole-heartedly do Istighaatha and love it. They do it more than some Shi'ah. (salam)

There are some common themes in this thread which keep cropping up Why do non-Iranians comment on Iranian matters Speaking as a non-Iranian myself, but frequent visitor to the country here’s my opinion. Jews, Christians, Americans, Brits, Israelis all comment on Iran. These countries and others all shape policies and opinion towards Iran. So what’s wrong if fellow Muslims and Shias do the same? Of course the enemies of Islam would love a world where only they had views/opinions about Muslim countries and Iraqis kept quiet about Iran and Iranians did not say anything about Palestine and Lebanese said nothing about Iraq. A world where each group of Muslims only cared about themselves, so each one could be picked off one by one. Why can’t people be free to do live as they please? This sounds like a very attractive argument. Let the hijabis wear hijab and let the miniskirtis wear miniskirts. No compulsion in religion. This is a very superficial argument. In any country people can do what they like at home, but the public space is different. Here people do what is socially acceptable, and this applies in western countries as much as it does in Iran. It’s just that the limits are different, you can’t go nude on Times Square. We also need to recognize that what is considered “normal” has a big impact on behaviour. In recent years many countries have followed a policy of de-normalising smoking. It is being progressively banned in public places and sales are being restricted. Surely this goes against all claims of freedom to choose? It’s because the years of research that have been done have shown that no matter how many public information/advertising campaigns you run, there are some behaviours that people simply won’t change. If you want to stop people smoking you have to ban it. People also need to recognize that fashion and other aspects of consumer culture have a big impact on the national psyche. I have a lot of experience of working with people in the Far East. Economically well to do many of them may be, but they take their cultural lead from the West. Ideas about what is fashionable, attractive, valuable etc. all come from the West. The brands, the labels, etc. are all western. They are sold at a high mark-up. This is psychological colonialism. This is the modern equivalent of the colonies paying a tax to the centre of the empire. I call it a culture tax. Does Iran have a right to opt out of this culture tax? Sure it does. The state should be secular, and separate from religion This position would hold that the State should be separated from religion. Politicians could be religious in their private lives, but religion should not dominate law-making. I don’t understand this position at all quite frankly. Religion is a philosophy that guides human behaviour. But a secular approach also has philosophies that guide human behaviour. Instead of Imams and clerics developing the philosophies you would have politicians guided by Marx, or Smith, or Friedman or Keynes etc. Iran should welcome American encouragement to be more democratic On the face of it, this sounds very attractive. The Americans seem to be very keen on promoting freedom and democracy in Iran. The question is this. How much freedom do the people in American supported countries in the Middle East have? Do they have more or less than the Iranians? Every single Muslim country in the Middle East apart from Syria is either the recipient of American arms, or aid or both. If the Americans were so keen on freedom and democracy would they not be using the leverage they already have with these countries? America liberated Kuwait in 1993, there was the chance of a fresh start, do we have democracy in Kuwait? The answer is of course that the Americans don’t do democracy. What they do is regimes favourable to America. Not an unreasonable position to have, but one that limits their credibility to claim that they promote freedom and democracy. There is another angle to this. When countries seek rapprochement, they try and make good the wrongs of the past. If you read the American narrative the only wrong that was done in their relationship with Iran was the taking of U.S. hostages. There is no recognition of the economic, political and social interference that the U.S. committed against Iran over many decades. If the U.S. were truly interested in a relationship with equals it would first of all recognize its own wrongs. Otherwise it is not a relationship with an equal that it is seeking but more colonialism.

1. It indicates that there will be an increase in your household Income. (Barkat) 2. You or your husband should go to some Aleem & ask him to interpret this dream for you. May Allah bless you & your child. All the best ! :)

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.

Salam With due respect, Khamanei (ha) is not Wali Amr Al-Muslameen, because when questioned about local issues outside Iran, he will always say to refer to the scholars in that region. He won't have commands (political I mean) for anyone but Iran. His general talk is ofcourse something that doesn't need an individual leader, for example, unity, etc, these are not about obeying him but obeying God. So he is only taking partial role of leadership in Iran (which is really limited and in his limited role also has much pressure from other scholars), and certainly is not taking it with regards to the rest of Muslims. So I would say it's best just to leave this whole Wali Amr thing because it sounds nice and all, but has no reality in real world.

very true. inshallah i can stop, and inshallah i can stay on the Straight Path. Allah is the all-knowing and all-merciful.

Brother By Allah i am least interested in this system but this is creating hatred among the users. It looks instead of baning someone moderators have given authority to other users to humiliate and insult others with giving negative points to those users. I did not have any enemy on shiachat but now i have least three. Why? only and only because they gave negative repu to me and even if i do not care i feel bad about them now.

I think you have proved a great point. Humans in general should not be allowed to decide what makes them spiritually closer to Allah. Those ulama who allow the people to decide what music they should listen to based on how spiritual it makes them feel .... they need to change their rulings. what next? "I have never prayed and it doesn't affect my relationship with Allah".

its not an intoxicant? so ur mind is the same befor and after smoking weed? theres no changes? nothing?

I don't understand. What is the difference between "there is no shred of humanity in them" and "there is no shred of humanity in their worldview."? Where does the worldview come if not from the people? But I wonder what exactly is "white worldview". Actually, baradaram, if I may say so with no offence, your ideas about racism and political/imperial manipulation of one people at the hands of another are rather messed up. You are confusing a few things here. The fact that hegemonic governments in the West are run by most whites doesn't mean that they are doing this because they are white. It is a matter of having the power to make an impact, either in a right or wrong way. This is why I gave the example of Chinese, who are going to be the new power if predictions stay true to the predictors, and they are not white. They will act as powerful people act - just like US, UK et al act now - because they will be reeking with arrogance that comes with power. Would you blame "Chinese race" (is there a such thing?) when that happens? There is a diverse historical background to the nuanced concepts of "freedom" and "the civilised world". You will confuse them with attacks on non-Western nations if you look at them without taking into account the history which gave birth of these ideas. I can't believe this is coming from you. People with a superficial understanding of Western civilisation use these sort of arguments. It doesn't suit you.

Sorry - just saw this.

There are many millions of white people who do not have an Anglo-Saxon background. I believe most native Europeans are white. They perhaps wanted to give more detail on their cultural background in your class - but they would racially be categorized as white. Often classes do this to introduce members - when they do I sit there wondering what to say so that does not open more questions, nor offend anyone - like walking a tightrope. I will be sure not to mention any white parts now that I understand the stereotype better. Would you have been upset with the lecturers mentality if he had described himself as a Black American of Kenyan ancestory? I dont understand what upset you there. He was describing himself. I once had a flamingly gay Black German Prof who grew up in Switzerland - and that is how he introduced himself - and with my vision of a tight lipped tall pale man in my mind as my prof - it was not what I expected for sure. But I found it interesting. I would think if your problem is with as specific government - you should make that clear. If it is British or American, then use that term. Superpowers populace and leaders come in many different colours and backgrounds. The person representing the country with the biggest threat to the world - is classifed as Black. Does that make it acceptable to be ranting about the evil Black devils now? I find the acceptance of this behaviour of generalized racial proflling as confusing, as Muslims (rightfully) scream with protest about the exact same stereotyping and treatment. Is it acceptable - PC that is - to lump us in with the actions of Wahabi terrorists who slaughter "in the name of Islam" and proudly make video tapes for the internet yelling allahu akbar as they do so. They are muslim and they are from the ME and pray on mats and are usually brown - are they us? Are we upset if we are lumped in with them? I am. God help us.

You are speaking about attitudes of Muslims over seas not here in the West. I will admit I was shocked at the attitudes of Muslims in the Middle East towards African Muslims, it was very disgusting and to see it in the home of Rasul Allah (as) was terrible. With that being said, African American Muslims make up some of the most sought after speakers on Islam in the English lanuage, Wahaj Siraj, Abdullah Quick, Bilal Philips ( not American but still hails from the Americas ), and Malcom X is often hailed as a hero by Muslims all over the world ( as he should be, he was one of my big inspirations ), so I could make the same arguement, just because there are some whites in big places in the American Muslim community doesn't mean there is not an acceptance of anti White behavior and rhetoric on the parts of most Muslims in the West. For some its more underlying but lots of times the white devil comments start to flair up. Most ( not all ) of the White Reverts I have met bring this up as an issue, the pressure to appologize for being White after taking Shahada. Weather you wish to accept this or not there is not the same pressure on African Americans to appologize for being black after taking the Shahada. To a certain extent African American Muslims have it easier as they have their own community centers and Masjids and Imams to go to in most Major American Cities. Whites to date have no such centers in North America ( I'm not saying this is because of racism I'm merely pointing out that people who say White Muslims have it so much easier than Black Muslims might need to relook at their commentary ). Iman beauty shop may want to take this stuff into account. Because the way sister Myraam is feeling is the way alot of us are feeling, and that feeling is going to grow as our community does, its not something just for White Muslims to worry about, all Muslims in North America and Europe should probably be concerned as well. There could very well be a huge ethnic split in the Western Muslim community by 2050, and I hope thats not the case as it goes against Islam entirely. All people in Islam are judged by their deeds and not their race and unless non White Muslims start to apply that to Whites as well and realize the actions of bad White people in history don't reflect White people as a whole ( especially in this day and age ), then I'm sorry but sister Myraam has a reason to be concerned.

You are on a completely different thing. This is political power. The more you have that, the more you are held responsible for any trouble going around. Bring into the equation the neo-imperial hegemony and things get worse. Now, the fact that neo-imperial, exploitative capitalist countries happen to be majority white doesn't mean that it is happening because those are white, or, as you put it, whites have "no shred of humanity left in them". I'm amazed at this statement. Condi Rice wasn't white. Collin Powell wasn't white. Anyways. . .China (and possibly India) is going to be a new power and you will see them acting in the same manner as some Western governments with power and agenda do. Which race would you blame then? Your Rawandan example came out of nowhere. Every country, every government and every army protects its own people first before getting worried about the others. This is rule of thumb. There's nothing white or black about that.

Woah relax sis, dont let these things get to you.

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.

People do not lose their whiteness when they become Muslim - often their race stands out even more. They are reminded of it to their face. Their children are reminded of it. Comments are made about them behind their back - it is thinly veiled accepted behaviour in the Muslim community. Many ugly posts were made about "whites" in this thread and in many others. at least B. Jackson was honest about the way he feels - he can come up with a million ways to justify his racism - but it is still racism. I have previously tried to address this in an academic way b4 but I give up.

Apparently his posts are too much for Muslim sensibilities. (I wonder what does that mean) This is from Irishman's profile: Admin 1: "...but the problem is that your comments come across as jibes against, culturally insensitive statements towards, or attacks against the various peoples and places that you discuss." Admin 2: "It was already explained to you why you've been put under mod preview. It isn't a matter of single post having got you under that (were that the case it'd more likely have gotten you banned), it's the character of what you've been bringing to the forum. As explained, this is an explicitly pro-Shi`a forum, it's not an open avenue to come and take potshots at us." And Brent gets away with a mere 3 day suspension due to his blatant and famous racism. Why? Cos his target is White race.

I don't understand this statement. Whites mostly fought other whites in the World Wars. Those wars were not fought over race - they were not racial wars. What is the idea here bradaram?

Irishman is under moderation? Why?

Agreed. I worry that one day all the anti White sentiment amongst Muslims will be problamatic when there is a large White Muslim community ( which shouldn't be too far in the future given the number of White converts to Islam every year ), if our Muslim Brothers require us to be ashamed of being white after we take Shahada, they will find this is not the case. Sadly the "White Devil" guys commentary is not that far off from the way many Muslims feel. I have alot of friends who make anti-White statements right in front of me and think I won't mind because I'm Muslim. Islam transcends race however racism is sadly one of the biggest problems Islam faces today. I worry about what will happen when there are as many White American Muslims as there are Black American Muslims, and Immigrant Muslims ( and their descendants ), all living in North America, if this anti-White attitude is still held. InshAllah I hope we can all respect each other and put the White Devil stuff away with all the White Supremecy rhetoric as well ( which also doesn't mix with Islam of course ).

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 .

God forbid such a horrible thing should take place. I attend a university in the United States and I am sure many others on this board do as well.

Absolutely, that is why I used the word "plight." It is an unfortunate reality.

Just to be the bigger man here, and for the benefit of others, I will give my views on the issue of what is permissible in Islam in this regard, or rather, how we should approach the issue, even though macisaac has been far from forthcoming in providing elaborations on what he thinks Islam has to say about it. What is more relevant than a mere stating of a view is the methodology with which the subject is examined. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that these narrations are authentic. We can take a few things from them. There was some pre-existing custom being practiced at the time. Muhammad, according to these reports, was willing to tolerate the practice, given that it was not done to an excessive extent. Clarifications were made that if it is done within acceptable limits, it could have some possible benefits, but evidently these possible benefits are not enough for it to have the same religious status as circumcision of the male. To further shine light on the matter, research beyond the text is needed. What was the customary practice at the time in the area? What sort of "circumcision" was practised in that time and place? What was commonly understood to be normal practice in this regard, what excessive? It is useful as well to bring in narrations related to other relevant principles. Notably, anything relevant to not doing something that harms the body or the psyche of the person, and anything related to a woman's right in Islam to sexual pleasure. Bringing in precedents of how Muhammad dealt with other pre-existing practices, and how they were either thrown out, modified, or incorporated are relevant to trying to deduce the intents of the prophet in allowing the practice to continue within limits. It would also be insightful to know whether there is any evidence of Muhammad having this done to his daughters, or of the imams having had this done to their women or their daughters. Also useful would be evidence from modern medical science as to the roles of different parts of the external genitalia of the female with regards to sexual arousal, sexual pleasure, and reproductive health.

The basic problem is that MacIsaac refuses to elaborate on what these vague ahadith mean, that he posted up the ahadith without getting this information first from jurists so that he would be able to answer requests for clarification about what Islam supposedly does or doesn't allow, and, even worse, he does not seem to even understand the need for such clarification. It's absolutely mindbogglingly incomprehensible how casual and dismissive he is given the controversy about these procedures. There is such confusion, and he seems oblivious to the need to resolve the confusion. I suspect quite strongly that he posted these ahadith purposefully to provoke controversy. As I've said before, I suspect his typical wild accusations against those who disagree with his interpretations - that they are blinded by their "desires," and smitten by the West and its ways are a smokescreen to hide that he suffers from exactly the opposite condition. That is, he has some sort of irrational hatred against the West, and sets as his yardstick of what is "Islamic" that which rankles the values of Westerners, whether the practice has a rational basis or not. Subhanallah.

...with a halal touch. You see if cultural barriers are taken away, perhaps this is what most (or many) people in a society would do. i.e; go for short lived relationships, temporary set ups etc and will tend to move on if it doesn't suit them anymore. Perhaps it has also to do with the individualist nature of the Westerners (as opposed to Muslims who are collectivists). It is clear to us that people (in the West) do get out of relationships far easily if something goes amiss than Eastern Muslims and Western Muslims with cultural baggage. Westerners wouldn't stick to a miserable situation for the sake of society, culture and etc. A tad bit off topic: We Muslims pride at the fact that the divorce rate in our societies is far less than it is in the West. They don't see what's causing this. The moment you lift so many cultural barriers and especially give women more choices, the divorce rate in Muslim societies will hit the ceiling. I kid you not.

This reply runs the risk of derailing the thread but women are not required to seek parental permission for the second and subsequent marriages, either temporary or permanent. Secondly, whether women are required to seek parental permission for the first time or not is disputed. Some scholars deem it recommend. If so, the marriage will be correct if the girl does not have the permission from home. Thirdly, the requirement of compulsory permission for girls who want to marry for the first time is for those who are not rashidah - something like those females who "can't manage their money." It was normal practice to marry off girls at very young age - 9 or more - in medieval times. So the condition of being a rashidah sounds like a safety measure to protect them against manipulative men. A virgin girl, today, at the age of, say, 18, is adult enough to "manage her money". Oh and then there is the issue of 'urf of the society. A society in which it is not common for girls to seek parental approval for marriage can bypass this condition.

Stability is what all humans aim for on a micro and macro level. It is the ideal. But, is perm marriage a guaranteed stabilty? Do those who get married through nikah have true stabilty - in the real not the theoretical world? Are there room for options? This is not like spouses for hire. I dont think the article is meant to be cynical and my intent is not cynical - just curiousity. I can understand how this could be misinterpreted though. And any change from the cultural norm is likely to be rejected due to the discomfort.

This would not be for everyone, as I said. I was just interested in the idea - not personally - just academically (for want of a better word). Thre seems to be lots of proof that monogamy is not always just once. The longer we live - the longer the expectation of the marriage. People used to die when they were 40-45 years old. Were people expected to be in a happy harmonious relationship for 60 or 70 years? Cultural anthropologists are asking that question. For women, one positive I see in it is to give them a chance to have a satisfying marriage after the husbands interest in her had waned, so that she is not in an unhappy and potentially cruel situation with no options. It would give the opportunity for both to examine whether they wanted to work together or seperate on good terms.

Umm.. thre could be positives - the mutah would last as long as both parties are interested in working on the relationship – it could possibly encourage a more dynamic situation. There is a probability of one being hurt – but that exists in all marriages. It would be better to leave a marriage where love and respect still remain than stay in a bad relationship until resentment and hate was sniffing at the door. Perhaps if things are really bad, it is just best to move on......before these feelings develop. The social implications are the biggest barrier to women exercising this option. Financial implications can be considered ahead of time and planned for. Is there a “proper” use of mutah? :unsure: Is it only to address men’s needs? I thought it was designed to meet the needs of women – at least that is how it has been explained so many times – taking care of women who are on their own. What!! I can’t see how having a mutah marriage is “copying” men??? Isn’t it encouraged for both genders to marry ...??? Mutah is definitely not for everyone – but I think there are men and women who could benefit from it if used in a creative way. The advantages need to be explored. Mutah must have been made halal for a better use than one night stands. just trying to think outside the box........ :angel:

Inshallah the Shia of Pakistan will figure something out. One of the main problems that prevents Iran from helping Shia Pakistanis, is the Sunni Baluch border filled with these BLA, MQM, Taliban, Al Qaida, Wahabi, criminals. Had there been Pakistani Shias on the border of Iran and Baluchistan, and had Iran not have too much of a strong Sunni presence in the Sistan and Baluchistan province, I think Iran would have been able to help the Pakistani Shias gain more control and stability. Our prayers are with you, and hopefully they can get something organized, like a Hezbollah or Mahdi Army, which gives the enemies a clear warning. Like Shiasoldier said, I think this is the only way. I think had Hezbollah, Amal, not existed in Lebanon, the Shias of Lebanon would be dictated upon, and they would clearly have been a large population with no use and only to exist to take in abuse, from the PLO, Sunni, Christian, and other Western-backed groups in Lebanon.

Hmm I see that hussainmehdi is not around to bump this thread. It doesn't feel right if this thread if not bumped to the top every ther day, I'm so used to it since about a year of its debut. So I bump it for him. @) blah blah blah mqm omg lol blah blah blah mqm omg lol blah blah blah mqm omg lol

No comparison between the two whatsoever. Imamate is one of the Usool-e-Deen on which faith stands. Mutah is mubah. It's practice depends one one's circumstances. Some people are against divorce but going for it is also halal and mubah. Does it mean we are against Islam? I don't think so bro dingdong. :rolleyes:

Well I can believe you were a nurse, but I doubt Maryam was born in a hospital - she would accept nothing less than a waterbirth..the girl loves her water. Still, the only reason I question it is that she may not want people knowing her birthday if she keeps it private on her profile.

(bismillah) (salam) i have been member of shia chat from last 4 months and i have really learn lots of stuff about shia faith in this course of time,but recently i came across some unjustified banning and closing of thread which talks about ahlul bayt. i understand we shud bring harmony between shia and sunni but that doesnt mean we need to forgive those who did zulm on ahlul bayt. i started thread which stated how fatema(a.s) was tortured my usmaan but unfortunately it was banned and dismissed and again some brother called aliunwaliullah wajib started some thead on ahlul bayt and again that thread was locked.so what exactly we are here to discuss? gayism,mastubution,lovefailure,marriage,muta and some forwarded mails?

The koffar thugs need to be fought back with the same nonsense they spout out.

lol, my point was not that Kadhim did not saying anything to elicit the response (why would Abbas_Zaidi randomly say he was taught by wahabis and then ridicule him for being a convert) my point was that since these topics tend to get heated, it seems silly to insult Kadhim and then post a Ayah from the Quran that condemns insulting someone. I mean come on now.. bounds of reason.. Me thinking Ahmedinejad is not the brightest crayon in the coloring box is not slander. It is an observation I have made based on 99 percent of what comes out of his mouth. I have not searched for this book.. but I think this conversation stopped being about the book a LONG time ago.

Nice. Which part is the straight and which part is the forward? :huh: Lets just agree that when topics get heated.. well.. they get heated. No need to start quoting Quran to make ourselves feel like we have taken the high moral ground when we really have not.

See there is no reason debating with you as you always speak of apples and oranges. They deserve a state no more than the native americans or the tribes of amazon. mixing that up with occupation of an entire community is the apple and oranges that we are talking about. Find me one non-red american who would abandon his livelihood so that the drunk reds could get a place to call their own. can you? you little EDITED, if you want to make a case for Israel then go somewhere else where people's worldviews are shaped by mass media as opposed to reality. Mod's note: I am issuing you a warning for using a racial slur to refer to another member