Leaderboard

So eloquently said. Thumbs up!. . . though I must make a comment on the emboldened. Not a single Imam sought government. Imam Ali was invited by Madinities to take the reigns of the caliphate. Imam Hassan was pressed by the people of the Kufa after the martyrdom of his father, Imam Ali, and he abdicated when things did not work out. It would have been a different matter had he clung to power till his own or the defeat of Muaviyah. No single Imam from Imam Hussain onwards worked towards gaining power. Mamoon declared Imam Reza as heir apparent against the wishes of the Imam. Even with the Mahdi, if some think that he would reappear just to wage war and kill the 'kuffar' and 'munafiqeen' for gaining power, then, alas, they are very mistaken. It would be the turn of events that'd give power in the hands of the Imam, prob'ly much like how Imam Ali got the governance. Funny not many high ranking scholars have since the time of the Occultation of Mahdi ruled against the "secular" and dictatorial ruler of a Muslim land to be 'unIslamic' and hence the need for the learned scholars of jurisprudence to take on the reigns of the governance, for that would supposedly be "Islamic." The case of "Islamic government" in Iran has been a recent development in the Shia Muslim political thought.

Good idea!! Less pollution from jet and truck transport as well. This has been done by two determined Canadians who wrote a book about their experiment to do this called The 100 Mile Diet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100-Mile_Diet Here is how to get started on your own 100 Mile Diet http://100milediet.org/get-started/map The book itself http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679314820

Come now, you're not as thick as that, are you? Here. Put the Qu'ran on a desk. Put your ear really close to it. Be perfectly silent. Listen. What do you hear? Nothing. The Qu'ran doesn't speak. It needs a human to read and interpret it. The Qu'ran literally says, "when the sacred months are over, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." Do you go on a kill-crazy rampage each year? No? Why? Because you, and scholars you are confortable with interpret the text, in the context of the larger passage, and in the historical context in which it was revealed. Always there is this human mediation. We have narrations describing the sunnah of the prophet and aimmah. But does that talk for itself? No. There is a difference of time, space, culture, language, and technology between us and them. How do you close that gap? With human interpretation. Which interpretation? Whose interpretation is best? Well ... that's .. open to ... interpretation.

See this is the problem. Islam does not speak for itself. What you are calling for, is your interpretation of Islam to be pursued by the state. Why should your interpretation of Islam be state sponsored. In your version of government, Islam is held hostage by the state because everyone must work within the dictated frame of Islam that the state chooses to enforce: i.e. Welayat e Faqih. That's what's wrong with Islamic Republic. The laws of Sharia would be sufficient for us if they were universally agreed upon, but they are not. Sharia does not speak for itself, it has to be interpreted. Therefore, the Shia doctrine works around infallible guides to show the true path. You, my friend, have a very utopian notion of Islam. The question is not whether or not Islam is missing something or has a gap to be filled. Islam has, and always will be, interpreted in light of the time and space within which it is situated and practiced. As far as Shi'ism is concerned, it has for the most part been apolitical, conservative, and quietist, like I've stated earlier, until one man decided to use Islamic rhetoric to connect with the masses only to provide good governance and sort of services envisioned in a welfare state. Your exclusivist approach to Islam does not hold. You don't live in a vacuum, so stop imagining that you do. I must commend you though for the creativity in your rhetoric: "demoting Islam to some benign ideology." Simply because we disagree with your view of Islam we are somehow belittling Islam? How about the 8 Imams which did not seek government? In my view of history, whenever the state has used Islam to justify itself--with the exception of a short rule by the Ahlulbayt (as)--Islam was actually held hostage by the state to further political goals of the ruling elite: The "Rightly Guided" Caliphs, the Ummayyads, the Abbassids, Fatimids, Mughals, Safavids, and the Ottomans. Why should a state ruled by jurists be held to any different standards? Your assertion that disagreement with your particular reading is demoting Islam to some benign ideology not only insulting, it's laced with ignorance. My benign Islam, if you will, requires me to oppose Khomeinism, just as it requires me to oppose Kemalism. I have previously said that the only reason the Khomeinist state continues to exist is because of its good governance and particular ability to push forth with the ideals of the welfare state. But in order to provide good governance, a state does not have to subscribe to Khomeinist principles. Although I'm impressed by the extensive progress IRI has made in the welfare of its people, that does not mean that I support the elevation of one interpretation of Islam that subjugates all other dissent and criticism. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If not now, this will manifest itself in the future decades, if the IRI survives until then, and the victim will be Islam, not the Mullahs.

I'm impressed by your persistence kadhim! It's unfortunate to see Muslims, especially those who have experienced the West as well as the East to imitate the pseudo-intellectuals like Samuel Huntington. Just as the so-called West is afflicted with a superiority complex, our fellow Muslims here suffer from an inferiority complex - blaming everything, literally, on an idealized notion of a monolithic West. BTW Mahdaviat: I just watched the video you've posted. I'm unconvinced. What he's suggesting is a controlled system of criticism that situates itself within the frame of the Islamic Republic. Why should the Islamic Republic itself not be the subject of criticism. To equate criticism of the system to conspiracy is a dangerous slope... Regardless of what his ideas about his handcrafted system may have been, today the staunch supporters of the regime, including yourself I might add, hold the system above criticism. And anyone who disagrees with it is either a collaborator or a gullible fool... excellent rhetoric!

Yes. Have you?

Buddy, you clearly are not living in reality if you are unable to acknowledge the benefit of human freedom, and the basic differences in levels of freedom between a place like Canada and a place like Iran. Here in Canada, we make our share of mistakes. The difference here is that when they happen, any person can read about them or hear about them in the daily news. That you try to laugh that basic difference off as "irrelevant" just goes to show how out of touch you are with the things that are truly relevant.

ShiaChat hijacked because people have different opinions of a country?

Salam Alaykom sisters.. and anyone else who read this. I have a question.. I have a yeast infection so I have just used the monistat vaginal capsule that is to be inserted into the vagina..Im sorry this is a bit too much info lol, but its a seriouse question. On the package form is indicated that there will be vaginal leackage, and my mother told me it does have ALOT of leackage for a couple of days meaning I have to wear a pad to protect my underwear.. but anyways, the question is, with the discharge from the medication that will be continuously and spontaniously leacking out of me for a few days.. what are the rules of praying? I know you have to do wudu if you are about to pray and you feel or notice vaginal discharge, so what if I do Wudu and then I continue to have the discharge from the medication.. am I allowed to pray even if there may be some that comes out? what are the rules regarding this? I searched bottom to top online, and havnt found a single thing regarding this at all!! if anyone has any info that they are 100% sure about, or if anyone has had the same issue and found info about it, or any scholars out there have anything they know about it. Like if there is no actual rule regarding this, can anyone just give me some insight on the issue, and what they propose I should do . Should I continue to pray while trying to wash away as much discharge before? Will my prayers be invalid if discharge comes out and I dont notice? what if I do wudu and discharge just keeps comming out and I have no way to keep it all away for enough time to pray? How do I go about this.. any info on this please repond ASAP. I hope to wake up for Fajr tonight and have my answer already. Thanks alot everyone :) Salaam

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23617060/Kaveh-Afrasiabi-Vilification-of-a-Scholar

^^ Islam is a complete way of life. It doesn't make sense to seperate religion from politics. was responding to kadhim

There is nothing you can do about it, although it might have something to do with your level of testosterone. More testosterone = more wet dreams in sexually inactive men. While very inconvenient, think of it as Allah's way of saving you from prostate cancer until you are married :)

Dr Akber Mithani of Vancouver, Canada will recite Majlis in English and Urdu at Hyderi, South London.

Sheikh Shahnawaaz Mahdavi will be speaking in English at Stanmore (KSIMC of London) this Moharram.

Power corrupts is a basic truth of politics. It's a dirty game, and unless you're one of the eminently purified ones, you're not going to be able to do it without getting your hands dirty. This basic reality in no way impacts the doctrine of wilayat, which deals with individuals who have been purified and chosen by God to lead. We have been asked to refer voluntarily to jurisprudents / maraja for guidance on jurisprudential matters; any notion that we are obligated to obey them as political leaders as we are obligated to do so for the Imam is an extrapolation, an interpretation. It is not in the texts themselves in any obvious way.

That was right on the damned head. Where do you start, is, indeed the question.

Walaikumasalam, Yes it is allowed if they are a believer.....but a better dua would be a conditional one whereby you ask Allah to wed you to that particular person if it is khayr. And put your trust in Allah as to the outcome :). wasalaam

Just to correct something. Imam Ali did not marry another woman during the time he was married to Sayeda Fatima and nor did the Prophet during the time he was married to Sayeda Khadija. The prophet's favorite wife was Sayed Khadija (and he did not marry over her until she passed away) The favorite wive of Imam Ali was Sayeda Fatima (and guess what he did not marry over her during her life either). It's weird ey? They're both infallible and they can both treat multiple wives equally even when they both love their first wives more YET they did not marry over them hmmm I don't know to you but to me it means something .

^Weak. Mentioned in al-Imama wa al-Siyasa attributed to Ibn Qutaybah. We don't have any sahih chain for this narration. w/s

Movie about the food industry (mainly focused on the U.S.). Comes up with ideas such as that you should by from local producers, also focus on food whose origins are obvious and produced in a sustainable way. http://www.foodincmovie.com/ We've often come across debates on SC about boycotting companies with Zionist connections etc. I think if people focused on products that are healthy, produced locally, involving as few *middlemen* as possible, with less packaging, branding, processing, that itself would automatically be cutting out people who exploit consumers and producers, the oppressors of all descriptions.

The infallibility of Imams (as) is same as the infallibility of Prophets (as) except Muhammad (saw). The infallibility of Prophet Muhammad (saw) is of higher degree than other Prophets and Imams as he (saw) was protected from the minor sins even before the time of his prophetic mission. This a/c to Mufeed (ar) is the belief of Imamiyah. If you mean mistakes/negligence/forgetfulness related to religious duty, then a/c to Shaykh Mufeed (ar), all Prophets (as) and Imams (as) are protected from such mistakes during the time as hujjah. However, Shaykh Saduq (ar) and his teacher Shaykh Muhammad b. Hasan al- Walid (ar) believed in the absentmindedness (sahv) or forgetfulness (nisyan) of Prophet (saw) and Imams (as). Shaykh Saduq mentioned an authentic hadith in al-Faqih related to this: w/s

Too bad for you bros. They were not spies or you wouldn't have them released so quickly. It goes to tell us that there can be accidents. The other lesson we get is that it is not good to assume things. :rolleyes:

thanks to those who helped.. And I asked a few friends, they agree'd that it shouldnt be considered istihaza. .. and umm, no its a yeast infection not fungal. search it online, its a certain thing inside a woman that is always present, and the amount of it can be elevated due to , pregnancy, mesntrual , changed sexual partners , soaps that cause irritation and a few other ones. Mine is caused because of my mesntrual cycles, my body elevates the amount of the specific hormone, wich then creates a small infection. Im very clean, I do wudhu all day and shower atleaste twice a day. I dont wear tight clothing and I wear cotton under garmets to keep cleaner. you guys shouldnt think its such a bad topic... this is in the sisters forum, and if youve ever looked in the guys section.. theres stupider more random disgusting questions. Mine is a medical question that couldnt be answered by just anyone out there.. hey atleaste im not asking, "GUYS PLEASE HELP, I WATCH PORN 3 TIMES A DAY AND LOVE IT AND CANT STOP"... like common, how many of those are in the guys sections only!!!! ... have some respect , a girl comes here asking for some help.. and unfortunatly has to tell the personal thing.. if it was so WRONG im sure a moderator would have removed it immediatly. how should I add this to the masturbation topic if this is A MEDICAL ISSUE. this question is perfectly legit. and Im sure will help many other sisters out there, cause trust me.. ALOT of women get this especially when pregnant, or having theyre mesntrual cycle. Its a natural thing in the body.. and sometimes the amount of that hormone gets elevated and causes an infection that is not able to be stopped until the symptoms occure, and then you have to medicate to reduce the level of the hormone. so get over it.. if its a medical matter, why would I put it in a section called masturbation???...seriosly. like i see I have now a bad rep on my profile. whats with that. I thought people out here would be helpfull.. great way to show support for a fellow sister huh. but anyways. thanks to the few who commented politly and tryed to help. :) I appreciate your comments. Oh and by the way.. the medication made it go away, so no... its not a funagl infection I found that somewhat insulting .. to be honest. claiming me to be unclean and having fungus!!!.

Yes, I believe she should tell her husband (though different situation might warrant different decisions). I don't mean because of virginity or whatever but because it would help her husband (in sha Allah) to know what's hurting the woman he loves. It's a terrible feeling to see someone you care about in pain, not having a clue as to what the reason is and feeling powerless to help it. And of course for her, keeping it bottled up from the person she loves could be agonizing. Left unsaid and such pain kept within can really hurt a marriage. It would also help him to be more careful when it comes to intimate relations. I don't mean abstaining, but just realizing he needs to go easy with her and be very considerate of the trauma she's had associated with what should be otherwise be an enjoyable experience, one that is very important to their marriage.

(bismillah) (salam) , SubhanAllah, khudawand hamen bhi in ki perwai ki toufeeq ata frmae.aameeen. momin ka dosre momin pe aik zime dari us ki waqte museebat madad krna hae aur us men dua bhi shamil hae jo momin ka sb se bara hathyar hae.Ache ikhlaq se pesh aana bhi aik momin ka doosre pe haq hae. Khuda ham sab ki toufeeqat men izafa frmae. keep sharing good stuff.

Sayed Ammar will be speaking in Maryland, Washington at the Idara Jaffariya

Neither side takes the time to understand the other party. For 12r shias the 3 calipahs are not any different from Muawiyah and Yazid. For Sunnis the AHlul Bayt are not that significant enough to be mentioned on a daily basis. If we have such closed minded views then don't expect a marriage to successful.

(salam) The girl either way needs the permission of her father. If she does not get it, then the marriage is not legitimate.

(salam) I didn't call them different religions, I called them different sects. Of course they are both Muslims, but that doesn't mean everything is exactly the same. It is usually easier for you and your children to marry someone of the same sect, so that the children do not have to be confused over issues of fiqh, tafsir, wilaya, etc.

Killing the daughter of the prophet and stealing the caliphate are stupid things now eh? :) Because people should marry those who are good for their iman, will help raise religious children, and they can grow religiously together. Sunnis and Shias are on completely different wave lengths when it comes to religion, the division between parents will have a huge impact on the children from these marriages, and several other reasons.

What a load of BS. If the majority of Muslims are as deep in denial of the roots of Western successes and the roots of their own failures, the winter will last for a good deal longer yet.

the question that should be asked is; Was Moaviya and his cursed son Yazid muslims ?

I think it's possible that this is the reason why they're so hard on you. Although I haven't lived with my parents for 9 years (moved out when I went to college), they still treat me the worst of all the kids. I never really understand why... I'm the most successful (have 4 degrees, a job, in a stable relationship), and treat them respectfully and kindly. My brothers don't have any degrees yet (despite one being in school for 7 years now, yikes), one drinks and does drugs and never shows up for family events (or is really late and shows no remorse), and the other is always arguing with them and being grumpy (treats my mom like [Edited Out]; argues with her, criticizes her, puts her down). They often ask them for money (and if it doesn't work, they try to make them feel really guilty), while I don't. They have been kind enough to pay for my cell phone and my car insurance while I was in college (same for my brothers). But, over the summer, I had just graduated and was having difficulty finding a job - I couldn't even get a job at a grocery store! It was a very depressing time to say the least. Finally I told them about my situation (I didn't ask for money or help though; I just wanted them to know what was going on). Their response was to ignore all that and tell them that since I've graduated I need to pay for my car insurance and my cell phone on my own now. I was shocked to say the least. They're always on my case, criticizing me, not valuing anything I have to say, arguing with me (when I have degrees in the particular areas they seem to think they're superior in)... my brothers have no respect for me and make fun of me and don't take me seriously either. My mom likes to talk to me but all the men in the family ridicule her so much too that she usually gives up and sides with them. My family isn't Muslim - they're Christian (although this type of behavior isn't appropriate in Christianity either). They don't know I'm Muslim either, so that isn't the source of it. They've always treated me this way. I don't know if it's because I'm the oldest and they're harder on me... or if they think being hard on me was the cause of my success so they continue to be hard on me.... Someone else told me that my family seems to have no respect for women, which is possible. It's similar in my extended family - everyones makes fun of each other (it's eat or be eaten basically), and the 'men know best and the women are just dumb and emotional'. I always responded to it all by trying to make myself invisible. So, the point is that parents being hard on their children isn't always the fault of the child for being direspectful or rebellious. Sometimes parents follow the way they were treated growing up, thinking it's the best way. Sometimes they have misguided beliefs that this particular way of treating their kids is better than other ways. Sometimes they're just so unaware of their own problems and emotions that they blindly take it out on the easiest target - the one who will suck it up and take it and not fight back. Now that you're trying to stand up for yourself by talking to them about it, your mom is conveniently 'forgetting'. This is likely because as human beings, we hate change. She is responding to her dislike of the change you are proposing by ignoring it completely. The family system has been set this way for a long time, and now you're shaking things up and trying to change things around. Everyone is comfortable with the roles each person plays (except you), and no one wants it changed. They won't like their 'whipping boy' being taken from them - who will they take everything out on? No one else in the family will take it, it seems. They would then be forced to deal with their own issues and emotions in a responsible way, which is much, much harder. In family therapy, this is one of the big challenges faced when one member of the family decides to make a change - it upsets the entire family system. Everyone will be forced to accomodate the change in some way, and if the person is making a change from dysfunctional to functional, the other members may object to having their dysfunctional roles challenged as a result.

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.

I insist that it is a reductionist view. While I fully agree that the Hollywood and aligned media do in deed project this image, that is no reason for you, who I assume have experienced the 'West' to lend any credence to such views. It only lends credence to ideas like the clash of civilizations - a highly reductionist view that gains support from either ends of the spectrum. You're on a very slippery slope here. It all does not depend on one's conviction in Islam. Rather, it depends on one's conviction in a certain reading or interpretation of Islam. You're entitled to your ideas, but you don't have a monopoly on Islam. Furthermore, simply because someone else has a different understanding of Islam or issues at hand then you, does not make them a colonialist intellectuals. Shia Islam was historically apolitical, quietist, and conservative. One man reinterpreted it all. He had that right. But his reinterpretation is is not infallible. It should be subject to criticism, which it is not, to criticize the rule of the jurist is considered abomination. Take a look at the discourse in political science and you will see the ruthless criticism that materialism, democracy, modernity, universal declaration of human rights etc. face within the West. Islam isn't an idea. It isn't something monolithic that will never change. Islam doesn't speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. That's your interpretation of how it should be. Why use the coercive powers of the state to impose your interpretation on others who disagree with you. Again you're not really bringing anything tangible to the table. You simply reiterate fluff. Iran's defence budget was close to 18% of the GDP during Shah's regime, the IRI brought it down to around 4% despite an 8 year war. There was a massive gap between the rural poor and urban elites in Shah's time, the IRI managed to shorten the gap significantly. Illiteracy stood at over 50% during Shah's time, the IRI brought it to 15%. Females accounted for 30% of university students and the IRI increased it to 60%. I could go on and on about the excellent governance that the IRI ushered often ignored by most media and in fact most supporters of the IRI. But there's a common thread running through this. The IRI drives its support from populist policies that have empowered the rural poor and the urban poor, not because Islam (although that is certainly one factor, especially for people outside Iran). But now there is a strong middle class that needs much more than just social services. Like any other middle class they require the freedom to condone and critique, to believe and disbelieve, political empowerment etc etc. And the current system of regime cannot provide that. It is disillusioned by phantom threats. There will be evolutionary change, whether or not you like it. As far as American-Iranian relations are concerned, America needs Iran just as much as Iran needs America. Just as American policy on Iran is unfortunately hijacked by AIPAC, so is Iranian policy regarding America hijacked by neo-conservatives within Iran--to the detriment of both countries. So long as people like you continue to whip up, or at least condone, negative rhetoric on both ends of the spectrum, no one will benefit.

You'd do well to consult Tariq Ali's Clash of Fundamentalisms. Your reductionist views are not unlike those of the neo-cons and other Orientalists in the West. And the West by the way is much more then just secularism, glitter and short-term material gain. The West is Bush, Cheney, Fisk, Fucault, Galloway, Secularism, Christian Fundamentalism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Materialism, Communism, Capitalism, Environmentalism, Fox News, CNN, Democracy Now, Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Dr. King, Malcolm X, KKK, Apartheid, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, the power that colonized the world over, and that which brought back the wonders of soap and personal hygiene after returning from the Crusades... The Islamic Republic is meagerly an idea. Defend it on its own merits, don't succumb to personal attacks. Ideas come and go. I respect Khomeini just as I do Qutub and Maududi, because they took the initiative of producing knowledge, something sorely lacking in the Islamic world. But I don't agree with them, I shouldn't have to.

I wouldn't marry a poor guy. But that's just because I'm not gay. :D

Patriotism is paganism. Unfortunately we are all pagans.

Weed is haram, because it is for junkies, are you a junky? It does intoxicate you, it makes you laugh at silly things that should not be funny and so on. Hookah, permissible, if it doesn't cause you harm, impermissible if it does (cop out for smokers, it should be haram full stop.)

(salam) Interesting.. took me half n hour to check it out .... lol - so many clean shaved ameer ul momineens in the list .. lol Peace

the question was "if"

So you will not consider marrying a non-Syed? I agree with the red. Good point.

LOL. okay I will accept that. But I should emphasize that my point depends on the red-coloured key word.

You're right but I must correct you on this , Hijab is a women's personal religious obligation , as it is compulsory in Islam.

Neither do I. The rebarbative cretins who ask women to remove their hijabs have no confidence in themselves - - and the same is true for those who force hijab on women. Hijab is women's personal religious preference and men have no say in it. But many don't see it that way.

Yes, I get your point. But I was specifically talking about hijab as head covering. Women who observe spiritual hijab and who also dress up modestly, but do not cover their hair in public are unjustly declared as irreligious or even immodest. I don't buy this line. I don't think religiosity hangs on in the practice of covering hair or in case of men, in keeping beards. [no offence to hijabis and bearded men intended. . .] In many cases, hijab as head covering can be deceptive let alone an indicator of religiosity/modesty. As you rightly point out, some might cover their hair because they are required to do so as a family/cultural practice and not because they want to. By the way, I am not anti-hijabi in case someone thinks I am.

I join the club too. To add my two cents, generally the religiosity of a person is unsatisfactorily measured, among other things, by their observing the wajibaat like prayers, fasting, zakat/khums, their abstaining from alcohol, pre-martial sex, and in extreme cases, by their appearance, such as beard for men and hijab for women. This approach may be a good starting point or an indicator of the proper religiosity [as well as humaneness] of a person but this is not an end in itself. This does not in any way guarantee that a person would be a good Muslim in broader sense of the word. For example this is not an indicator of a person's fairness, justice, propriety in dealings and behaving with others, and whether s/he would make a good wife/husband or not. The latter set of characteristics is too often neglected and not given proper attention. I should add that it is also difficult to find out. . .one can only make informed guesses. Some of us have a very narrow definition of being religious. It can go as far as believing that women who wear jeans are irreligious [at least among desis], non-hijabis are irreligious, people who watch movies and listen to songs are irreligious - as we have seen in one of the posts here. -_-

I think you cannot divorce the two. There is a strong relation between financial well-being and satisfactory marital life. But it does not amount to saying that sitting over big balance would preclude you from domestic troubles. No, it wouldn't. But with money you can at least avoid the troubles and unhappiness that result from its shortage. There might be other reasons to be unhappy, totally unrelated with and disconnected to your financial health. I have no issue with that. :) I have no issue with that either, theoretically.

I warn against romanticizing poverty. Money brings a big chunk of happiness to humans; it always did.

Much wisdom.