Leaderboard

I've noticed those who talk most about these things, for and against, tend to often be people who have never and will never engage in any of them. Or if I feel more cheeky, I might say talk all you like about getting 4 wives and a hundred mut`as, chances are you're just marrying your cousin and that's it...

Salam alaikum dear brothers and sisters, In my recent rant against members who slander scholars, a few members expressed that they think I am being hypocritical, and that I have no right to complain whilst I myself sin. I must admit, I agree. I have no right to criticise other members whilst I myself post music, etc. For that reason, I promise that from this moment forth, I shall post no music, or anything of the sort. JazakumUllah. However, I will add, I will NEVER stand for the slandering of our scholars. That is unforgivable.

just so you know bro, im not high at the mo ;) mashallah @ me. inspiration without the need for crack

Hmm I had some nice breakfast in the Hussainiya Alhamdulillah. We had barbari bread with white Iranian cheese, sabzi, zeytoon and tomatoes. Boiled eggs, za'atar, khameh (cream) and jam. Oh and how can I forget black tea!!

All I wish is that people would take a little bit of responsibility because a one hour mutah with the wrong person can destroy many lives.

Yes Qiyas Mansus al illa is an instrument which is forbidden by Aimma a.s. and as I said it is used by usooli mujtahideen and the proofs were chess fatwa, testimony fatwa etc. But there are certain other principles which one must be aware of to understand the difference and application of ahadees ASL al Baraa Originally a Sunni term adapted by Usoolis but it has a basis in our ahadees e.g. Everything is Halal until proven Haram كتاب من لا يحضره الفقيه — الجزء الاول للشيخ الجليل الاقدم الصدوق أبى جعفر محمد بن على بن الحسين بن بابويه القمى المتوفى سنة Man la Yahdhuruhul Faqih by Shaikh Sadooq (ra) (381 AH), Volume 1 937 - عن الصادق عليه السلام أنه قال : كل شئ مطلق حتى يرد فيه نهي 937- From Imam al Sadiq(as) who said "Everything is unrestricted until a prohibition is given on it." وسائل الشيعة (آل البيت) للحر العاملي (1104 هـ) الجزء6 صفحة289 Wasail al Shia by Shaikh Hurr al Amili (1104 AH) Volume 6 Page 289 [ 7997 ] 3- قال : وقال الصادق ( عليه السلام ) : كلّ شيء مطلق حتّى يرد فيه نهي [7997] 3- He said: Imam al Sadiq(as) said: "Everything is unrestricted until a prohibition is given on it." As I have quoted earlier this hadees AL KAFI - H 169, Ch. 19, h13 Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn 'Isa ibn 'Ubayd from Yunus ibn 'Abd al-Rahman from Sama'a ibn Mihran who has said the following: "Once I said to (Imam) abu al-Hassan Musa, recipient of divine supreme covenant, 'May Allah keep you well, did the Messenger of Allah bring everything that people needed?' The Imam said, 'Yes, and all that they will need up to the Day of Judgment.' I then said, 'Is anything lost from it?' The Imam replied, 'No, it all is with the people to whom they belong.'" You can clearly see that Allah azwh has given everything the people needed until day of Judgment however there is another hadees so please bear up with me Al Tauheed حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن يحيى العطار رضي الله عنه، عن أبيه، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن ابن فضال، عن داود بن فرقد، عن أبي الحسن زكريا بن يحيى، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: ما حجب الله علمه عن العباد فهو موضوع عنهم Told us Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya al Attar (ra), from his father, from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Easa, from ibn Fudhal, from Dawood b. Furqad, from abi al Hasan Zakariya b. Yahya, from abi Abdullah (as) who said: "Whatever Allah(swt) concealed of His(swt) knowledge from His(swt) slaves, so it is subject/set apart (not required) from them SO this means that we have been given those things in Quran and Sunna which we are to be questioned about and the things that we cannot find then we have this principle. Everything is unrestricted until a prohibition is given on it." The akhbaris said that they will not issue fatwas on issues which are not mentioned in ahadees however this is a permission given by Allah azwj as an individual obligation to make our lives easier and obedience compatible with changing times. The usoolis on the other hand gave fatwas on the issues of asl al baraa (1) to maintain their authority and the famous principle that the fatwa dies with the mujtahid is also to maintain the authority. The akhbaris don’t agree with it because fatwa based on hadees cannot die with the alim so they compiled all ahadees available together and left it for momineen as a choice either to do ehtiyaat from it or unrestrict it as there is no prohibition given on it. So some of the major problems with usoolism today are Different types of Qiyas that they use (qiyas al awalliya and qiyas mansua al illa) from an existing hadees or an ayat of quran. Ijtehad Ijma of ulema to derive fatwa There is no proof of Taqleed being Wajib. Sheikh Hurr al Ameli said: For the Usoolis, it is obligatory to act in accordance with ˜the mujtahid’s zann, even if it opposes caution. Those who argue for ijtihåd mostly rule on issues without reference to the text (al-nass (ahadees‚), and then give fatwas upon ˜those issues·. If one studies ˜the sources·, one finds that at times ˜answers to· those issues are recorded in the ˜revelatory· texts. ˜Sometimes· these differ from the fatwas ˜of the mujtahid·, and ˜at other times· they agree. (fawaid at tusiya page 449) An example of point 5 i HAVE uploaded a pic so make sure compare the ahadees given below with the pic of mujtahideen محمد بن يعقوب، عن محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن محمد بن سنان، عن زياد بن المنذر قال: دخلت على أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) وعلي خف مقشور فقال: يا زياد ما ھذا الخف الذي أراه عليك ؟ قلت: خف اتخذته، قال: أما علمت أن البيض من الخفاف - يعني المقشورة - من لباس الجبابرة، وھم أول من اتخذھا والحمر من لباس الاكاسرة وھم أول من اتخذھا ؟ والسود من لباس بني ھاشم وسنة ؟. Ziyad bin alManzar says Imam AbiJaffar asws saw me wearing white socks when I came inside. Imam a/s said: O Ziad! what colour socks you are wearing? I replied: these socks I have got specially made for me. Imamasws said: Don’t you know pure white socks are the symbol of arrogance and so and so ( may refer to Umar and Abubakar or Phiraun and samri) are the first who used this colour. The Persian rulers first used red socks. And the black coloured socks are the tradition of the family of Hashem and it is our tradition (sunnath). Wasailushia Vol-5,Page-63 وسمعت مشائخنا رضي الله عنهم يقولون : لا تجوز الصلاة في الطابقية ( 6 ) ولا يجوزللمعتم أن يصلي إلا وهو متحنك ( 6 ) الطابقية : العمامة التي لا حنك لها And I (Shaikh Sadooq) heard from our blessed mashaikh (senior teachers) saying: "Not valid is the prayer in tabqiyah* and not valid is it for the amama wearer to pray unless he does tahannuk(drop an end of the turban between the shoulders). *Tabqiyah: Amama without hanak (end of the turban dropping down between shoulders). وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وآله : الفرق بين المسلمين والمشركين التلحي بالعمائ وذلك في أول الاسلام وابتدائه And Prophet(PBUH) said "The difference between muslims and mushriks (polytheists) is hanaks (dropping an end of turban down) in turbans." So, the case of wearing white socks is clearly against sunna however by applying Qiyas Masus al Illa; they said the Mushrikeen do not wear it now(illa=reason) so it is halal to wear it therby going against a mentioned Sunna Note: My personal commentary has been bolded. Ya Ali Madad

What you must realize is, only the a minority group will even attempt to answer your questions. What the minority group will do is the following: 1. Get out their books and search tools. 2. Get the Arabic dictionary handy. 3. Get the rijaal books ready. 4. Sit for a few hours researching what you've asked. Now this is the problem: 1. Most are likely to make an error in verdicts, because their research wasn't as thorough as it could be. 2. The research wasn't as thorough because they haven't spent a great part of their lives studying the sciences of ahadith. 3. And if they are well versed, then they are only a very small proportion of the Shia. What happens next is: 1. They'll paste the ahadith for you. 2. They will say Scholar A says, and Scholar B says and Scholar C says from Book X and Book Y and Book Z. What actually happened was: 1. The pseudo-akhbaris did their research in a similar way to what a Mujtahid would have. 2. They in fact practiced Ijtihad because a less knowledgeable individual who can't figure out the questions himself, asked someone who has some knowledge in the sciences. The result is: 1. Little psuedo-akhbaris that can't tell their right hand from their left will say "hahaha see, no need for taqleed" 2. The impression that's then spread is that Taqleed isn't needed. 3. The respect for our great scholars is lost. 4. Our leadership starts coming into question as there's a breakdown in our Ummah's structure. 5. Everyone starts questioning the ability of the scholars. 6. The people are misguided. 7. The misguided help to misguide others. We can conclude therefore that: 1. The pseudo-akhbaris are ignorant of the damage that they're doing; or 2. They know what they're doing; and/or 3. Are doing it on purpose due to politically motivated purposes or are a remnant/bi-product of previous politically motivated individuals that misguided less knowledgeable individuals. And finally what must be done is: 1. Educate the masses about the inherent flaws of laymen self-declared Mujtahids conjuring up their own fatwas. 2. Putting a stop to such misguidance. Alhamdulillah there seems to be a reversing trend here as more members are becoming aware of what's happening. Good luck getting your answers :) Long live our righteous Scholars, the ropes of our religion and the guides of our people.

The word 'balad' in today's terms is often used to mean 'country', but in classical terms it's used as 'town', and it is still used in such context. So when they say for example, to break your fast you travel to another 'balad', they mean, you leave the outskirts of the city. 'Madina' is often used to represent the epicenter of the 'balad', with the balad being the metro-area surrounding that city. Exactly. The 'horizon' is what you see when you stand on the beach and look at the 'horizon', but not the horizon across continents. As you rightly said, how far can one travel in a single night on horseback?

I'll suggest a commander..... He's just waiting to be asked...

This morning for breakfast we had: manaeesh, toast, olives, laban (yoghurt), labne with zet zeytoon, za3tar and zet, fresh eggs, debs carob (carob syrup), ka3k el eid, tea and fresh orange juice :D

Pictures: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=pu.255379897805738&type=1 Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/FreeAlQudsNY

Telepathy.

i dont care about sheeple sis. i know what IM gonna do. im gonna write a book thats gonna change the fothermucking WORLD.

Yes. You've basically described the majority of people. Otherwise known as people who want an 'easy' and 'comfortable' life. :dry: Thought: why does it feel like my summer holidays went so fast and school is starting so soon? :cry:

wow....mashallah siraat bhaijaan, what an incredible post :huh: lol @ the pic

It was yumm!

exactimondo! thank you for the clarification bro! As for you blissful. you couldnt be voldemort youre too fat im afraid :no: you wouldnt be able to move fast enough to block our spells... and youd probably eat your wand mistaking it for a Mikado

you forgot 'Wallah Bro', 'Shallah'(InshahAllah), 'Faaatme' (Fatima) I would also add lack of parent education, and addiction to prescription drugs (because you can get them at the pharmacy, so it must be halal).

I want an eid dinner :( Thought : wow all this food talk is making me hungry 2nd Thought : I know its not the thread for thoughts but I thought ill leave it here as this discussion is on food :)

Your posts are gold SD, keep em coming! Jazak'Allah

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=24591 SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO "Humanitarian Intervention" by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky There is evidence of gross media manipulation and falsification from the outset of the protest movement in southern Syria on March 17th. The Western media has presented the events in Syria as part of the broader Arab pro-democracy protest movement, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia, to Egypt, and from Libya to Syria. Media coverage has focussed on the Syrian police and armed forces, which are accused of indiscriminately shooting and killing unarmed "pro-democracy" demonstrators. While these police shootings did indeed occur, what the media failed to mention is that among the demonstrators there were armed gunmen as well as snipers who were shooting at both the security forces and the protesters. The death figures presented in the reports are often unsubstantiated. Many of the reports are "according to witnesses". The images and video footages aired on Al Jazeera and CNN do not always correspond to the events which are being covered by the news reports. There is certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent year, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The IMF's "economic medicine" includes austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization. (See IMF Syrian Arab Republic — IMF Article IV Consultation Mission's Concluding Statement,http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2006/051406.htm, 2006) With a government dominated by the minority Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam), Syria is no "model society" with regard to civil rights and freedom of expression. It nonetheless constitutes the only (remaining) independent secular state in the Arab world. Its populist, anti-Imperialist and secular base is inherited from the dominant Baath party, which integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze. Moreover, in contrast to Egypt and Tunisia, in Syria there is considerable popular support for President Bashar Al Assad. The large rally in Damascus on March 29, "with tens of thousands of supporters" (Reuters) of President Al Assad is barely mentioned. Yet in an unusual twist, the images and video footage of several pro-government events were used by the Western media to convince international public opinion that the President was being confronted by mass anti-governmentrallies. The "Epicenter" of the Protest Movement. Daraa: A Small Border Town in southern Syria What is the nature of the protest movement? From what sectors of Syrian society does it emanate? What triggered the violence? What is the cause of the deaths? The existence of an organized insurrection composed of armed gangs involved in acts of killing and arson has been dismissed by the Western media, despite evidence to the contrary. The demonstrations did not start in Damascus, the nation's capital. At the outset, the protests were not integrated by a mass movement of citizens in Syria's capital. The demonstrations started in Daraa, a small border town of 75,000 inhabitants, on the Syrian Jordanian border, rather than in Damascus or Aleppo, where the mainstay of organized political opposition and social movements are located. (Daraa is a small border town comparable e.g. to Plattsburgh, NY on the US-Canadian border). The Associated Press report (quoting unnamed "witnesses" and "activists") describes the early protests in Daraa as follows: The violence in Daraa, a city of about 300,000 near the border with Jordan, was fast becoming a major challenge for President Bashar Assad, .... Syrian police launched a relentless assault Wednesday on a neighborhood sheltering anti-government protesters [Daraa], fatally shooting at least 15 in an operation that began before dawn, witnesses said. At least six were killed in the early morning attack on the al-Omari mosque in the southern agricultural city of Daraa, where protesters have taken to the streets in calls for reforms and political freedoms, witnesses said. An activist in contact with people in Daraa said police shot another three people protesting in its Roman-era city center after dusk. Six more bodies were found later in the day, the activist said. As the casualties mounted, people from the nearby villages of Inkhil, Jasim, Khirbet Ghazaleh and al-Harrah tried to march on DaraaWednesday night but security forces opened fire as they approached, the activist said. It was not immediately clear if there were more deaths or injuries. (AP, March 23, 2011, emphasis added) The AP report inflates the numbers: Daraa is presented as a city of 300,000 when in fact its population is 75,000; "protesters gathered by the thousands", "casualties mounted". The report is silent on the death of policemen which in the West invariably makes the front page of the tabloids. The deaths of the policemen are important in assessing what actually happened. When there are police casualties, this means that there is an exchange of gunfire between opposing sides, between policemen and "demonstrators". Who are these "demonstrators" including roof top snipers who were targeting the police. Israeli and Lebanese news reports (which acknowledge the police deaths) provide a clearer picture of what happened in Daraa on March 17-18. The Israel National News Report (which cannot be accused of being biased in favor of Damascus) reviews these same events as follows: Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday. .... On Friday police opened fire on armed protesters killing four and injuring as many as 100 others. According to one witness, who spoke to the press on condition of anonymity, "They used live ammunition immediately -- no tear gas or anything else." .... In an uncharacteristic gesture intended to ease tensions the government offered to release the detained students, but seven police officers were killed, and the Baath Party Headquarters and courthouse were torched, in renewed violence on Sunday. (Gavriel Queenann, Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests, Israel National News, Arutz Sheva, March 21, 2011, emphasis added) The Lebanese news report, quoting various sources, also acknowledges the killings of seven policemen in Daraa: They were killed "during clashes between the security forces and protesters... They got killed trying to drive away protesters during demonstration in Dara’a" The Lebanese Ya Libnan report quoting Al Jazeera also acknowledged that protesters had "burned the headquarters of the Baath Party and the court house in Dara’a" (emphasis added) These news reports of the events in Daraa confirm the following: 1. This was not a "peaceful protest" as claimed by the Western media. Several of the "demonstrators" had fire arms and were using them against the police: "The police opened fire on armed protesters killing four". 2. From the initial casualty figures (Israel News), there were more policemen than demonstrators who were killed: 7 policemen killed versus 4 demonstrators. This is significant because it suggests that the police force might have been initially outnumbered by a well organized armed gang. According to Syrian media sources, there were also snipers on rooftops which were shooting at both the police and the protesters. What is clear from these initial reports is that many of the demonstrators were not demonstrators but terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson.The title of the Israeli news report summarizes what happened: Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests. The Daraa "protest movement" on March 18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving, in all likelihood, covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence. Government sources point to the role of radical Salafist groups (supported by Israel) Other reports have pointed to the role of Saudi Arabia in financing the protest movement. What has unfolded in Daraa in the weeks following the initial violent clashes on 17-18 March, is the confrontation between the police and the armed forces on the one hand and armed units of terrorists and snipers on the other which have infiltrated the protest movement. Reports suggest that these terrorists are integrated by Islamists. There is no concrete evidence as to which Islamic organizations are behind the terrorists and the government has not released corroborating information as to who these groups are. Both the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (whose leadership is in exile in the UK) and the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), among others have paid lip service to the protest movement. Hizb ut Tahir (led in the 1980s by Syrian born Omar Bakri Muhammad) tends to "dominate the British Islamist scene” according to Foreign Affairs. Hizb ut Tahir is also considered to be of strategic importance to Britain's Secret Service MI6. in the pursuit of Anglo-American interests in the Middle East and Central Asia. (Is Hizb-ut-Tahrir another project of British MI6? | State of Pakistan). Syria is a secular Arab country, a society of religious tolerance, where Muslims and Christians have for several centuries lived in peace. Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) is a radical political movement committed to the creation of an Islamic caliphate. In Syria, its avowed objective is to destabilize the secular state. Since the Soviet-Afghan war, Western intelligence agencies as well as Israel's Mossad have consistently used various Islamic terrorist organizations as "intelligence assets". Both Washington and its indefectible British ally have provided covert support to "Islamic terrorists" in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya, etc. as a means to triggering ethnic strife, sectarian violence and political instability. The staged protest movement in Syria is modelled on Libya. The insurrection in Eastern Libya is integrated by the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which is supported by MI6 and the CIA. The ultimate objective of the Syria protest movement, through media lies and fabrications, is to create divisions within Syrian society as well as justify an eventual "humanitarian intervention". Armed Insurrection in Syria An armed insurrection integrated by Islamists and supported covertly by Western intelligence is central to an understanding of what is occurring on the ground. The existence of an armed insurrection is not mentioned by the Western media. If it were to be acknowledged and analysed, our understanding of unfolding events would be entirely different. What is mentioned profusely is that the armed forces and the police are involved in the indiscriminate killing of protesters. The deployment of the armed forces including tanks in Daraa is directed against an organized armed insurrection, which has been active in the border city since March 17-18. Casualties are being reported which also include the death of policemen and soldiers. In a bitter irony, the Western media acknowledges the police/soldier deaths while denying the existence of an armed insurrection. The key question is how does the media explain these deaths of soldiers and police? Without evidence, the reports suggest authoritatively that the police is shooting at the soldiers and vice versa the soldiers are shooting on the police. In a April 29 Al Jazeera report, Daraa is described as "a city under siege". "Tanks and troops control all roads in and out. Inside the city, shops are shuttered and nobody dare walk the once bustling market streets, today transformed into the kill zone of rooftop snipers. Unable to crush the people who first dared rise up against him - neither with the secret police, paid thugs or the special forces of his brother's military division - President Bashar al-Assad has sent thousands of Syrian soldiers and their heavy weaponry into Deraa for an operation the regime wants nobody in the world to see. Though almost all communication channels with Deraa have been cut, including the Jordanian mobile service that reaches into the city from just across the border, Al Jazeera has gathered firsthand accounts of life inside the city from residents who just left or from eyewitnesses inside who were able to get outside the blackout area. The picture that emerges is of a dark and deadly security arena, one driven by the actions of the secret police and their rooftop snipers, in which soldiers and protestors alike are being killed or wounded, in which cracks are emerging in the military itself, and in which is created the very chaos which the regime uses to justify its escalating crackdown. (Daraa, a City under Siege, IPS / Al Jazeera, April 29, 2011) The Al Jazeera report borders on the absurd. Read carefully. "Tanks and troops control all roads in and out", "thousands of Syrian soldiers and their heavy weaponry into Daraa" This situation has prevailed for several weeks. This means that bona fide protesters who are not already inside Daraa cannot enter Daraa. People who live in the city are in their homes: "nobody dares walk ... the streets". If nobody dares walk the streets where are the protesters? Who is in the streets? According to Al Jazeera, the protesters are in the streets together with the soldiers, and both the protesters and the soldiers are being shot at by "plain clothes secret police", by "paid thugs" and government sponsored snipers. The impression conveyed in the report is that these casualties are attributed to infighting between the police and the military. But the report also says that the soldiers (in the "thousands") control all roads in and out of the city, but they are being shot upon by the plain clothed secret police. The purpose of this web of media deceit, namely outright fabrications --where soldiers are being killed by police and "government snipers"-- is to deny the existence of armed terrorist groups. The later are integrated by snipers and "plain clothed terrorists" who are shooting at the police, the Syrian armed forces and local residents. These are not spontaneous acts of terror; they are carefully planned and coordinated attacks. In recent developments, according to a Xinhua report (April 30, 2011), armed "terrorist groups" "attacked the housing areas for servicemen" in Daraa province, "killing a sergeant and wounding two". While the government bears heavy responsibility for its mishandling of the military-police operation, including the deaths of civilians, the reports confirm that the armed terrorist groups had also opened fire on protesters and local residents. The casualties are then blamed on the armed forces and the police and the Bashar Al Assad government is portrayed by "the international community" as having ordered countless atrocities. The fact of the matter is that foreign journalists are banned from reporting inside Syria, to the extent that much of the information including the number of casualties is obtained from the unverified accounts of "witnesses". It is in the interest of the US-NATO alliance to portray the events in Syria as a peaceful protest movement which is being brutally repressed by a "dictatorial regime". The Syrian government may be autocratic. It is certainly not a model of democracy but neither is the US administration, which is characterized by rampant corruption, the derogation of civil liberties under the Patriot legislation, the legalisation of torture, not to mention its "bloodless" "humanitarian wars": "The U.S. and its NATO allies have, in addition to U.S. Sixth Fleet and NATO Active Endeavor military assets permanently deployed in the Mediterranean, warplanes, warships and submarines engaged in the assault against Libya that can be used against Syria at a moment's notice. On April 27 Russia and China evidently prevented the U.S. and its NATO allies from pushing through an equivalent of Resolution 1973 against Syria in the Security Council, with Russian deputy ambassador to the UN Alexander Pankin stating that the current situation in Syria "does not present a threat to international peace and security." Syria is Russia's last true partner in the Mediterranean and the Arab world and hosts one of only two Russian overseas naval bases, that at Tartus. (The other being in Ukraine's Crimea.)" (Rick Rozoff, Libyan Scenario For Syria: Towards A US-NATO "Humanitarian Intervention" directed against Syria? Global Research, April 30, 2011) The ultimate purpose is to trigger sectarian violence and political chaos within Syria by covertly supporting Islamic terrorist organizations. What lies ahead? The longer term US foreign policy perspective is "regime change" and the destabilization of Syria as an independent nation-state, through a covert process of "democratization" or through military means. Syria is on the list of "rogue states", which are targeted for a US military intervention. As confirmed by former NATO commander General Wesley Clark the "[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan" (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark). The objective is to weaken the structures of the secular State while justifying an eventual UN sponsored "humanitarian intervention". The latter, in the first instance, could take the form of a reinforced embargo on the country (including sanctions) as well as the freezing of Syrian bank assets in overseas foreign financial institutions. While a US-NATO military intervention in the immediate future seems highly unlikely, Syria is nonetheless on the Pentagon's military roadmap, namely an eventual war on Syria has been contemplated both by Washington and Tel Aviv. If it were to occur, at some future date, it would lead to escalation. Israel would inevitably be involved. The entire Middle East Central Asian region from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Chinese-Afghan border would flare up. Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Editor of globalresearch.ca. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. He spent a month in Syria in early 2011.

Why are you only taking into account one verse? Why don't you take into account the plethora of other verses that say "wallahu ya'lamu maa fil quloob" (and God knows what's in your hearts) or "sudoor" (chests) or "niyyatikum" (your intentions) is used in plenty of ahadith? وَلَا تَجْعَلُوا اللَّهَ عُرْضَةً لِأَيْمَانِكُمْ أَنْ تَبَرُّوا وَتَتَّقُوا وَتُصْلِحُوا بَيْنَ النَّاسِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ 2:224 [shakir 2:224] And make not Allah because of your swearing (by Him) an obstacle to your doing good and guarding (against evil) and making peace between men, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. [Pickthal 2:224] And make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to your being righteous and observing your duty unto Him and making peace among mankind. Allah is Hearer, Knower. [Yusufali 2:224] And make not Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is One Who heareth and knoweth all things. لَا يُؤَاخِذُكُمُ اللَّهُ بِاللَّغْوِ فِي أَيْمَانِكُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ يُؤَاخِذُكُمْ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ قُلُوبُكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ حَلِيمٌ 2:225 [shakir 2:225] Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts have earned, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing. [Pickthal 2:225] Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths. But He will take you to task for that which your hearts have garnered. Allah is Forgiving, Clement. [Yusufali 2:225] Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.

You're leaving out the key factor of everything here, and that is intent. You could desire a gun to murder, or you could desire a gun to protect your family. You could desire wealth to feed your family, or you could desire wealth to enslave other people. Intent is the key to everything, to the extent, that those who truly contemplate, would say, they desire sleep only so that they may rest so that they have the energy to continue the struggles in this world. If your vision is only this world, you are deemed unwise, if your vision for this world is to accumulate for the afterlife, that is wise (according to the Qur'an and the Imams and the contemplater) No it doesn't.

Imam Khomeini > you

Are there any reviews from those who have volumes 1-8 of al kafi in their possession? Is this for real???

Wasalam, I have lots, I ran out of space on my computer so I had to buy a 1TB external hard drive to carry the other 10,000 HD pictures I have of him.

I'm not going to post any screenshots as that seems to be ur fied of expertise. If you actualy bothered to read the time i posted that post regarding the comparison i made between him and abu musa ashari l.a you will see that it was when walid had accepted withdrawal. THis was a big let down to the whole shia community as he had fallen back on what he had promised to defend. However he later restarted his debate and i offered him my apologies for the quick and harsh comment that i made (and i hope he accepted my apologies). So bassikly you assumed that i participated in the 'wahabi lie' and without a second thought sent laan on me? What an idiot.

Almost there!!!! :D

Usul al Kafi Vol 2

If we see the meaning and purpose of an Imam it is to lead. Literary "amam" means in front, and thus "Imam" is the one who stands in front. Now if Imam Ali (as) is rightful Imam and leader (as we believe) then his salaah is fine wherever he prays. It is those who prayed in front of him whose salaah is batil.

Admins need to look at the rules and regulations of this site. We aren't allowed to request for Allahs (SWT) mercy to be removed from Abu Bakr, Uthman, and Umar, and yet you allow members of the site to openly slander the names of our beloved scholars. People who have given and dedicated their entire lives to serve our beloved religion are insulted on a daily basis, whilst moderators hunt for people saying la'nah, giving them harsh and instant warnings. The current state of things is disgusting and shameful. This issue needs to be looked at. Just now even, whilst I was in the chatroom, I had to endure certain members slandering the good names of Al-Shaheed Mohammed Baqir Al-Sadr, Syed Al-Khomeini, and also Syed Mohammed Al-Musawi. I left the chatroom with disgust, and I do not intend to return there until the current state of affairs is rectified.

May Allah (swt) guide you to doing something beneficial inshaAllah :)

Ok guys, this seems a bit childish. I did do some shiachat dons thing a month ago but I stopped that nonsense it was a waste of time and lead to nothing. You can go ahead and carry this on but please take my name out of it, thanks.

Points have been noted and issues will be addressed inshAllah.

(bismillah) (salam) I think that if someone holds a particular perspective on the purpose of humans, this argument will fail to touch them. I will sketch this perspective below. This is the argument: 1)God is all loving and all powerful. (Premise 1) 2)Free will exists. (Premise 2) 3)Evil exists. (Premise 3) 4)Evil exists to allow free will to exist. (Premise 4) 5)A parasitic worm that bores into childrens eye sockets exists. (Premise 5) 6)This worm does not need to exist to allow free will. (Premise 6) 7)It does a bad or evil action. (Premise 7) 8)This action is not a necessary prerequisite to allow the existence of free will or the judgement by God of the child. (Premise 8) 9)Yet, God still allows such a parasite to exist. (Premise 9) 10)God either does not exist or is not all loving or all powerful. (Conclusion 1) I think I disagree with Premise 8. The story of Adam, the Fall and the Forbidden Fruit, I feel has this philosophical message: A person who is free can choose to follow the Right or the Wrong A person who has suffers no need or temptation towards Wrong will never choose Wrong A person as described above is not special for inclining towards Right A person who suffers need or temptation towards Wrong may incline towards Wrong or may incline against it A person who prefers to incline towards Right in the above circumstance is special, because they prefer to suffer than incline towards Wrong Often, doing what is Right costs us - sometimes dearly. We know we will suffer in one way or another. It involves sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is the key word, I suppose. Probably, that is why we value self-sacrifice and 'true' martyrdom so much. The martyr negates himself for the Right, concretising the moral sentiment that Life is Good when it contributes the Good and Evil when it contributes to Evil, and a martyr is someone who Lives a perfect life by contributing its very being for the Good and the eradication of Evil. Self-sacrifice - whether it is sacrificing our lives, money, time, reputation or pride - is special, because it prefers doing Right and suffering to oneself over doing Wrong and probably causing suffering and destruction to others. I think, should God have wanted to create a special, miraculous being from the random motion of atoms, He would transform them into making a person so courageous and beautiful which would even negate itself for Goodness and others. In the human, He has managed to make a being with this potential, I find. However, for such a special, miracle to self-sacrifice, it would need to suffer in some way. Therefore, in this perspective, any thing or action which produces suffering has a raison d'etre. Suffering, it could be said, was made for Humans, as lasers were made for uncut diamonds. From this, I believe premise 8 must change into: 8)Any thing or action which causes suffering is a necessary prerequisite to give greater value to the exercise of human free will (Premise 8) Suffering gives greater value to a human who applies free will for Good while tasting the suffering. Therefore, the conclusion of the argument changes into: 10)God either does not exist or is not all loving or all powerful or He exists and wants to derive greater spiritual value and beauty. (Conclusion 1) I suppose, it can be asked why would God want to derive this greater value. The answer is probably: for the same reason He (and we) prefers free will over pre-determined will. A self-sacrificing creature is more admirable than a selfish creature. It is Divine. It is Perfect. Probably, God is trying to cast His fiery image into the dust, so to speak. He has made dead matter live, blind matter see, silent matter talk, mindless matter think and now meaningless matter turn into a meaningful god! Of course, materialists may object as to the injustice of creating humans only for them to negate themselves. A religious person who has understood that God is almighty, believes in God's Justice, and therefore, in the Resurrection and Reward and Retribution. The diamonds, cut and uncut, will at last be weighed according to their brilliance, and those who shine are cherished, and those who are dull are cut until they shine, and the rocks which have destroyed any diamond in them, are rejected. A person who holds this perspective - as described above - will not be harmed by that argument. For example, the child who is suffering is not asking the child to self-sacrifice, but the parents and the doctors and anyone who can help in some way. It is also provoking the beautiful and tragic impulse of a parent lovingly anxious for their child and going to any lengths for their child's health and happiness. The child who suffers in a poverty-stricken plague-ridden land is God crying out to all humans of the world, demanding humanity and sympathy from them. He asks for humans to sacrifice some time and money to save a fellow human being. Those who sacrifice all they can - though they do not know the child and may never even see the child - are a real star. When I look to my life and those whom I have seen, I notice that most sufferings - if not all - are existential Questions asking us to solve them. We have the free will to sweat, toil and bleed for a Solution, or press the Ignore This Question button and pass along unhurt. Without suffering, there would be no Questions, and therefore, no chance to be a god and make the right, but hard, decision. ------------------------- This has not much to do with the argument. Just for anyone who might be interested to know my views on the making of Man I believe, from the Qur'an and from philosophy and from mysticism, that "God wanted to create His Heir on earth, someone earthly limited creature whose spirit would be free, creative, knowing, loving and good. He wanted to mould the physical molecules into a form, allow it to multiply and evolve over millenia, and transform the blind forces of nature into a body which would hold a 'divine' person. In the human, He created a being who had the potential to evolve even further - on the mental plane - into a divine creature, an earthly god." Such an earthly god would be able to transcend all suffering and, in the face of temptation and evil, refuse to incline towards the Wrong but rather rush towards the Right. Humans are free to try to learn their lessons and evolve towards their better potential, and free to skip classes, ignore the impulses towards self-betterment and continue being selfish and ignorant. In this philosophy, the Human Life has this meaning: to understand what it means for a Human to be 'like-God' - to find a way to being 'like-God' - and try and becoming 'like-God' - until one becomes, in this world or the next. (wasalam)

I get a car in eidi this year. YAY!

slam.... Allah Almighty definitely do not need our prayers.... our prayers neither can raise His status nor can decline... but... to pray is something else... it is to say thanks... to be grateful to Allah Almighty... HE has blessed us with countless blessings.... so do you think... HE do not deserves thanks??? how unfair it would be... if we give something to a person... we definitly want some feed back... an appreciation... if that person don't say thanks... we wont like him anymore.. or it may happens... that we go for the same person twice or thrice.. but not more than that... never will we... so if we are blessed with unlimited blessings by our Allah... and we are not thankful to HIM...and the best way to be thankful is to offer prayer..... HE will definitly punish those who do not bow before him... its HIS right.. and if we wont give this right... we will definitly be guilty... and guiltier are punished... its justice

A thing that may require a 'suspencion of belief' can make complete logical sense and be perfectly feasible. You can reject my fiction analogy, that doesnt negate the fact that something can logically make sense and not be true. An example of something that logically makes NO sense but happened is this: Two people are sitting in a kitchen. There is a broom resting against the wall. The broom (without being touched by the 2 people) stands up virtically and moves 'by itself' across the room and then moves back. This isnt something that can be explained scientifically or philosophically, but it is something that happened. (the 2 people sitting in the kitchen were my mum and gran; my grans home was haunted and this was one of many 'phenomena' they experienced while living there). What ever the reason for this phenomena, it is not something that is currently explainable with scientific method. You seem to be confused about what free will is. Free will is the ability to make choices, to have choices rather than only one possible option, it isnt the ability to have every possible option open to you. So no, someone or something that in some way limits your options (which is happening at all times because we are all in circumstances that dictate our options) is not negating your free will, it is not taking away your free will. As long as you have options you have free will. I dont claim to know how death works, i know Islamically it is supposed to be pre-destined. This was just a theory, and yes all the people that died in Auswitch could have been pre-destined to die at the ages they did on the date they did. I dont know what i think about pre-destined death dates or how they may work, but its interesting to discuss. If you want some solidified points of view on the subject then maybe wait for someone else to chip in about it. But you havent given a reason for why the notion itself is illogical or absurd, just that its an uncomfortable thing to contemplate. 'By its very definition love is not causing suffering. Love is bringing happiness and pleasure, not pain' - No offence, but this is a very imature notion of what love is. It takes very little investigating to realise that this is not true. A child that needs to be disciplined for its own good is the most obvious and easiest example of contradiction to this. The act of disciplining the child causes the child to learn through suffering. All learning takes discipline and discipline is something we have to suffer for because we have to fight our laziness and challange painful situations/thoughts/feelings in order to learn from them and grow. Buddha's 1st nobel truth is 'life is suffering', we are made to suffer through problems and difficulties in order to learn and grow, it is a necessity infact; if everything was hunky dory nothing would have any real value because we wouldnt be able to appreciate blessings because the opposite of blessings wouldnt exist to be compared too. Again i recommend to read the first few chapters of 'A road less travelled' to expand your appreciation of what suffering is and what love is. As regards the girl: Events have all sorts of dominoe effects, you cant say 'a few people' and even if it was only a few people, why can that not be enough? the ripples of consequences of actions are not calculatable, so you cant diminish the impact of this girls death by guessing what it might be, again, we dont have that over view. We dont know what this girls purpose in life was, but the nature of her death offers a huge challange for those that come in contact with it. It is also perfectly feasible that, even if you havent clocked up many sins on earth, you can still be rewarded for suffering after you die and still give other people who are old enough to of clocked up sins the opportunity to grow through their suffering and be rewarded for that also. If a person stands by and lets suffering happen, then you can argue that they arent being the best person they can be and doing the most good possible to their capacity whilst exercising their free will. Thats a different argument than saying suffering shouldnt exist at all, for the reasons ive already given, this is a ridiculous proposition. Where do you get this idea that life should be easy and pain-free? where is the potencial for growth in that compared to the potencial for growth when we are challanged? If youre using 'pawn' with this definition: 'A person or an entity used to further the purposes of another', i would say that the only way that can apply is if the 'purpose' is Gods desire to have human beings grow and evolve individually and as humankind all together. This doesnt mean there is a lack of love for the person suffering, even if death comes quickly after, i know from personal experience that profound things can be learnt from such seemingly 'meaningless' suffering, both for the person experiencing the first hand suffering and the person witnessing, things that wouldnt have been realised and appreciated if a sudden death had occured. Everything we come into contact with is an opportunity to make that growth happen. yes is can be unbearabley hard and painful and that is life im afraid. It might 'seem' evil to you, but it isnt 'evil', its just suffering, its just life. the Deer - actually, i dont know things like that happen all the time. I suppose that animals are indeed injured because human beings have reported that animals have been found injured and i have found an animal injured. Its possible that animals are injured and no one is ever aware of it and their death doesnt have an obvious purpose. The 'suffering' in those instances cant be calculated. Perhaps when deaths of animals arents witnessed there is very little suffering, neither of us can prove or disprove that because we can only say what humans witness. If the animal is found to be tested for cause of death then an interaction has taken place with a human being and again the death can be said to of had a purpose in the sense of it gives the person an opportunity for exercising free will. As soon as the animals death is witnessed and suffering can be observed or deduced, this happens. 'if there is no good reason' - you are again assuming there is no good reason without the over view to know if there is a reason. Whether the reason is 'good enough' for you is another matter, thats something you will have to struggle with. Do we not need motivators in life? otherwise we'd all be sitting around in a zombie state which seems even more absurd. Why Vitamin C, i dont know, why not Vitamin C? arent you glad its only one vitamin we dont make? perhaps necessitating the need to obtain this one vitamin has provided enough motivation for us historically to set in motion all sorts of other things that are beneficial to us. Again your main problem seems to be the fact that this can cause suffering. Once you resolve the blocks you have regarding suffering these questions you have wont seem so black and white. Life isnt black and white, it cant be neatly wrapped up and presented to you with the words 'dont worry, heres all the answers so you never have to suffer to find them for yourself'. You keep saying you have disproved things, you are entitled to that view, but there is no point you havent made where an equally feasible counter-argument cant be made. You havent proved or disproved anything, you just keep saying 'you must agree that is absurd' or you must agree this and that, well no, i dont agree and you havent given a single sound argument why i should yet.

Exactly, Imam (ATF) is in ghaiba. Fuqha are within reach. So we ask them and their verdict becomes binding for us. Its that simple. The following hadith says it all: Shaykh Saduq quoting Muhammad Bin Esaam who in turn has quoted from Kolayni and him from Ishaq Bin Ya'qub that: "I asked His Holiness the reverend Muhammad Bin Uthman 'Amri to present my letter in which I had asked difficult questions to the Savior Twelfth Imam (ATF). Then I received the reply written by my master His Holiness the Savior Twelfth Imam (may Allah expedite his blessed advent) in which he had stated that: "But with regard to the questions that you had asked, your God has enlightened that you be steadfast to the extent that He had stated. However, concerning the problems and difficulties that come in your way, refer to the scribes of our narratives for they are my last word to you and I am the last word of God". Note that Imam (ATF) did not say refer to our hadith. He said refer to the NARRATORS of our hadith......living breathing narrators. Now who are the actual narrators of hadith from Ahly Bait (as)? Are they those who read out loud the hadith books? Nay! Actual Hadith narrators are our Marja who continue the tradition of narrating hadith person-to-person with their chains going all the way to the Holy Imams (as). Anyone with commonsense and logic can comprehend this.

Assalam alykum, how about you both win? there both great people

(salam) This thread is hilarious.

Ok I'm dropping my first official WMD, watch this SD:

I posted this thread in a sunni forum,and most of them agree with it,but on a side note one poster gave me an interesting remark. here is what he said: "Umar-worshipers need not worry about this alleged discovery of his parentage. We are all ba**ards. How do you think Adam and Hawwa's grandchildren came about? They were the result of union between Habil and Qabil with their sisters. That is according to Qasasul Anbiya by Ibn Kathir. And as a good Sunni, I never doubt anything Ibn Kathir writes." :wacko:

"O God, bless Muhammad and his Household, raise me not a single degree before the people without lowering me its like in myself and bring about no outward exaltation for me without an inward abasement in myself to the same measure!" -Dua Makarim al-Akhlaq Your willingness to go against the divine recommendation of humility and ease in showing that you do not possess the attribute mentioned by the Imam (as) reveals that there is kibr and haughtiness present within your heart. It is easy to see, then, why you say such filthy things against the 'ulema.

That's like asking "Should i force my newborn son to be circumcised?"

well when inshallah I have a girl, I would want her to wear her hijab when she's 9 because it's wajib. To me, Hijab and prayer are on the same column of wajebat, and since I won't give my kid a choice if she wants to pray.. hijab will be the same. I won't JUST force her when she turns 9 tho. I would def prepare her for it from a super young age. when I was 2, I used to see mom always wearing her abaya, and I kept crying coz I wanted one 2. of course when she got it 4 me, I played with it, and forgot abt it, but since I was a baby mom would buy me hijabs and it just happened.. I think it really depends on how the parents present the Islamic teachings to their children.. inshallah it'll go well with my kids :D

brothers, it is a month of tolerance and patience, and your speaking to each other with little respect, atleast in this month try and use what this topics about and have atleast an ounce of tolerance for each other (bismillah) and p.s kamran i hate you :)

Insha'Allah.

(bismillah) I just got finished reading a speech by a man with more political foresight in one of his eyebrow hairs than me or you has in our entire existence. I am not sure if you brothers and sisters remember, but during the early Khatami years, the Western media was heaping praise upon Khatami, and suddenly they were even reporting positive news about Iran. The Honorable Leader of the Revolution, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and wali-ul amr of Muslims, Seyyed Ali Khamenei (HA), gave a speech around the middle of Khatami's first presidential term. This speech was both a warning to Khatami (and other reformist statesmen), as well as a warning to the Iranian people. It was a call for increased vigilance in the coming propaganda war. In it, the leader addresses the issue of reform, mentioning that while reform is necessary for the strength of the system, "reformist leaders" must be careful that they do not become pawns for Western political aims. In addressing this issue, he uses the example of Mikhail Gorbachev. Eleven years ago this speech was made, friends. Notice how many people today could use this advice! An abridged English text of this speech is available on the leader's official website under the title "Reforms: Challenges, Strategies" for those of you who want to read it. For those of you who are too lazy, here are some bullet points that summarize the speech: - Leader raises question of why Western propaganda has given special attention to the issue of reform in Iran. He narrates a short history of Western crimes against the Iranian people, adding that the politically conscious individual should question Western motivations for supporting "reform" in Iran. - Leader says that the US is carrying out comprehensive plan to subvert IRI like it did to the USSR, but that these plans would fail due to their inadequate knowledge about the reality in Iran and the differences between Iran and the Soviet Union. - Leader says that the internal factors leading to Soviet collapse -- some political, some ethnic/national, some economic -- were exploited by its enemies through a cultural onslaught involving news media, noting that the West used absolutely no military means to achieve this goal (of overthrowing the USSR). - Leader mentions how American media heaped praise upon Gorbachev, when before him they were reluctant to mention anything positive about USSR. He says that Gorbachev was deceived by this praise and it put him under further Western influence. - Leader mentions how McDonald's coming to the Soviet Union was treated as a big news story in CNN, showing that the ultimate aim of uprooting Communism was never a human aim but rather a plan to export Western culture. - Leader notes that Gorbachev’s proposed reforms could have been implemented easily in the course of 20 years, as had been done successfully in China. In spite of this, the West propped up Boris Yeltsin, who criticized Gorbachev for moving too slowly and wanted an acceleration of reforms. - Leader mentions how, after using Gorbachev as their pawn, the US then props up Yeltsin at Gorbachev's expense: Yeltsin used the military coup against Gorbachev to his full advantage, although ostensibly he opposed it. After Gorbachev was reinstated as General-Secretary, he would play second fiddle to Yeltsin: when the Ukrainian SSR expressed the desire to gain independence from the Union, Gorbachev opposed. Days later when Yeltsin supported Ukrainian independence, Gorbachev made sajdah to him and supported it as well. - Leader then highlights the differences between the two countries. He rejected outright the Western overtures of Khatami being a "Iranian Gorbachev." He notes that Khatami believes in the ideals of the Islamic Revolution (** leader may have been doing taqiyya **), whereas Gorbachev believed neither in Marxism nor in the Soviet system. - Leader notes that Imam Khomeini was the spiritual leader of the Iranian before he had any political power, and that the Soviet Union's lack of such a leader allowed the extremist Yeltsin to gain power. - Leader explains that reforms are essential to preserve revolutionary and religious nature of the system, but states that they must be clearly defined, and must not undermine Islamic, revolutionary, and national principles espoused in the constitution. What other world leader has such detailed knowledge of another country's historical events? What other world leader has the strategic thinking necessary to give such an academic analysis of these events? What other world leader has the political foresight to use past events to correctly identify a hostile plot, before it happens? I want all of you brothers and sisters to take a very close look at this man and tell me if he is just another politician, and as if we should treat him as we treat Sarkozy or Gordon Brown. Ya Ali

Brother Ali, Walekum as Salam and Maula Ali (as) Madad, Guidance comes from Allah. Maybe someday you will see the light. In the mean time keep doing good and keep away from sins. Wishing you all the best. WS