Leaderboard

lets pray ÎÏÇیÇ ÌÓ ØÑÍ ãیÑی ÎáÞÊ ˜ÿ ÂÛÇÒ (ÚÇáã ÐÑ )ãیŸ ã̪ ˜æ "ªÇŸ " ˜Àäÿ æÇáæŸ ãیŸ ÞÑÇÑ ÏیÇ¡ ÇÓ ˜ÿ ÈÚÏ ÏæÓÑÇ ˜Ñã یÀ ˜یÇ ˜À ÇÓی ÚªÏ ˜æ ÛÏیÑ ãیŸ ÊÌÏیÏ ˜یÇ ÇæÑ ãیÑی ÇãÇãæŸ Ê˜ ªÏÇیÊ ÝÑãÇÆی¡ ÎÏÇیÇ ÇÓ äÚãÊ ˜æ ˜Çãá ÝÑãÇ ÇæÑ ÞیÇãÊ Ê˜ ÇÓ ÑÍãÊ ˜æ ã̪ Óÿ ãÊ áیäÇ ÊǘÀ ãیÑی ãæÊ ÇÓ ÍÇá ãیŸ åæ ˜À Êæ ã̪ Óÿ ÑÇÖی åæ ۔ ÎÏÇ یÇ ªã äÿ ãäÇÏی ÇیãÇä ˜ی äÏÇ Ñ áÈی˜ ˜ªی ¡æÀ ãäÇÏی یÛãÈÑ ÇÓáÇã(Õ) ʪÿ ÇæÑ Â ˜ی äÏÇ æáÇیÊ Êªی ۔ ÎÏÇیÇ ÊیÑÇ Ô˜Ñ ˜À Êæäÿ ªãیŸ یÛãÈÑ ˜ÿ ÈÚÏ ÇیÓÿ ÇãÇãæŸ ˜ی ØÑÝ ªÏÇیÊ ˜ی Ìä ˜ÿ ÐÑیÚÀ Ïیä ˜Çãá åæÇ ÇæÑ äÚãÊیŸ ÊãÇã åæÆیŸ ÇæÑ ÇÓی ªÏÇیÊ ˜ی æÌÀ Óÿ Êæ äÿ ªãÇÑÿ Ïیä ˜ÿ ØæÑ Ñ ÇÓáÇã ˜æ ÓäÏ ˜یÇ۔ ÎÏÇیÇ ªã یÛãÈÑ Ç˜Ñã(Õ) ÇæÑ ÇãیÑ Çáãæãäیä ÚáیÀ ÇáÓáÇã ˜ÿ ÊÇ ÈÚ ªیŸ ªã äÿ ÌÈÊ æ ØÇÛæÊ¡ ÇÑæŸ ÈÊæŸ ÇæÑ Çä ˜ی ÇÊÈÇÚ ˜Ñäÿ æÇáæŸ ˜Ç Çä˜ÇÑ ˜یÇ ÇæÑ Ìæ ÔÎÕ Çä ˜æ ÏæÓÊ Ñ˜ªÊÇ ªÿ ªã ÇÓ Óÿ ÒãÇäÀ ˜ÿ ÂÛÇÒ Óÿ ÂÎÑʘ ÈیÒÇÑ ªیŸ ÇæÑ ªã ˜æ ªãÇÑÿ ÇÆãÀ ˜ÿ ÓÇʪ ãÍÔæÑ ÝÑãÇ ۔ ÎÏÇیÇ ªã ªÑ ÇÓ ÔÎÕ Óÿ ÈÑÇÆÊ Ç ÀÊÿ ªیŸ Ìæ Çä Óÿ Ìä ˜Ñÿ Ǫÿ æÀ Çæáیä ãیŸ Óÿ åæ یÇ ÂÎÑیä ãیŸ Óÿ åæÇäÓÇäæŸ ãیŸ Óÿ åæ یÇ ÌäæŸ ãیŸ Óÿ åæ ۔ ÎÏÇ یÇ ªã ÇãیÑ Çáãæ ãäیä ÚáیÀ ÇáÓáÇã ˜ی æáÇیÊ ¡ÇÊãÇã äÚãÊ ÇæÑ Çä ˜ی æáÇیÊ Ñ ÊÌÏیÏ ÚªÏ æ یãÇä Ñ ÊیÑÇ Ô˜Ñ ÇÏÇ ˜ÑÊÿ ªیŸ ÇæÑ ÇÓ ÈÇÊ Ñ ÊیÑÿ Ô˜Ñ ÒÇÑ ªیŸ ˜À Êæ äÿ ªã ˜æ Ïیä ãیŸ ÑÏ æ ÈÏá ˜Ñäÿ æÇáæŸ ÇæÑ ÊÍÑیÝ ˜Ñäÿ æÇáæŸ ãیŸ äªیŸ ÞÑÇÑ ÏیÇ ۔ ÎÏÇیÇ ÇÓ ÑæÒ (ÛÏیÑ )ªãÇÑی Âä˜ªæŸ ˜æ ÑæÔä ÝÑãÇ ¡ªãÇÑÿ ãÇÈیä ÇÊÍÇÏ یÏÇ ˜Ñ ¡ÇæÑ ªã ˜æ ªÏÇیÊ ˜ÿ ÈÚÏ ãÑÇÀ äÀ ˜ÑäÇ ÇæÑ ªã ˜æ äÚãÊ ˜Ç Ô˜Ñ ÇÏÇ ˜Ñäÿ æÇáæŸ ãیŸ ÞÑÇÑ Ïÿ ۔ ÎÏÇ ˜Ç Ô˜Ñ ˜À ªã äÿ ÇÓ Ïä ˜æ ÑÇãی јªÇ ÇæÑ ªã ˜æ Çäÿ æÇáیÇä ÇãÑ ˜ÿ ÓáÓáÀ ãیŸ Çä Óÿ æÝÇÏÇÑی ˜ÿ ÚªÏ æ یãÇä Ñ ÞÇÆã јªÇ ۔ ÎÏÇیÇ ÌÓ Ïä ˜Ç ªã äÿ ÇÓ æ ÎیÇá ˜یÇ ÇÓ ˜æ ªãÇÑÿ áÆÿ ãÈÇј ÝÑãÇ ¡ÇæÑ ªã ˜æ æáÇیÊ Ñ ËÇÈÊ ÞÏã јª ¡ªãÇÑÿ ÇیãÇä ˜æ ÇãÇäÊ æ ÚÇÑیÀ Ñ äÀ ÞÑÇÑ Ïÿ ÇæÑ ªã ˜æ ÏæÒÎ ˜ی ØÑÝ ÏÚæÊ Ïیäÿ æÇáæŸ Óÿ ÈÑÇÆÊ æ ÈیÒÇÑی јªäÿ æÇáæŸ ãیŸ Óÿ ÞÑÇÑ Ïÿ ۔ ÎÏÇیÇ ªã ˜æ ÍÖÑÊ ãªÏی ÚáیÀ ÇáÓáÇã ˜ی ªãÑǪی ˜ی ÊæÝیÞ ÇæÑ Çä ˜ÿ Ñã ˜ÿ äیÿ ÍÇÖÑ åæ äÿ ˜ی ÊæÝیÞ ÚäÇیÊ ÝÑãÇ http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ngFsZhsbI_g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPyraojXdRY

یÀ ˜Ó ãÞÇã Ñ ÍیÇÊ ã̪ÿ áÿ ˜ÿ  Æی äÀ ÈÓ ÎæÔی À ªÿ ̪ǟ äÀ Ûã À ÇÎÊیÇÑ ªÿ

ÇæÑ ˜ª ÏیÑ ÒÑÿ ÔÈö ÝÑÞÊ Óÿ ˜Àæ Ïá Ȫی ˜ã ϘªÊÇ Àÿ¡ æÀ یÇÏ Èªی ˜ã ÂÊÿ ÀیŸ

I was watching the news the other day, where i heard that Saudi Arabia is attacking Yemen's Shia's and Zaydi's. Anyone heard or knows anything about this. As the man in the news was saying "Another civil (Madhab) war has beggined in Yemen and the Muslim world is yet again still in silence"

(bismillah) (salam), Just recently I was 'googling' something, and I found this site called '1000 mistakes in the Quran'. Here's the link, for anybody who wants to have a look at it. I discussed it with my friends at school and we were thinking of how we can 'disprove' his contradictions on-line and give them the guy the justifications on-line, when something popped into my head! Guess what? :) Any ways, since 'two (or more) heads are better than one', I guess we should make a joint effort, in proving the guy called Klog Belaest (a pseudonyme), wrong. Some of his points are really stupid, and are not worth justifying, while others, may seem contradictory. So it is these contradictions, that I plan to justify first, and if time permits, all of them. (Please excuse the foul language used by the author at some places) Let me begin... Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds and benedictions upon the Messenger of Allah and his Purified Progeny (as) 4. And every living being was created in pairs (36/36, 43/12, 51/49). Wrong. Even if we omit plants, there are many animals that get their children asexually = do not come in pairs. There are all the one-celled animal, and they by far are most numerous, both in numbers and kinds. Then there are number of primitive animals that do not come in pairs. And there are less primitive animals up to some amphibiums, lizards and fish. (Modern Muslims often poh-poh the one-celled animals in spite of their enormous numbers - it is the easiest way to get them out of the expression "everything" in the Quran - but a god had known). Let me quote the verses, he mentioned: Glory be to Him Who created pairs of all things, of what the earth grows, and of their kind and of what they do not know.(36:36) And He Who created pairs of all things, and made for you of the ships and the cattle what you ride on, (43:12) And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful. (51:49) First and foremost, the statement made by the person is wrong. The Qur'an mentions Allah creating things in pairs, not necessarily reproducing in pairs. Also, all things are said to be created in pairs, and not all organisms. All things will cover anything that can be categorized into living and non-living. Let me tell you how exactly, every thing is made in pairs. We know about large animals, that they are made as males and females. We know about plants that they are made in pairs. For plants that do not have 2 sexes, Allah says in the Quran: And in the earth there are tracts side by side and gardens of grapes and corn and palm trees having one root and (others) having distinct roots-- they are watered with one water, and We make some of them excel others in fruit; most surely there are signs in this for a people who understand. (13:4) Moving on, what about microbes, which include viruses and bacteria? They obviously do not have a male and a female, but they do have counter-parts, which will form the other part of 'the pair'. These counter-parts are given the name of antibodies, in medical science. :) Now for the non-living things (even though, the author does not mention about them). The wide variety of creatures including living species, solid matter, liquids, and gases are marvelous combinations of the same list of building blocks: atoms. These basic units, were long known each to consist of a "pair" of a positively charged nucleus surrounded by negative electrons. The nucleus consists of protons that carry the positive charge, together with neutrons. Even the neutral neutrons have their counterpart, the antineutrons. Later advances in nuclear physics has demonstrated that each of these particles is, in effect, a complex structure of much smaller nuclear particles. Over 200 of such elementary particles are now known, such as sets of quarks composing a proton, gluons binding quarks together in a proton, etc. Each type of particle is now believed to have its companion antiparticle, having the same mass but opposite in some other characteristic such as charge, spin, or otherwise. Back to the atomic level, atoms can, literally, ionize i.e. either lose or gain electrons to form positive cations or negative anions. "Pairs" of cations/anions combine to produce the wide variety of chemical (inorganic) compounds. Ionization phenomena provide the basis for electrochemical processes, e.g. electrochemical technology and corrosion. All life systems — plant, animal, and human — consist of different types of cells. A cell consists of a nucleus surrounded with cytoplasm enclosed, usually in a cell wall. The cell nucleus, carries the chromosomes that control all the cell functions. All cells of a particular organism have exactly the same number of chromosomes; the number varies widely between different species. A chromosome consists of different types of protein tightly with a single DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule chain. The DNA is a large long (up to 1 meter long) amino acid chain. It consists of a "pair" of spiral strands, connected with steps. Each step consists of a "pair" of chemical components, so-called nucleotides. There are four different nucleotides, i.e. Adenine (A), Cytosine ©, Guanine (G), and Thymine (T). A and T "pair" together, while C and G "pair" together, to alternatively form the steps of the DNA. The sequence, composition, and orientation of these "pairs" of nucleotides control the genetic information carried by the DNA. Proteins are formed from various combinations of amino acids. Specifically, 20 types of amino are used in different combinations to form more than a million type of proteins, present in a human being. Every type of amino acids can exist in either of a pair of structures (right-handed isomer or left-handed isomer), with opposite polarized light rotation direction. The same applies to the proteins formed thereof. Coming back to living organisms: very animal species of the wide animal kingdom reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction results from the combination of a female ovum and a male sperm. The formation of this zygote "pair" is the starting point in the reproduction cycle. The sperms, in turn are of "two" kinds, the first carries the hereditary male characteristics, while the other carries the female ones. Flowering plants, of which more than 250,000 have been discovered so far, also reproduce sexually. They have both female (ovaries containing eggs) and male (stamens carrying pollens); either combined in the same flower or in different flowers. In the latter case, fertilization occurs when pollens are transferred by wind or insects to an adjacent flower. Non-flowering plants, on the other hand, amounting to 150,000 species, reproduce in a double-stage cycle of sexual and asexual reproduction. Yet, the asexual reproduction stage is essentially a process of breaking up of the DNA "pair" of strands into two; followed by each of which re-forming its complementary strand. Thus, a new "pair" of identical DNA molecules results in the cell, just before it divides into a "pair" of identical cells. The same applies to the asexual reproduction of bacteria. Each bacterium consists of a single cell, the smallest biological unit able to function independently. A single bacterium reproduces the same way explained above, i.e. by splitting into a pair of identical cells. As we have seen, cell division occurs through the process of DNA replication, in which the two strands of the DNA molecules are separated; and each strand re-synthesizes a complementary strand to itself. If you find any contradiction you can justify, do not hesitate to do so, and I will try my best to do the same, Inshallah. :) PS: Please let me know if there has already been a justification 'campaign' against the site. (wasalam) Basim Ali Jafri

Once upon a time. There was a rich merchant who had four (4) wives. He loved the 4th wife the most and adorned her with rich robes and treated her to delicacies. He took great care of her and gave her nothing but the best. He also loved the 3rd wife very much. He's very proud of her beauty and always wanted to show off her to his friends. However, the merchant is always in great fear that she might run away with some other men. He too, loved his 2nd wife. She is a very considerate person, always patient and in fact is the merchant's confidante. Whenever the merchant faced some problems, he always turned to his 2nd wife and she would always help him out and tide him through difficult times. Now, the merchant's 1st wife is a very loyal partner and has made great contributions in maintaining his wealth and business as well as taking care of the household. However, the merchant did not love the first wife and although she loved him deeply, he hardly took notice of her. One day, the merchant fell ill. Before long, he knew that he was going to die soon. He thought of his luxurious life and told himself, 'Now I have 4 wives with me. But when I die, I'll be alone. How lonely I'll be!' Thus, he asked the 4th wife, 'I loved you most, endowed you with the finest clothing and showered great care over you. Now that I'm dying, will you follow me and keep me company?' 'No way!' replied the 4th wife and she walked away without another word. The answer cut like a sharp knife right into the merchant's heart. The sad merchant then asked the 3rd wife, 'I have loved you so much for all my life. Now that I'm dying, will you follow me and keep me company?' 'No!' replied the 3rd wife. 'Life is so good over here! I'm going to remarry when you die!' The merchant's heart sank and turned cold. He then asked the 2nd wife, 'I always turned to you for help and you've always helped me out. Now I need your help again. When I die, will you follow me and keep me company?' 'I'm sorry, I can't help you out this time!' replied the 2nd wife. 'At the very most, I can only send you to your grave.' The answer came like a bolt of thunder and the merchant was devastated. Then a voice called out: 'I'll leave with you. I'll follow you no matter where you go.' The merchant looked up and there was his first wife. She was so skinny, almost like she suffered from malnutrition. Greatly grieved, the merchant said, 'I should have taken much better care of you while I could have!' Actually, we all have 4 wives in our lives. The 4th wife is our body. No matter how much time and effort we lavish in making it look good, it'll leave us when we die. Our 3rd wife is our possessions, status and wealth. When we die, they all go to others. The 2nd wife is our family and friends. No matter how close they had been there for us when we're alive, the furthest they can stay by us is up to the grave. The 1st wife is in fact our soul, often neglected in our pursuit of material wealth and sensual pleasure. Guess what? It is actually the only thing that follows us wherever we go. Perhaps it's a good idea to cultivate and strengthen it now rather than to wait until we're on our deathbed to lament. if u like it , plz give +

Salam. I'm pretty sure Imam wouldn't mind explaining the benefits of taking his advice to me. I don't think, by asking him to do so, is the same as questioning his crediability. I think it's pretty humane to not be sure at times, and ask questions with the intention to know what you're accepting before you're accepting it. If Allah, subhana wa ta'ala, has asked us to ask questions about Him and look for knowledge even if we have to go to China to find it, then I don't see any problems in also asking questions about and to Imam - inshallah .

یÇ ÑÈ ! یÀ ÌÀÇŸ ÒÑÇŸÎæÈ Àÿ áی˜ä ˜یæŸ ÎæÇÑ ÀیŸ ãÑÏÇä ÕÝÇ ˜یÔ æ ÀäÑ ãäÏ

Salam Maryaam. You've basically written my own thoughts down . I have the exact same theories and concerns about men with sexual pasts and men with dead wives. I'm seriously not looking for the trouble and hardships in a marriage that could, and most likely would, accur with a man with a past. I just want peace and quiet, lol.

You are misleading the readers with your confusing definitions of the concept and its variants just to trick them into accepting your point of view. What is WF "as a concept of governance, often coined with mutalaq"? This is a classic case of misrepresentation and misdefinition [sic]. There is a difference between these two (or more) concepts of WF. You have enchained "mutlaq" with the generally accepted concept of WF to create confusion for yourself. Let me explain that to you in simple words: There is generally accepted theory of WF where a jurist has guardianship over the affairs of the believers, which, according to Sistani et al, may include political governance IF, inter alia, the jurist has the consent of the majority of believers. Do not read your views into Sistani's ruling. The legitimacy of the wilayah of a jurist with regards to governance DEPENDS on its acceptability from the majority of believers. In other words, this legitimacy DOES NOT come from God. Then we have a theory of WF as formulated by Khomeini and that is called WF mutlaq. In this version, the legitimacy for the governance comes directly from God, His Prophet and Imams and DOES NOT DEPEND an iota on its popularity or acceptability. Compare and contrast the two and you see the difference. The position of Wali al-Faqih or Supreme Leader in Iran is theoretically underpinned, quite obviously, by Khomeini's WF mutlaq. Although vast majority, almost all prominent maraje', do not agree with WF mutlaq but they are neither up in arms against the regime, figuratively speaking, and nor do they intend to challenge the authority of the current Supreme Leader. This is presumably because of the common view among the religious circles that the system of governance has broad support from the masses. For instance Saanei. He was an active revolutionary and among the friends of Khomeini but he fell out of favour for criticising a number of policies of Khamenei government which he thought to be unIslamic.

ohhcuppycakee and my imaginary friend playing the true or false game :) True (poecilonym) Do you like my drawing?

Some people can't get permanently married (students studying away from home, no job, no house, maybe are in a foreign country and can't legally get married) and have a hard time staying away from sin, so having a mut'ah with someone is a legal way to fulfill desire. Even if it's only for a day, you get to know the person, so you are always on a basis to permanently marry in the future, and your desire is fulfilled, so you can feel better and lower your gaze and focus on other things rather than thinking about your desire. Of course people would rather be in loving, stable relationships.

Salam everyone!!!! I m glad Salina13 you got ur issue solved,by the grace of God! Relax dear its a forum and everyone has the right to answer to your querry and share their views and opinions, a far as my understanding is concerned no one was trying to insult or humiliate you dear, okay!?! And about the reputation thingy...!!!! well i don't remember that i have ever posted such topics or replied in a way that might sound sexually intimating... i never peeked in bro's forum as well, you see how innocent i m..heheheeehe... yet my reputation ranking is -10 and its poor... lol i can't believe me how it happened......lol :!!!: so relax dear.. and if you have anything with which you are uncomfortable contat the admins or the moderaters... okay stay calm and stay happy thanks 4 reading....!!!!

First wife was a push over.

Smoking weed actually helps concentration - my salaah is less robotic and more meaningful when i am high. But then, maybe i am just lucky because it has that effect on me. I know other people who just get hungry and act stupid when they are under the influence of tht stuff, and then some people use it for medical purposes.Allah has blessed us with this natural medicine, so i do think it is wrong for people to say that it is completely haraam regardless of how much, how often, and why it is being smoked.So i think you gotta use your common sense, u know the effect it has on you...so only you can decide if it is haraam for you and for the reasons that you will be using it for. :)

ye to badtamizi hay

Thanks for sharing, he's pretty amazing. I would recommend two more lecturers to you... 1. Khalil Jaffer. 2. Sheikh Bahmanpour 3. Abbas Virjee (yes I know abt the controversy and Akram Majidi, I don't want to hear/argue about it). You can find lecturers from all of them here: http://www.al-masumeen.com/lectures/lectures.html

(bismillah) (salam) Where did you get this whole "worship Imam" thing.. Is that all you can do. We whoop you in a debate and you go, "well you worship graves" then run away. Keep on topic and don't try to enlighten on a topic you don't have knowledge of.

"That can't be very good for hezbollah.. you die a martyr and half of Southern Lebanon has at it with your wife" :lol:

This topic has been discussed to death in various Shia forums around the web. In my view, the governance system of Iran, despite its shortcomings, is one that every Shia should be proud of. However the problem starts when people try to give the government some sort of 'divine' status and reject even a remote observation that is made against that system. At the same time, I have felt that many people who criticize the revolutionary regime go out of their way to prove their points and buy much in the propaganda that is spread by our enemies. The same critics turn a blind eye towards the shortcomings of the model "democracies" around the world. Objectivity demands that all the models should be judged and viewed with a similar yardstick and without bias and grudges or the discussion will be futile and non ending.

I'm glad you mentioned that. Amongst the living maraji of today, how many do you think accept it, and how many reject it (I'm talking specifically about "absolute" WF, relating to governance, as opposed to "limited" WF, which is just another name for the taqlid system). We are limiting ourselves to living maraji, as according to the principles of fiqh. I am more than happy to discuss the views of former maraji (most notably Khoei and Tabatabai), but that is another issue outside the scope of our aim of establishing the above claim. The vast majority of scholars accept it, including but not limited to, the most prominent maraji: Sistani (read:infamous 2004 fatwa), Khamenei and Fadlullah (according to Marbles). And of course there is the rest of the top ayatullahs inside Iran also: Amoli, Yazdi, Saanei, etc, etc. Please bring your list of living maraji against this. Maybe you should read up on Khomeini's preconditions to taking up office, based on the narrations related to us by Imam Ali [AS] (during his governance): My son! After me you may receive an offer for service. If you intend to serve the Islamic Republic and dear Islam, then do not refuse it. But if your intention is -Allah forbid! - to serve your sensual desires or to satisfy your passions, eschew it, for the worldly positions are too trivial to deserve perishing yourself for their sake. You are insane to assert that we do not possess the capacity to reach a level where we are free from the corruptions of power, and such a state of purification is reserved for the Imams [AS] and Prophets [sAWS]. This is against the primary goal of all the divinely sent messengers. Look up fiqh and jurispendence. It is not limited to menstrual laws. It is defined as the science of laws relating to the corporeal realm. Issues relating to the society and governing bodies also fall under this category. "Most of the commands in Qur'an relate to governance and society". See last point above.

naro in post #2: naro in post #10: naro in post #13: To sum it all up: Once upon a time some guy had a brain. The brain reached the conclusion that: "nobody can live twice". The brain was easily contradicted by the Quran. The brain was FORCED to accept that: "People can live twice". Because of its contradictions with the Quran people no longer trusted the brain. But the owner of the brain insisted: "You know, I don't always need the Quran or hadiths to make assumptions, I got a brain." The brain came up with another brilliant Idea: "Yes Uzair and only him. And he was a Prophet". The people never found out why the brain reached the conclusion that: This is ONLY possible for Uzair. People learned not to trust the brain. Peace!

áÇ ˜À  ÈÏä ãیŸ æÀ ã̪ Óÿ ÇÀÊÇ Àÿ ˜À ÓÇäÓ áæŸ Êæ ÝÖÇ ˜æ ϪæÇŸ*ϪæÇŸ*äÀ ˜ÑæŸ

are you taking afternoon classes ?

i like it yaar, mayray sath bhi do teen martaba hua hay

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:

(bismillah) (salam) This is incorrect. This is another thing the Shia laypeople invented to separate themselves from the Sunnis. 1) It's called "آية" al-Kursi (singular), not "آيات" al-Kursi (plural) 2) There are ahadith from Ahlul Bayt that specify that Ayat al-Kursi is only 2:255 3) 2:255 stands alone. 2:256 and 2:257 are talking about completely different things from 2:255. 'Allamah Tabataba'i (ra) quotes this tradition in his al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Quran: And you can read the whole tafsir HERE wa salam

I guess geography is not a strong subject of yours?. The Emirates and Iran are fairly close together in places and divided by a narrow Straits of hormuz. You would not need to be too far off the coast of Emirates to enter Iranian waters.

Actually Mr Bajaj you are right. Definitely have said the right thing in face of aim less glorification of this Sirhandi Fellow & also one interesting thing is whenevr I get to hear his name I am automatically reminded of Ajay Devgan. I mean he was just a clown and a Darbari Mulla thats all a lap dog. And he was also decended from Abu Bakr as well. Also as far as opposition to Akbar is concearned then there were many people involved in it why is just this Sirhandi Glorified? Why not the others, Also why dont they glorify Baqir al Sadr or Imam Khomeini or Musa al Sadr etc why this bigot?

ab above post may kia masla hay jo isko bhi -ve kardeya ? bhai kuch to khayal karo. announcement : anyone who ll catch this thief, will be awarded with " the living room decoration" in yoville

bhai ye kia musibat hay, mayri har post -ve ki hue hay, Allah karay aap k harddisk may badsector aajaeay or data bhi recover na ho, aameen and honorable ladies n gentleman r kindly requested to plz mark my posts +ve even if u dont like untill this hidden monster gives up

اے حلقہ درویشاں وہ مرد خدا کیسا ہو جس کے گریبان میں ہنگامہ رستاخیز

yar ye kon batameez hay jo bilawajha may repu -ve keay jaraha hay

cheeni gaie hay kiss jurm may hamsay hamari hansi hamnay to kisi ka bhi dil dukhaya bhi nahi tha

Wehshateen barhti gayeen hijr ke aazaar ke saath Ab to hum baat bhi karte nahi gham khwaar ke saath

ãÍÈÊ ÎæÏ ÈÊÇÊی Àÿ ˜ÀÇŸ ˜Ó ˜Ç Šª˜ÇäÇ Àÿ ˜Óÿ Âä˜ªæŸ ãیŸ јªäÇ Àÿ ˜Óÿ Ïá ãیŸ ÈÓÇäÇ Àÿ ÑÀÇ ˜ÑäÇ Àÿ ˜Ó ˜Ó ˜æ ˜Óÿ ÒäÌیÑ ˜ÑäÇ Àÿ ãŠÇäÇ Àÿ ˜Óÿ Ïá Óÿ ˜Óÿ ÊÍÑیÑ ˜ÑäÇ Àÿ ªÑæäÏÇ ˜È ÑÇäÇ Àÿ ˜ÀÇŸ ÊÚãیÑ ˜ÑäÇ Àÿ ãÍÈÊ ÎæÏ ÈÊÇÊی Àÿ ˜ÀÇŸ ˜Ó ˜Ç Šª˜ÇäÇ Àÿ

(salam), Abu Talib kay mafhoom hai, 'Talib kay Vaalid' aur yaqeenan, yeh naam koi bhi nahi rakh sakta, apnay betay ka. Asli naam Imran hai. Mujhay Imaamon kay ssaray bachon ka naam nahi pata, isliyay, yeh kaam aapkay hua, kay aap dhoonday kay un ki auladoon main say kisi ka naam Imran tha kay nahi. :) Aik aur baat. Naam main kya rakha hai? Kisi ka naam Muhammad raknay say wo rasool nahi ho jaye ga, aur kisi ka naam yazeed rakhnay say wo 'laeen' nahi ho jaye ga. Wo alag baat hai kay yazeed naam hamaisha kay liyay badnaam ho gaya, aur muaashray main yeh naam rakhna bura samjha jaata hai. Masoomeen kay laqab kam hain kya, jo koi koi apni aulaad ka aisa naam rakhay ga. Maan baap ki aik zimaydaarion main say, aik zimmadaari, apni aulaad ka soch samajh kar, acha naam rakhna bhi hai, ahadith kay mutabiq. (wasalam) Basim Ali Jafri

ÎÏÇ ٔÿ ÚÇ áã[/b] ÎÏÇ ٔÿ ÚÇ áã áÀæ ˜ی ÈÇ Ñ Ô یÀ ÑÞÕ ˜Ñ Êی ÀæÓ ˜ی ÚÝÑ یÊ Ç Ñ ÌÇ äÈ یÀ Óä æ  Àä À Èیä ˜Ñ Êÿ یÀ ÎÇ ˜ æ ÎæŸ ãیŸ Êš Êÿ Âää ÝÖÇ ãیŸ ȘªÑ ÿ یÀ Ï ÓÊ æ ÈÇ Òæ یÀ ÌáÊÿ ãæ Óã ¡ ÓáÊÿ ãäÙÑ ˜ªáی Àæ ٔی ãæ Ê ˜ی یÀ ÈÇ äÀیŸ ÞÏ ã ÞÏã À یÀ ÞÊá Ç ÀیŸ ÎÏÇ ٔÿ ÚÇ áã ãیÑ ÿ æØä ˜ÿ یÊیã ÔÀÑæ Ÿ ªÑ Óÿ ˜æ ٔی ãÍÈÊæ Ÿ ˜Ç Ñ Óæ á Ç ÊÑ ÿ ˜Èªی Êæ ÀÑ æ Ÿ Óÿ Èÿ یÞیäی ˜ی Ï ªæ á Ç ÊÑ ÿ

(bismillah) (salam) Look how their scholars constantly lie and distort facts about us. Ayatollah Khomeini (ra) was right: "The two worst parts of Islam are the Sunni scholars and the lay Shia". Most Shia do not curse Sahaba and most of our scholars do not. You would be hard-pressed to find people that do this. In this entire forum, I know of only 4 people that potentially curse Abu Bakr and I've never met anyone in real life that does this. Of our scholars, the only one who does this is sayed shirazi (the one living in London) and most Shia don't take him seriously because this is the same guy who said that Ayatollah Khomeini (ra) and Ayatollah Bahjat (ra) were kaffirs. This is a fallacy. Just because we don't respect someone doesn't mean that we're kuffar. And there is a difference between not respecting and cursing. For instance, I say that Abu Bakr contributed to Islam, yes, but certain actions during and espcially after the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) cause me to refrain from putting "(ra)") after his name. But I don't curse him. la'an isn't for any random person. You'll find very few Shia disagreeing with any of this. And Nakshawani represents the Shia school of thought fairly well. I agree with about 90% of the stuff he says and the average Shia would agree with 99% of what he says. This is a fairly decent article on the subject: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter4/2.html And this is a wiki article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_view_of_the_Sahaba wa salam

In my opinion, this quote attributed to Imam Ali is highly problematic, not just because of certain ambiguities surrounding its provenance, but also because it contains non-sequiturs and therefore does not really accord with reason. Abstention from prayers and fasting during the menstrual period is not an indication that women are deficient in faith. I know many women who would dearly love to continue their prayers and fasts while they are menstruating, but do not - indeed, cannot - because God has decreed otherwise. The wisdom behind this decree is not clear, but there is clearly a wisdom, otherwise God would not have decreed it so. However, it cannot be because women are deficient in faith - otherwise why debar them only during times of menstruation? Secondly, the notion of deficiency in intelligence should in no way be connected to the ruling on evidence of women being half of that of men, for the simple reason that this ruling pertains only to evidence connected with financial dealings: on other issues, women's evidence is equal to that of men. Thirdly, the fact that they receive a smaller share of inheritance does not prove deficiency on their part in any way whatsoever. Again, this is a Divine decree which is full of wisdom: women, who are in theory provided for by their spouses, do not need to receive as much as men, who have to provide for their spouses. Furthermore, there are ways round this: a father can bequeath a third (thulth) of his wealth to his daughter(s) before he dies, leaving the remaining two-thirds to be distributed in accordance with shar'i laws of inheritance. This being the case, if a daughter were to receive more than her brother, would we then have to reconsider Imam Ali's alleged quote and say that this particular brother is deficient because he has received less? Finally, even if women were deficient because of these things - and I don't believe they are - why is this cause to consider them evil, as the quote from Imam Ali seems to suggest? "So beware of the evils of women", it says. The word 'so' is used consequentially, as though the evils mentioned are a result of the 'deficiencies' outlined earlier. Why whould women be considered evil just because they are 'deficient', particularly when that 'deficiency' is God-given? We have to use a modicum of reason here. The quote from Imam Ali does not square with the usual wisdom that one finds in the Nahj al-Balagha; nor does it square with Qur'anic wisdom, or with the egalitarian nature of Qur'anic discourse on the sexes. I for one cannot believe that Imam Ali said such a thing. And even if he did, I believe it must have been contextual, and thus not binding for all time and certainly not something which one is obligated to believe.

Tell them the truth. Tell them in Islam sometimes women are not supposed to fast and pray due to more than one factor: when a women is during her menstruation she does not fast or pray however she has to make up (her fast) for those days later (before the next Ramadhan), also when either women or men are severely ill, they are excused from fasting, also a women who's pregnant if fasting hurts her or the child , she is excused from fasting... Since he is a non-Muslim, he is asking to understand as he does not know why would a Muslim not fast/pray sometimes. The best and the right reply is to tell him the truth. It also shows them how Islam is merciful , people who are not fit to fast due to health issues are excused from fasting .

Dear Jackwallabee, I take it that you are struggling with a conception of God--no doubt legitimate from a certain point of view--that you have inherited from your rearing and the rationalist empiricist epistemology you have inherited from your schooling. This fissure is very difficult to overcome since religion speaks to our deepest human needs and is therefor indispensable and since we live under the all encompassing, indeed tyrannical, paradigm of a modern Western science based on an epistemoligcal premise that excludes anything that isn't quantifiable. You have raised numerous issues in your post, but I am confident that they can all be solved by going to the root of the problem. You must understand that the language of Revelation, and of traditional socieities in general, is a language of symbolism. In addition to this their epistemological posture was one that took intuition just as seriously as discursive reason (ratio), and if forced to choose most of them would opt for intuition since it has an epistemological primacy over and above reason. If you are interested in overcoming this and other related problems I would recommend Seyyed Hossein Nasr's Knowledge and the Sacred; and for modern science and Islam I would recommend the scholarly works of Muzaffar Iqbal (the complimentary volumes Islam and Science (2002) and Science and Islam (2007)). Cordially, Shuayb

As ibn Arabi says: "the creation is He/not He". the creation is God insofar as the creation is known to God in His eternal knowledge. The creation is not God insofar as the creation is not eternal by not being in God's eternal knowledge. If God was the transcendent itself, then there would still be a duality since it would have to be contrasted with its opposite (namely immanence). So if God was transcendence in himself then he would still be bound by duality since he would stand opposed to immanence. The fact of the matter is that God is transcendent and immanent in relation to ourselves. Gd in Himself is neither transcendent nor immanent. this "neither this nor that" is what we call the Divine Essence. But even to say that "God is not this and that" is itself to say that God is transcendent. So the Essence cant even be discussed meaningfully. because to discuss the essence is to always bring it in relation to ourselves. this is why God has transcendent attributes like Wrath (which describes God's distance from us) and why God also have immanent attributes like (mercy, which describes God's nearness to ourselves). Insofar as God is NOT the creation God is wrathful. insofar as God IS the creation God is merciful. God is both merciful and wrathful just as creation is dominated by both of God's wrathful attributes and merciful attributes. God is merciful such that His mercy does not preclude His wrath. and God is wrathful such that His wrath does not preclude His mercy. But even though we must see His mercy and wrath together, His mercy precedes His wrath. because wrath is only wrath if it is precedes by mercy. and mercy is only mercy if it precedes wrath. True knowledge of God is in knowing that we can never know God. so one who is annihilated in God will always say that i dont know God. In fact he will always ask God to increase him in knowledge. because to be annihilated is recognize our essential finitude (and therefore to recognize our limited knowledge). So we can only see God in this way. No one knows God and no one will ever know God. its not like we dont have any direction. God Himself has described Himself to us in Quran. So we should read Quran and understand God through the way He has described Himself (nothing MORE and nothing LESS). :) Peace

(salam) I didn't know I used that word a lot until the boys in Iran pointed it out to me and once I watched a video of mine and I realized I did say "right" a lot! After like every sentence :mellow:!

I know of 3 reasons, as mentioned in the Qur'an. What we say doesn't really mean much. ÓæÑÉ ÇáØáÇÞ - ÓæÑÉ 65 - ÂíÉ 12 ÇáãíÒÇä Ýí ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÞÑÂä ãÌãÚ ÇáÈíÇä Ýí ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÞÑÂä Çááå ÇáÐí ÎáÞ ÓÈÚ ÓãÇæÇÊ æãä ÇáÇÑÖ ãËáåä íÊäÒá ÇáÇãÑ Èíäåä áÊÚáãæÇ Çä Çááå Úáì ßá ÔíÁ ÞÏíÑ æÇä Çááå ÞÏ ÇÍÇØ Èßá ÔíÁ ÚáãÇ Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof. The commandment cometh down among them slowly, that ye may know that Allah is Able to do all things, and that Allah surroundeth all things in knowledge. ÓæÑÉ ÇáÐÇÑíÇÊ - ÓæÑÉ 51 - ÂíÉ 56 ÇáãíÒÇä Ýí ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÞÑÂä ãÌãÚ ÇáÈíÇä Ýí ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÞÑÂä æãÇ ÎáÞÊ ÇáÌä æÇáÇäÓ ÇáÇ áíÚÈÏæä I created the jinn and humankind only that they might worship Me. ÓæÑÉ åæÏ - ÓæÑÉ 11 - ÂíÉ 118 ÇáãíÒÇä Ýí ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÞÑÂä æáæ ÔÇÁ ÑÈß áÌÚá ÇáäÇÓ ÇãÉ æÇÍÏÉ æáÇ íÒÇáæä ãÎÊáÝíä And if thy Lord had willed, He verily would have made mankind one nation, yet they cease not differing, ÓæÑÉ åæÏ - ÓæÑÉ 11 - ÂíÉ 119 ÇáãíÒÇä Ýí ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÞÑÂä ÇáÇ ãä ÑÍã ÑÈß æáÐáß ÎáÞåã æÊãÊ ßáãÉ ÑÈß áÇãáÇä Ìåäã ãä ÇáÌäÉ æÇáäÇÓ ÇÌãÚíä Save him on whom thy Lord hath mercy; and for that He did create them. And the Word of thy Lord hath been fulfilled: Verily I shall fill hell with the jinn and mankind together. these 3 reasons are linked as explained by Imam Husayn (as): http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls...%D9%88%D9%87%22 æÇáÞÑÂä ÇáßÑíã ÇáÐí íåÏí ááÊí åí ÃÞæã íáÎøÕ áäÇ ÓÑø ÇáÎáÞ æÝáÓÝÉ ÇáÍíÇÉ Ýí ÍÞÇÆÞ ËáÇËÉ: ÇáÑÍãÉ æÇáÚáã æÇáÚÈÇÏÉ. ÂíÉ ÇáÑÍãÉ: ÞÇá Çááå ÊÚÇáì: {æóáÇ íóÒóÇáõæäó ãõÎúÊóáöÝöíäó ÅáÇø ãóäú ÑóÍöãó ÑóÈøõßó æóáöÐóáößó ÎóáóÞóåõãú}(1). ÂíÉ ÇáÚáã: æÞÇá ÓÈÍÇäå: {Çááåõ ÇáøóÐöí ÎóáóÞó ÓóÈúÚó ÓóãóÇæóÇÊ æóãöäó ÇáÃÑúÖö ãóËúáóåõäøó íóÊóäóÒøóáõ ÇáÃãúÑõ Èóíúäóåõäøó áöÊóÚúáóãõæÇ Ãäøó Çááåó Úóáóì ßõáøö ÔóíúÁ ÞóÏöíÑñ æóÃäøó Çááåó ÞóÏú ÃÍóÇØó Èößõáøö ÔóíúÁ ÚöáúãÇð}(2). ÂíÉ ÇáÚÈÇÏÉ: æÞÇá Ìáø ÌáÇáå: {æóãóÇ ÎóáóÞúÊõ ÇáÌöäøó æóÇáÅäúÓó ÅáÇø áöíóÚúÈõÏõæäö}(3). æÞÏ æÑÏ Ýí ÇáÍÏíË ÇáÔÑíÝ Úä ÇáÅãÇã ÇáÕÇÏÞ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) Ýí Þæáå: {ÅáÇø áöíóÚúÈõÏõæäö} Ãí: ÅáÇø áíÚÑÝæä¡ ÝÅäø ÇáÚÈÇÏÉ áÇ ÊÊãø æáÇ ÊÕÍø ÅáÇø ÈÚÏ ÇáãÚÑÝÉ¡ ÝãÇ ÎáÞ ÇáÌäø æÇáÅäÓ ÅáÇø áíÚÑÝæå æÅÐÇ ÚÑÝæå ÚÈÏæå¡ Ýåæ ãä ÈÇÈ ÅØáÇÞ ÇáÓÈÈ Úáì ÇáãÓÈøÈ. Ýí ßÊÇÈ ÊÍÝ ÇáÚÞæá Úä ÇáÅãÇã ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÈÇÞÑ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã)¡ ÞÇá: (áÇ íÞÈá Úãá ÅáÇø ÈãÚÑÝÉ¡ æáÇ ãÚÑÝÉ ÅáÇø ÈÚãá¡ æãä ÚÑÝ ÏáøÊå ãÚÑÝÊå Úáì ÇáÚãá¡ æãä áã íÚÑÝ ÝáÇ Úãá). æÌÇÁ Ýí Úáá ÇáÔÑÇÆÚ(1)¡ ÈÓäÏå Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã)¡ ÞÇá: ÎÑÌ ÇáÍÓíä ÇÈä Úáíø (ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã) Úáì ÃÕÍÇÈå ÝÞÇá: ÃíøåÇ ÇáäÇÓ Åäø Çááå Ìáø ÐßÑå ãÇ ÎáÞ ÇáÚÈÇÏ ÅáÇø áíÚÑÝæå¡ ÝÅÐÇ ÚÑÝæå ÚÈÏæå¡ ÝÅÐÇ ÚÈÏæå ÇÓÊÛäæÇ ÈÚÈÇÏÊå Úä ÚÈÇÏÉ ãä ÓæÇå¡ ÝÞÇá áå ÑÌá: íÇ Èä ÑÓæá Çááå¡ ÈÃÈí ÃäÊ æÇõãøí¡ ÝãÇ ãÚÑÝÉ Çááå¿ ÞÇá (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã): ãÚÑÝÉ Ãåá ßáø ÒãÇä ÅãÇãåã ÇáÐí íÌÈ Úáíåã ØÇÚÊå. ÞÇá ãÕäøÝ ÇáßÊÇÈ ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÕÏæÞ Úáíå ÇáÑÍãÉ: íÚäí ÈÐáß Ãä íÚáã Ãåá ßáø ÒãÇä Ãäø Çááå åæ ÇáÐí áÇ íõÎáøíåã Ýí ßáø ÒãÇä Úä ÅãÇã ãÚÕæã¡ Ýãä ÚÈÏ ÑÈøÇð áã íÞã áåã ÇáÍÌøÉ¡ ÝÅäøãÇ ÚÈÏ ÛíÑ Çááå ÚÒø æÌáø. æÅäø ÇáÃÆãÉ ÇáÃØåÇÑ Ü ßãÇ åæ ËÇÈÊ Ýí ãÍáøå Ü åã ÈÇÈ Çááå ÇáÐí ãäå íÄÊì¡ æáæáÇåã áãÇ ÚÑÝ Çááå ÓÈÍÇäå¡ æÅäøåã ÇáÓÈÈ ÇáãÊøÕá Èíä ÇáÓãÇÁ æÇáÃÑÖ¡ ææÌå Çááå ÇáÐí íÊæÌøå Åáíå ÇáÃæáíÇÁ http://www.aqaed.com/shialib/books/02/sirrulkh/indexs.html page11

siraatoaliyinhaq, Ahlulbayt (as) is nothing but insaan in deepest meaning. Insaan is the best of creation, because of the ability to know Allah most suitable ration, and no creations other that humasn are able to know Allah in that deep as insaan is. That makes insaan best creation, and ahlulbayt (as) best of all.

I dont see anything objectionalble about what you are saying. You have the right to be picky and sure before you get married. If you are the jealous type you are right to avoid situations that would create jealousy. There are men out there with the attributes you desire – including those with no sexual history – men are able to control themselves. I even know of a man who had access to his wife for several months post nikah who respected her wish for no intercourse till the ceremony. All things are possible. You are right not to set yourself up for failure. Knowing yourself – your strengths as well as your weaknesses is important to determine and accept before making such a big decision. So, go for what is right for you. Marrying a man whose wife had died would be difficult. People who die young tend to be remembered for their saintly qualities only. You would be competing with a ghost who can do no wrong. You run the possibility of never being able to measure up. And then again is the possibility of the jealousy factor. Men with sexual experiences do carry baggage and that baggage could be reall difficult for you to deal with. I also have a personal theory that a man with sexual experiences may not be satisfied with his wife - always looking for the best bits of each of those in his past. That would make if very difficult for you as well. Yes - most men are quite picky as well and rightfully so.

Search and you will find. Don't give a damn about those who say you will never find.