Leaderboard

There are some people without whom Shiachat is a worse place. Mahdaviat is one of them. When SC becomes too much, I spend my time on bulletin boards where there are atheists, Christians and Jews (and very few Muslims), because there you find less Zionism, America worship and Iran hatred than you do on Shiachat. Inshallah he'll find places like that as well.

How,When and Why?

I dont know about non segregated weddings being outright haram - there are too many variables to lump them all together like that. Having said that I, like Calm, have been to both, and hands down the segregated wedding is the absolutely the most FUN for women. I dont think the men have much fun though - I think they just eat...

???? that seems really high Communication, communication, communication!! Practice, practice,practice!! It takes two. :Hijabi:

come back bro some poeple would undermine quran,slander other muslims and name call him, he always responded thouhtfully to reach peaceful agreements it was painful to watch... When he posted I didnt because he would say what i wanted to say,and I would have just gone nuts from the responses.

The 'religion' field has now been changed back to the way it was in the past. That is, intsead of a drop-down box where you select your religion, you are free to input your religion. Your religion will NOT show by your name by your posts UNLESS you enter something in that part of your profile. To add a religious designation, go to your profile and click 'edit my profile' Let us know if you have any difficulties!

wow,up-to my great curiosity.Man,i don't even know who are ya?I never ever had any such kinda debate with ya.Anyways,ya might be suffering with dementia that's why you're day dreaming that i ever had any discussion with ya.I don't mind that.Get yourself examined.You're just coming up with some lame excuses as i can easily see that you've nothing to backup Ur accusation with.

So you have no evidence to back your claims? Having an opinion is fine, but dont go around making wild statements as if they are FACTS, when it turns out you have no evidence to back them up, as that is slander.

Actually my statistic is not as dubious as it sounds. I was afraid to post a link earlier because the studies that are out there are extremely "detailed" to a point I think it would make some members feel rather uncomfortable - but you're all free to google a certain few key terms. The statistic I am specifically referring to is the amount of women who receive pleasure during intercourse. Au contraire - the human race is in dire need of people like me. I'm not complaining about the miracle of life, I'm just pointing out that its hell of a lot of work that usually gets taken for granted. Women don't HAVE to stay home and do the house work, but the burden often gets pushed on to them. I'm not saying things aren't improving, but I am saying that women generally have much less opportunities than men do. The amount of women in the workforce and in politics have never been as high as it is now - but it still does not mean its at a satisfactory level. The 2001 census in Canada found that females accounted for about 65% of all those who claimed to spend at least 15 hours a week on unpaid child care and and 45 percent of women say they spent at least 15 hours a week on unpaid housework (as opposed to 23 percent in men). Statistically, Canada (along with Sweden) is one of the least concerned societies regarding male and female roles in society, which is why I felt the need to point out the above, because in other countries the numbers emphasize gender roles a lot more. I actually have the World Values Survey in paper copy, and online, the document is about 70 MBs which is a bit much lol. But you certainly are free to download the document yourself. They have a lot of interesting statistics not only regarding gender roles, but of other things as well that may be of interest to you. I really wish I could copy down everything from my book, but I did find a similar paper online that discusses the topic: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/4/8/6/pages104862/p104862-14.php I am glad you two find me entertaining. I must admit that I cannot help but feel rather tickled by some of things posted on this forum, and maybe I say a few things here and there aggravate a certain response in people. Its not my fault, I was born that way. But not to confuse anyone, I am proud to be a woman and my attempt to belittle the opposite gender is my form of self-empowerment, and also to encourage that expression in other women on this forum. As society becomes more and more aware of social issues such as sexual abuse, or even what the OP chose to discuss here, it is also important to reach out to the somewhat passive women out there and make them realize that they should not let the world walk all over them. I don't want my medium of humour to offend anyone or take away from the message (as it seems to be doing now), but I do think that it can be effective and simple enough to get the message across to adolescent women out there.

I think the answer is simple, if you are attracted to people who are of the same sex as you, get a sex change. This is the genius of Imam Khomeini's (A.S.) idea and I think it makes perfect sense.

Homosexuality has always existed and will always exist. The only difference now is that (besides you guys on this thread) us muslim youth are more informed on the causes of the problem, and the stuggles one has to take to overcome their sexuality. So we are not trying to justify homosexualiy or softening it as a sin, but we are more willing to understand it than scream "HARAAM". I think this is the change in attitude that you are observing. Homosexuality must be discussed. Its about time the muslim community stop pretending it doesnt exist...because it does. I know muslims from my own mosque who are gay, and being harsh with them, isolating them, does not help. In fact it will probably encourage them to leave Islam and try find less harsh company.

We all know that mainstream Islam strongly frowns on homosexuality but to propose that "modern society is the cause" is innocent to the point of willfull gullibility. The saqis or wine bearers that so frequently appear in Sufi poetry ? Do you really believe that they only serve wine? They are available for sexual favors. In most cases, they were slaves trained for the purpose. Those servants in the Quran are there to provide sexual services. I am certain of that. I am also certain that you will not see it that way. It doesn't mean either of us is in error or lying. It just means you're naive, that's all. There are many "period" Persian miniatures with factual depictions of the nature of the sexual service provided. Sa'adi (1184 - 1283) has been translated by a number of major Western poets, most of whom were not deterred by the "transparently homoerotic" tone of much of his work. According to Wayne Dynes, "English translators even in the tamer episodes of the Gulistan turn boys into girls and change anecdotes about pederasty into tales of heterosexual Iove." (Asian Homosexuality p.66) Wslm.

(wasalam) No doubt to me that it's due to the influences of modern "morality" (or lack thereof) on many amongst us. Day in, day out, we are bombarded with this notion that acceptance of sodomite proclivities is the more enlightened, progressive, position to take, while opposition to it can only be out of a lack of intelligence, bigotry, being out of date, etc. Those who oppose such perversions as gay marriage and so on and lumped in with the same people who had opposed inter-racial marriages. Two men (or two men) engaging in sex together is seen as just another expression of love, that they are helpless in feeling how they feel, and that being against this is "homophobia". Now, we keep talking about the difference between culture and religion. We point to customs and ideals that different ethnicities and countries amongst Muslims may hold on such issues as family life, marriage, and so on, and make a demarcation between their cultural influences and what the religion actually teaches. What we often fail to recognize is that this very same thing happens amongst us Western Muslims (whether as converts, second generation children of immigrants, etc.) So, in this culture today, we see the above trend of acceptance of homosexual behavior, and thus we find this softening amongst Muslims (particularly as you said, the youth), either in outright acceptance of it, or, a recognition of its being forbidden, but still approaching it from the angle of "It isn't allowed, but I still will respect your right to choose", and so on. There is absolutely _no_ room for this soft approach though once you actually study what our religion teaches on this. Doesn't mean we can't have a compassionate approach to the person who is struggling with their feelings, recognizing its wrongfulness and trying to get over it. But in terms of the one who has given in their sin (and it is a sin, every time), we need to be very clear with ourselves on this. This is a sin for which Islam prescribes _death_ (ok, there is discussion in fiqh about whether it is the receiving partner or both partners that receive capital punishment, but regardless there is a death penalty involved in this issue). Not only is death prescribed here, but it's even recommended you then burn their body after they've been killed! No, I am not at all recommending we take the enforcement of the hudud in our own hands here in a kafir country, there needs to be the right conditions for these things (Islamic governance, courts, etc.) which are not here, but regardless of that the nature of the punishment itself should serve as a clear lesson to us against any such softening of our own perspective on the gravity of this offense. Words such as "homophobic" should never pass our lips except to denounce the stupidity behind such a word. Even "homosexuality" is a problematic word as it promotes this idea that attraction and sexual intercourse with a person of one's gender is an in-born trait that one is helpless to control. (The word itself was only invented later on and promoted by psychologists. Before that, it was regarded as an act) Actually, I use this example (death followed by burning their bodies) as a counter-argument to a lot of the liberalism and even humanism we find getting promoted these days amongst us, both by laymen and some so-called scholars. There's no way you can have such a law and honestly then claim that Islam is somehow a liberal religion fully compatible with modern ideals and concepts of morality.

(salam), If I remember correctly, it is you who said, that some da'eef ahadith are accepted, in another thread. Why can't this be one of them? Besides, you're saying an incident narrated by weak hadith has been promoted in Sunni books so much, that no Sunni historian forgot to record it? There must be a very valid and strong reason for all of them doing it. wa (salam), Basim Ali Jafri

(salam), Moreover, I would like to add, that if they celebrate a day that is to be mourned, they are going against the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). Yes, it is the Sunnah to mourn and cry over the brutal martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as). Ahmed and Ibn al-Dhahhak narrated from Ali (as): “I entered on the prophet (SAW) and his eyes were flooded, I said: Oh! Prophet of Allah, anyone made you angry? Why are your eyes flooded? He said: Gabriel just left me telling me that al-Hussain will be killed by the river Euphrates. He (the Prophet) said: So he (Gabriel) said: Do you want me to let you smell his dirt (from his burial pot)? I said: Yes! He reached with his hand and grabbed and handful of dirt and gave it to me. So I could not help it and my eyes were flooded.” - (Thakhaer al-Uqba, Muhibbuldeen al-Tabari, p. 148.) Ummul Fadhl the daughter of al-Harith said that she entered on the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and she said: “Oh! Messenger of Allah, I saw a strange dream last night. He said: And what is it? She said: It was difficult. He said: And what is it? She said: I saw, as if, a piece of your body was severed and was put in my lap! The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: You saw well - Fatima will give birth, God willing, a boy so he will be in your lap. Then Fatima gave birth to al-Hussain and he was in my lap - just as the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said. So I entered one day on the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and put him in his lap, but I noticed that the eyes of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) pouring tears! So I said: Oh! Prophet of Allah, my parents are your ransom, what is with you? He said: Gabriel (as) came to me and informed me that my nation (ummah) will kill this son of mine.” - (al-Mustadrak al-Sahih, al-Hafidh al-Hakim al-Nisapouri, v. 3, p. 176, (al-Hakim said: “This is an authentic hadith (Sahih) on the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim but they did not print it”); Dalael al-Nubouwa, al-Hafidh al-Bayhaqi under the subject of al-Hussain (as); Cf. Ibn al-A'tham IV, (Hyderabad, 1971), p. 211-2, the author narrates this hadith using a different chain of narration.) Umm Salamah has said: "al-Hussain entered on the Prophet (SAW), while I was sitting at the door, so I saw in the hand of the Prophet (SAW) something he turned over while (Hussain) sleeping on his stomach. I said: Oh messenger of Allah, I looked and saw you turning something over in your hand when the kid was sleeping on your stomach and your tears were pouring? He said: Gabriel came to me with the sand upon which he (Hussain) will be killed. And he informed me that my nation (umma) will kill him." - (al-Musannaf, al-Hafidh abu Bakr bin abi Shaibah, v. 12.) There are more traditions reporting the Prophet (pbuh) crying for Imam Hussain (as) ; al-Musnad, Ahmad bin Hanbal, v. 2, p. 60-61; al-Taba'qat al-Kubra, Ibn Saad; al-Moejam al-Kabeer, al-Hafidh al-Tabarani (on subject of al-Hussain); A'lam al-Nubuwwah, al-Mawardi al-Shafi 'I; Kanz al-Ummal, al-Muttaqi al-Hindi. Imam Ali (as) also cried, for Imam Hussain (as): Ibn Saad, Ali bin Muhammad, Yahya bin Zakariya, a man heard it from 'Amir al-Sha'bi say: "When Ali (as) passed by Karbalaa in his march to Siffien and lined up with Nainawa - a village on the Euphrates - he stopped and called one of them men: Tell aba 'Abdullah (al-Hussain ) what this land is called? He said: Karbala. Then he cried until the earth was wet from his tears. He then said: I entered on the messenger of Allah (s) and he was crying. So I said: What makes you cry? He said: Gabriel was with me, just now, and informed me: that my son al-Hussain will be killed at the banks of Furat in a location called Karbala. Then Gabriel grabbed a handful of dirt and let me smell it. So I could not help it, my eyes overflowed." - (al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Ibn Saad; al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shaibeh, v. 12 (with "Patience aba 'Abdullah, patience aba 'Abdullah"); al-Moejam al-Kabeer, al-Tabarani, v. 1; Tareekh al-Shamm, Ibn 'Asakir.) Umm e Salamah also wept for Imam Hussain (as) ;al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Ibn Saad; al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shaibeh, v. 12 (with "Patience aba 'Abdullah, patience aba 'Abdullah"); al-Moejam al-Kabeer, al-Tabarani, v. 1; Tareekh al-Shamm, Ibn 'Asakir. And, the Shia, are the Ahlul Bida'a? wa (salam), Basim Ali Jafri

(salam), Anyone overwhelmed by emotion, will hit himself. When you lose a loved one (may Allah protect all your loved ones), you will realise that. You will feel that 'emotion'. ...and it's not just losing a loved one when that happens. When one hears or witnesses something outrageously out-of-this-world happening, he will hit himself, to express protest. That is what Matam is. Anyone who thinks we're coying what happened to Imam Hussain (as) or trying to feel his pain or something, has lost his marbles. Matam was, is and is ever-lasting protest against the Yazidi forces and the likes of him. To prove to you the history of hitting heads and as you call it, this 'foolishness' of hitting oneself, I'll show you proof, of there being no problem in hitting oneself, if you do not endanger your life: ÝóÃóÞúÈóáóÊö ÇãúÑóÃóÊõåõ Ýöí ÕóÑóøÉò ÝóÕóßóøÊú æóÌúåóåóÇ æóÞóÇáóÊú ÚóÌõæÒñ ÚóÞöíãñ Then his wife came up in great grief, and she struck her face and said: An old barren woman! (51:29) From this verse, we learn that Hadhrath Sara (as) (wife of Ibrahim (as) ) struck her face when she was told (by three angels who appeared as men) that she would conceive a baby. Thus it is evident that smiting the face was not an objectionable act in the sight of Allah, otherwise Allah would have reprimanded her for doing so. Since you find the Shia practices, foolish, I will use Sunni proofs, for showing you how often this follishness was practices, during the Prophet (pbuh): Malik's Muwatta: Book 18, Number 18.9.29: Yahya related to me from Malik from Ata ibn Abdullah al-Khurasani that Said ibn al-Musayyab said, "A bedouin came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, beating his breast and tearing out his hair and saying, 'I am destroyed.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Why is that?', and he said, 'I had intercourse with my wife while fasting in Ramadan.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, asked him, 'Are you able to free a slave?', and the man said, 'No.' Then he asked him, 'Are you able to give away a camel?', and the man replied, 'No.' He said, 'Sit own,' and someone brought a large basket of dates to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he said to the man, 'Take this and give it away as sadaqa.' The man said, 'There is no one more needy than me,' and (the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace), said, 'Eat them, and fast one day for the day when you had intercourse.' " Malik said that Ata said that he had asked Said ibn al-Musayyab how many dates there were in that basket, and he said, "Between fifteen and twenty sas.'' Malik said, "I have heard people of knowledge saying that the kaffara specified by the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for a man who has intercourse with his wife during the day in Ramadan is not due from someone who, on a day when he is making up the fast of Ramadan, breaks his fast by having intercourse with his wife, or whatever. He only has to make up for that day." Malik said, "This is what I like most out of what I have heard about the matter." We see that when this man was beating his chest, and tearing his hair out, the Prophet (pbuh) neither objected to it, nor reprimanded him for the same. Also interesting to note, is the fact that this man was doing so because of spiritual pain, just like the Shias. Sheikh Abdul Haq Mohaddis Hanafi Dehlavi who is regarded as one of the greatest Scholars of the Sunni Sect, describing the events at the fatal illnes of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) in his book 'Modaarejun Nubuwwat' vol II page 544 records:- "Bilal emerged beating his head and loudly wailing (from the room of Aisha)." He also says: Fatima Zahra (a.s) hearing the rumour of the martyrdom of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) at Uhud came out of her house running and beating her head. Do you still object to these people doing so? It was wrong? Bilal, was chosen a Muazzin because of his piety. This same pious person is doing something foolish. Fatimah, was the infallible daughter of the Prophet (pbuh). She couldn't be doing anything wrong or foolish. Interesting to note, is the Prophet (pbuh) is not dead yet, and they express their grief by hitting themselves. Why do you find it foolish when we do the same for his nephew, who was brutally murdered along with his family? If I remember right, history books also record the Prophet (pbuh) being saddened for people not lamenting over the death of his uncle after Uhud, after which the people sent their women to lament over the death of his uncle. wa (salam), Basim Ali Jafri

Foreign policy? Yes The rest? naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah... I don't know anybody who conducts actual business. Nobody outside of Pakistan cares about cricket. My family owns [Edited Out] Iranian cars like Peykan and Samand, it's not very fun to talk about driving them. And yes Maryaam, weddings are very boring. As for the food: it is seemingly infinite but somehow I never get full. That makes me very angry.

I don't think it's haram in itself however I find a segregated wedding more comfy and fun for the bride and her guests...I mean dressing loose on her wedding? No make up on her wedding? No dancing on her wedding? Even if it was 100% halaal to have a mix wedding I would definitely chose the segregated one even if it costs more! Having said that, I have attended a few Islamic mix weddings, they were OK...

*grabs some cyber popcorn* These threads are only interesting when people air their personal problems and it devolves into bickering and tit for tat. that being said.. I am a Muslim woman who does not feel like religion oppresses me. Are there millions of oppressed Muslim women? Yes. Do men use religion to justify their oppression? Mhm. No one is completely oblivious to these realities (ok fine most shiachatters are completely oblivious), but they don't define Islam and they most certainly do not define me. I think your ability to actually defend women is severely compromised when you approach it from the "your religion is wrong, let me help you by freeing you from its chains" angle. You typing on shiachat is not going to do anything but frustrate some bearded men (notice that women on this forum are not even taking you seriously enough to reply) so I suggest you get off your lazy, enlightened backside and actually join an organization that is actively working for the rights of Muslim women in regions where they are being oppressed rather than alienating Muslim woman with your condescending arrogance and your poorly put together rant about why they should burn their abayas.

:) 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!!!

This Mathematical Test will tell you about your favourite personality. But do not look at the answer first. Solve it one by one. Pick your favourite number from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Multiply this number by 3 Add 3 Multiple by 3 again Now you will get a 2-digit number Add both digits and that will be your favourite personality….. 1 = Katrina Kaif 2 = Ronaldo 3 = Muhammad Ali Jinnah 4 = Salman Khan 5 = Brian Lara 6 = Tom Cruise 7 = Allama Iqbal 8 = Angeline Jolie 9 = Your-Best-Friend 10 = Barrack Obama

Indeed, the chances of that happening due to some sort of major conspiracy regarding hadith narrators is pretty unlikely. Especially when some of those that narrate similar hadiths lived in different eras and locations. I think you should go for it. I suggest starting with Musnad Ahmed though. The chains are usually shorter and Ali's (raa) hadiths come in succession. I believe there are about eight hundred of them in a row, so you don't have to go through the whole book. As for those that were associated with Bani Ummayah, you'd probably have a harder time digging their names up. If you are starting to have a hard time finding links between narrators and Bani Ummayah, I suggest you look up those that were accused of being Nawasib. Yes, I do agree with what you've mentioned here. However, I see it as more of an issue than just a matter of methodologies. You see, Shias believe in "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is it's gate/door." Due to this, one would assume that Ali's eight hundred or so narrators/companions would be more useful than they are in reality. My brief research above proved to me that almost everyone that was associated with Ali bin Abi Talib was majhool. While Ahlul Sunnah shines in comparison, or at least, that is what my research so far has proven to me. I think I will continue investigating this trend before reaching a final conclusion. Mmm... that's what I had in mind as soon as I read the opening post. This thread is not a place for redundant claims that we've all heard before, but a place for us to come together and shed new light on the reasons of differences between Sunni Ali (raa) and Shia Ali.

Then tell me who was the hero of khayber, khandaq,ohad and badr . who had rasoolalah (saw) appointed as his successor in ghadder -e -khum. imam ali is better than all three caliphs. Imam ali was mourning the death of rasoolalah (saw) while abu bakr waz in a meeting over choosing the next calipha. And imam ali would never refuse to get rasoolalah pen and paper like umar did.

Choosing between Al Kafi and Al Mizan, I would recommend Al Mizan. That is because it will help you acquire better understating of the Holy Quran and will give you a general template of what the deen is about. Thereon once you will move to study hadith collection, you will be able to understand it better because you will be assessing it under the light of the holy Quran.

^ I disagree and also dislike the way you have passed your verdict on the act of Owais Qarni, may Allah reward him.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in theory, no scholar has forbidden these acts of love. They have only forbidden to practice certain acts out in the open in front of the public, e.g. taking shirts off, tetbeer etc . So these acts can be performed in the private and with the right intention the reward could be great, Insha Allah.

786 Salam wr wb It brings a great sadness to my heart to see we are still squabbling over such trivial issues. But of course, what are the Shi'a known for besides their extravagant practices and rumor spreading which is so cleverly disguised as 'jurisprudence'. No wonder our Imam(as) is still in occultation! We so-called 'shia' have allowed the turbaned mafia to set us back to a state even worse than Jahilliyah! Remember what Imam Ali(as) said, "Look at what is being said, not the person who is saying it." Just because a Sheikh, Mowlana, Ayatollah, or ANYONE says ANYTHING... it does not automatically mean it is haqq, truth. If no proof is provided, it should not even be considered. But hey, to each his own right? If you want to believe that our Imams(as) had nothing better to do than cry, wail, moan, sing along to poetry with chest beating/cutting accompaniment, then by all means... keep that hollowed out picture of the most holy human beings the earth has seen in your head. The Imams(as) in my tiny mind, from the little bit I have researched, were too busy studying & teaching & trying to fight the tyranny & ignorance around them. If you want to follow the traditions of the poets & market profiteers of the empires past, then go right ahead... as long as your conscience & soul make it 'halal'. I, on the other hand, prefer to follow the mustahabat that the Ahlul Bayt(as) have left us in AUTHENTIC traditions that also do not go against one's common sense. And for the brother that says Syed Sistani 'allows' zanjeer/blood matam to be performed... think again. It depends on where you live, according to his official representatives. If you live in the west, Sistani does NOT allow such 'loving' behavior. I hope I have not offended anyone. May Allah forgive me if I said anything in error. May He guide us all to the proper truth, the indisputable truth of the perfect light, and not the dimmed light that certain 'scholars' have been providing us.

:lol: Shot down. . .in flames.

^^ Jazakallah! I loved this post.

For example, how do you think things would have turned out for the empire they were building if the Ghadir Khumm speech spread amongst the people? Or what would the people have thought of Umar as their leader if they all knew about the fight he started when the Prophet (saws) wanted to write his will? What would the people have thought of Abu Bakr as their leader when he fabricated a false hadith "Prophets do not leave inheritance" and angered Fatima (as), if they had all known that "Whoever angers Fatima (as) angers the Prophet (saws), and whoever angers the Prophet (saws) angers Allah?" This is why they banned hadith.

Was he not aware of the Fajr, Dhuhr, Asr, Maghrib, and Isha prayers? If he hadn't been putting people in jail for narrating hadith of the Prophet (saws) he might have known that the Prophet (saws) said that "the best prayer of a man is in the home, except for the obligatory prayer," and "the superiority of the optional prayer prayed at home over being prayed in the masjid is like the superiority obligatory prayer over the optional prayer." Most people claim they banned hadith to protect the Quran from having hadith mixed with it. Allah himself swore to protect the Quran, so do these people have no faith that they have to take matters into their own hands? Do they think Allah needs their help? The reality is they banned repeating the words of the Prophet (saws) because if the general public was really familar with the Sunnah they would have seen the errors their leaders made and the contradictions in their rulings vs. the Prophets (saws) rulings.

(bismillah) (salam) regarding all this what i dont understand but i think it is linked. is when shia (i use the term loosely to anybody here for example) explain compaions they judge them according to strictest... no problem but they dont judge Ali SA to strictest or follow his example. e.g muta banned by a companion kufr etc not reinstated by Ali... wouldnt that be kufr too? or else you dont reinstate ..with all the implications. having the best argument for the path to Allah does not save you and it does not mean you own it either. the truth isnt owned by anyone it is bestowed by Allah SWT so when sunni and shia get to the bottom of this OP for example and they agree. what then? do we create a new sect because we agree now? :wacko: (10) Of those who split up their religion (i.e. who left the true Islamic Monotheism), and became sects, [i.e. they invented new things in the religion (Bid'ah ), and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it. ( سورة الروم , Ar-Room, Chapter #30, Verse #32) the problem is not even religious it is psychological: ingroup out group mentality, and projection is all it is. we keep labelling it as a religious problem but the problem is we want status for our group and a social group identity more than anything. the devil is cunning us in thinking the 2 Ali SA is theological it is only fulfilling a social need he instigates. but we need to get to the bottom of it in the way we see it... theological (not my way of seeing it) so excuse me and i am eager to see if we can agree :) (on the personality, sayings,doings of Ali SA)

Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman banned hadith so that the people would forget. Then when Mu'awiya took over, he first ordered imams to curse Imam Ali (as) in every khutba. Later he tried a different strategy, giving rewards to people who could fabricate pleasant sounding hadith about Uthman. After that, he started paying people to write down all sorts of things about the first 4 Caliphs, but when it came to Ali (as) for every hadith regarding him they had to fabricate something contradictory.

winning heart is a talent...and most people have it as a GOD gifted ....charm is god given but any ways be good in all possible way she might get impressed

Why are they resorting to so much brutal force? If I were Irani, I would be definitely standing with the protesters.

Beware the winds of December By Alastair Crooke While America has been absorbed by the Afghan election imbroglio, a less-noticed event slid into place in the Middle East. It is less dramatic than President Hamid Karzai's near removal; but this event tilts the strategic balance: Turkey finally shrugged off its United States straight-jacket; stared-past any beckoning European Union membership; and has fixed its eyes toward its former Ottoman Asian and Middle Eastern neighbors. Turkey did not make this shift merely to snub the West; but it does reflect Turkey's discomfort and frustration with US and EU policy - as well as resonate more closely with the Islamic renaissance that has been taking place within Turkey. This "release" of Turkish policy towards a new direction - if successful - can be as significant as the destruction of Iraq and the implosion of Soviet power was, 20 years ago, in "releasing" Iran to emerge as one of the pre-eminent powers in the region. In the past months, a spate of new agreements have been signed by Turkey with Iraq, Iran, Syria and Armenia, which suggest not just a nascent commonality of political vision with Iraq, Iran and Syria, but more importantly, it reflects a joint economic interest - the northern tier of Middle East states are in line to become the principal suppliers of natural gas to Europe - thus displacing Russia as the dominant purveyor of gas to central Europe. In short, the prospective Nabucco gas pipeline to central Europe may gradually eclipse the energy primacy of Saudi oil. What is mainly symbolic in the prospective passing of the baton of energy "kingpin" - at least for Europe - from Saudi Arabia to the "northern tier", however, is given substance, rather than symbolic form, in the simultaneous weakening of the "southern tier" - Saudi Arabia and Egypt - both of which have become partially incapacitated by their respective succession crises and domestic preoccupations. The weakening of the "southern tier" comes at a sensitive time. The region sees the drift of power from erstwhile US allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia towards the northern tier, and, as is the way in the Middle East, is starting to readjust to the new power reality. This can be most clearly seen in Lebanon today, in the growing procession of former US allies and critics of the Syrian government, making their pilgrimage to Damascus. The message is not lost on others in the region either. The US administration sees these changes too. It additionally knows - as writers on the elsewhere have made clear - that any sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program ultimately will fail. They will fail not only because Russia and China will not play ball but precisely because the much touted "moderate alliance of pro-Western Arab states" is looking increasingly to be a paper tiger: the "moderates" are not seriously going to confront Iran and its allies. Hopes by those, such as John Hannah, writing on foreignpolicy.com, that the Saudi bombing of the Houthi rebels in Yemen would mobilize a sectarian Sunni hostility towards Shi'ite Iran have not been realized. On the contrary, the Saudis' action has been clearly seen in the region for what it is - a partisan and tribal intervention in another state's internal conflict. But if sanctions on Iran are widely acknowledged - at least in private within the US administration - as destined to fail, this must be provoking some interesting self-questioning within the White House: The US is in the process now of withdrawal from Iraq, it is looking for the exit in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is getting messier. None of these events seems likely to become particularly glorious episodes for the administration. It is not hard to imagine White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel and White House senior adviser David Axelrod asking themselves, "why the president should want to risk another perceived failure" - as sanctions on Iran surely will be. "Why", they may ask, "do sanctions and open ourselves to persistent Republican jeering at their inevitable failure and then ultimately force us to have to ask ... well, what do we do next, Mr President"? "Worse, will we," they may ask, "be going into mid-term congressional elections with the Republicans raising that old Vietnam taunt that the ‘US Army did not lose in Vietnam - it was the politicians who stabbed the military in the back' but with that same mantra now being used by our political enemies to depict Iraq and Afghanistan as failures of political nerve? Do we want to go into the midterm elections with failing Iran sanctions hanging like an albatross around our necks too?" No doubt in this discussion one of the White House staffers will point out that, in the case of Iraq, sanctions were indeed pursued, despite the likelihood of their failure, but for one reason only: to entice the Europeans on board; to go through the diplomatic motions - so that the Europeans would have no choice but to accept the consequences of their failure. But this does not apply in the case of Iran, the officials might point out: Britain and France, and to a lesser extent Germany, are, on this issue, more committed to "imploding" the Iranian state - by "soft" war, if not by "hot" war - than is Washington - so what would be the purpose of sanctions now? We do not know the outcome to this hypothetical debate. We do not yet know that negotiations with Iran will fail; although it seems that the debate within the administration seems to be hardening against the idea of Iran retaining any enrichment capacity. If this does become the administration's position, then failure of negotiations is assured. Iran will not abjure its right to a nuclear fuel cycle for power generation - even at the risk of war. This is the essence of the dilemma: if sanctions seem likely to lead to nothing more than Republican sniping and taunts of weakness, how does the president display "toughness" on Iran - against the backdrop of withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan and abstention on the Israeli-Palestinian political process? It is clear that Israel must be reading the region in the same fashion. Israelis are acutely sensitive to US politics, and the Israeli media already express understanding for the acute dilemma that will face the US president if sanctions do not succeed in persuading Iran to abandon all enrichment (the Israeli objective). How might Israel see the way to help President Barack Obama resolve this dilemma - given the improbability that Israel will be given any "green light" to attack Iran directly, with all the consequences that such military action might entail for US interests in the region? A recent article by the veteran and well-connected Israeli columnist, Alex Fishman, in the Hebrew language newspaper, Yediot Ahronoth, perhaps offers some insights into how Israelis may be speculating about such issues when he warns about "the approaching December winds”. These winds, Fishman tells us, will bring more and new revelations - not about Iran's nuclear ambitions - but about Syria's nuclear projects: the departure of Mohamed ElBaradei from the chair at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), he states, will open the door to new IAEA demands to inspect two suspected nuclear sites in Syria. Fishman notes that, following the surfacing last month in Germany of stories that Israeli special forces had been on the ground covertly in Syria, no one should be surprised if more evidence and photographs of the nuclear reactor, destroyed by Israeli air attack in September 2007, come to dominate the headlines in the Western press this December. The "star" turn in this prospective public relations campaign is to be evidence proving a direct Iranian nuclear connection and finance for Syria's alleged nuclear project. Fishman suggests that it suits "Israel's internal as well as foreign PR efforts" for the time being to play along with talk of peace between Israel and Syria; but that both the December campaign against Syria's alleged Iranian nuclear cooperation in the Western press, and the playing along with the Syrian peace track "are directly linked to negotiations" that the US is conducting with Iran. Fishman concludes that these could end in confrontation with Iran - "and also lead to a military strike", in which case, "whomsoever is in the Iranian camp will also get a pounding" - a reference to Syria. Does this piece truly reflect Israeli thinking? We do not know; but Fishman certainly is well connected. Does the Israeli security establishment really conceive that the road to military action against Iran passes through Damascus? For those who recall the tacit support given by Europe and the US to Israel's 2007 surprise military attack on Syria, Fishman's scenario is not as unlikely as it may seem. That earlier episode could easily have escalated to a wider war. More likely is that this is but one of a number of "game changing" scenarios that Israel is considering, but which ultimately all have Iran as the "end game". In the past, Israel's political parties of the right had a reputation for conceiving unconventional military actions, which sought to transform and invert the political paradigm of that time. Such actions did not always wait on, or seek, a US "green light". There was not direct collusion with the US. Israeli leaders looked more to the direction of the political wind in Washington. It was viewed by Israelis historically as finding a creative way to help a US president "get to yes" - to borrow Obama's own phraseology - by creating the public support and momentum to let a US president feel pulled forward by sentiment from a need to "hold Israel back". Is a new scandal of Iranian nuclear malfeasance and proliferation into Syria to serve as the pretext? Will a repeat of the 2007 air strikes on Syria lead to a wider conflict? Does the Israeli leadership think to ease Obama out of his Iran dilemma, by using the supposed "provocation" of a "Syrian-Iranian nuclear partnership" for a widening conflict? Perhaps we should we should beware these December "winds"? Source: Asia Times

Happy belated Birthday sis! Sorry I missed it :S

Salam sis i wouldn't say wearing abayah is going too far at all. People will always have a problem with the way you dress if it doesnt look "normal" to them and "normal" is dressing like them. Its your choice in the end you dont have to dress in a way that your uncomfortable with. I dont think they would interpret the abayah as some kind of extremisim its just like a black maxi dress :P I've been wearing the abayah since i was 13 and i do live in a Western country and i've never had anyone looking at it as some sort of extreme dress. If wearing the abayah makes you feel like your dressing more modestly then go for it and dont think about what people say. In fact it could make people ask you about it and that way they learn more about islam :)

aliunwalliulla wajib banned for repeated violations of site rules.

You are either a sayyed or you're not. You can't be half or quarter sayyed. It's not race or ethnicity. The rule is that if your father is not a sayyed, you are not a sayyed.

(salam) Malangs are a product of Sindhi/Punjabi landlords and Indian nawabs' masti with their maids ... they want to cover all this up with their silly interpretation of madhab ... Peace

Marriage between Syed and Non-Syed is permissible.....thats all!

But that is because you have always been a jaahil. And don't expect any malangs to come help you here. When it comes to knowledge of Islamic shariah, malangs are even less useful than a mirage in a desert.

thank you brothers for your great advice and warm thoughts

I would like to know more about how we see the character of Ubaydah ibn Al-Jarrah both in the time of the Prophet (saww) and after his departure. Any input or a relative link will be appreciated. Thanks

(salam) According to the link posted above, it seems that the istikhara is invalid. As evident from this and the above two posts, if you need quick instant replies from the brothers, you just need to open a topic in the sisters form. Hope you'll soon get used to this. Fi amanillah.

I think they are Punjabi and Pakistani too.Accent of Punjabi is Lahori. It looks like the recording of stage show is being done.Truely pathetic.

Your question, and your implied expectation, was unreasonable. The reason is because in the early history of Islam, and much of the later history; Shias were rarely in a position to fight non-Muslim invaders. Their numbers were small and the oppression they had to deal with from Sunni ulama/kings was also very severe. Also, under the Shia concept of justice, the Sunni rulers were nothing but illegitimate oppressors, officially Muslim in this dunya, but not deserving of respect. Choosing between them and, for example, invading Mongols was a tough choice.

The Caliphates that conquered by Sunni control were largely for personal gain from a historic point of view. Also this caliphate (Such as Omar's caliphate) refused the name Islamic Empire But it was called Arab Empire. Later on the Ummayad and Abbasid caliphate similarly called themselves Arab. This is because it was more Arabic than Islamic and many caliphs were ruthless to their citizens as we know, many of them used to drink alcohol and some of them ended up intentionally murdering the Prophet Mohammad's family in order to repel any form of public disorder caused by them as we know. This was especially the case during the Abbasid dynasty. Also, If we take the Caliphate of Othman, he gave his family member palaces and lived in a palace himself leaving the people hungry until he was killed by his subjects. If our friends here think that Omar brought Islam to Iran, think again. Persians could not become Muslim because of Omar since Omar thought Islam was a religion for the Arabs, not for the non-Arabs. Omar also refused to distribute the Bayt ol Mal (Islamic central bank) fairly to the non-Arabs when he was caliph. This in the long term also made way for the Shoobiyeh movement, which was a human rights movement, but because Sunni's were Arabs and incredibly racist, this human rights movement became racist in return and became totally disenchanted with gaining any favour or equal rights from the Sunni Arabs. Persians eventually became Muslim (Sunnite, Shaf'i) 400 years after Omar invaded. Omar's slave was a persian and eventually killed Omar because in his own words he was treated unjustly. For these reasons, Shiites rarely fought under the banner of Sunnism because it was an Arab flag and fundementally racist towards the non-Arab. Caliphates were neither fair to Shiites, nor to any non-Arabs unless they behave, spoke and fought for the Arabs. Very logical for any historian or critic. We should not stay in the past, all of these names are from up to 1000 years ago. Today we are living in another world, Sunni's who abide by totalitarian regimes and mentalities, massive underdevelopment, low educational levels, no equal education, cultural lag, in some countries even still perform things like female circumcision, honour killings, women who cannot drive, misyar. This kind of selfish thread and mentality of posters is 1000 years old and want to take us back to our common ancestors rather than reform Sunnism today for the modern world.

Salaam First of all whenever you see a dodgy article on the website which seems to be aborogating the fardh of Jihad why is it that it always seems to be a Sunni mufti or scholar who's name is stamped at the bottom. let me list the Furu'o e deen of the shia madhab and compare it with the 5 pillars of sunni madhab: Salah Zakah Saum Hajj Khums Jihad Amir bil maroof Wa nahi anil munkar Tawalla Tabbaraa as opposed to Shahadah Salah Zakah Saum Hajj Jihad has many meanings linguistically like 'struggle' but the sharia definition of the word is to fight in the way of Allah S.W.T in a military sense. The Imams (as) were involved in many jihads I mean Mola Ali (as) is the best of the best when it comes to fighting and every mujahid in the world must keep the fighting spirit of Ali (as) close to his heart. During the muslim conquest of Persia the imams Hasan and Hussain (as) took part but after that whilst Islam had become corrupt the master of all martyrs took up arms against the tyrant and did it to protect the Tawhid and Adl of Allah S.W.T which is what every shia is told to do which is to do Jihad if thats the only way in order to correct corrupt rulers. Look at Mukhtar the avengar of kerbola and look at imam Zaid who also held a rebellion against the Bani Umaayds. As it goes for startting conquests the shias never started any because they were never in politicol control up untill the savafids came into power (if you could call them shia) but even during the conquests of the ummayds and abbasids shias did take part because shias were scattered across the ummah and in recent history when the iSLAMIC empire collapsed the former safavid lead areas uprooted and forced out the occupation. Anyway you claim that us shias abondened the concept of Jihad but I answered you without looking at todays reality but now i challenge you, RASULLALLAH (SAW) said DO NOT STOP THE ARMY OF OSAMA and who where the ones who called it back???