Leaderboard

Also, the modern day Zaydis in Yemen, at least since the days of Hussain Badr al-Din Houthi, have been moving theologically closer to the Twelvers by somewhat reviving the old and extinct Jarudi manhaj, as opposed to the more prevalent B(EDITED)i line (sorry I have to censor this, it's a theological and historical term, but the ShiaChat admins have somehow decided that it is offensive and in the list of banned words). Which is why (rather surprisingly) some neo-Zaydi polemicists hate the Houthis and accuse them of corrupting their traditional B(EDITED)i aqeedah for political expediency (allying more closely with Iran and the Twelvers).

Except that the wali al-faqih need not be an Alawi-Fatimi, which is a necessary condition for the Zaydi imamate. Anyone who is a mujtahid and qualified for the job can be the wali faqih.

@Eddie Mecca I'll post a detailed criticism of this answer inshallah.

Wa Aleikum Salaam, Qur'an have already demonstrated prophetood with certainty and rejecting the Prophet means it takes you out of Islam. But as for Imamah, this is different because you can not gain same certainty trough Qur'an without using hadiths. There is no such a thing as follow 12 Imams and Imam Ali (عليه السلام) will be the next Imam after our Prophet (saws) etc in Qur'an. Principle of Imamhood and authority does exist in Qur'an but it is not clear at all how it should be used after the Prophet as long the Prophet demonstrate it before his demise. So it is here why we do consider Sunnis as Muslim because rejecting the Imams that takes the person out from Islam need to happen with certainty by founding all the evidences in Qur'an and Hadiths that Imamah of Ali (عليه السلام) is valid, 12 imams from progeny of Prophet is valid etc. This only happens when someone just have hatred toward Shias/Shia Islam or he love to live as with their sectarian life, while knowingly knows it is valid and truth. The reason why majority of Sunnis are Muslims is because they never seek to find these truths out or that they have not yet found the truth while seeking it or because of out of emotions and ignorance they reject it without certainty. The biggest fault while trying to find proof for Imamah is falling to the traps of Invidual narrations and pointless criticism of small outside details that have been demonstrated 400 years after the events. Imamah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) can be found when you add the Qur'an verses plus all the necessary narrations together: You are to me as Aaron to Musa but without prophetood + Ghadir + Hadith Thaqalayn etc and you will reach to conclusion.

No, it has nothing to do with not entering Higher Heaven. Rather the damage is about that it takes time of sincere repentance and reforming for the soul to get back at the state of not wanting to do a sin anymore. Sometime we do not do a particular sin for month or year and then suddenly we do it, this is because the damage from previous time have not yet removed. This is why Tawbah an-Nasooha is the only way to solve these matters. https://www.al-islam.org/philosophy-islamic-laws-naser-makarem-shirazi-jafar-subhani/question-49-what-meant-tawbah-nasooha

The whole thread is worth reading

As someone with a Sunni background I can tell you that most Sunni laymen have never heard a single sentence about the reason 'Uthman had opposition to his rule in the later years or who opposed him or what lead to his killing. Just imagine that our Mashayikh will not give you any information about this subject. In fact I get the feeling that even most Sunni students of knowledge have never read any early Islamic book regarding history like let's say Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad. They rely on secondary information, where everything "controversial" is already not present anymore. The idea that ond should not mention that which happened between the Sahaba in front of the laymen, resulted in absolute ignorance regarding history even among non-laymen. Most Sunnis have even no idea regarding recent history, let alone regarding early one. That is how it's for example easy for the Wahhabiyya to spread their beliefs among Sunnis, despite the fact that the Wahhabiyya started first slaughtering Sunnis before anyone else.

I didn't want to say anything about these people. It was something else. As far as the answer to this is concerned, the Sunnis agree among themselves about upholding the 3 caliphs, but the status of the early Umayyads was disputed within proto-Sunnis themselves. From the proto-Sunni figures like A'isha herself and the Zubayrids (who had no love lost for Ali (عليه السلام) or the Shi'a), a section of Medinan tabi'in led by Abdullah ibn Handhala ibn Abi Amir (again,not Shiites), the early Hanafis of Iraq (including Abu Hanifa himself), and some proto-Sunni scholars of the Abbasid period like al-Nasa'i, all of them had a deep-seated hatred for the Umayyads, especially the house of Abu Sufyan (la). These figures, unlike the 3 khulafa or A'isha herself who are venerable by Sunni consensus, are controversial characters in early Sunnism itself. This is why our scholars place them in a different category and do not include them among the 'holy personalities' of the other sect, because the Sunnis themselves disagree about these figures being 'holy'.

Salam Call On Me I Answer You: Supplications, Prayers & Ziarats ISBN: 9789644380501 Categories: Mafatih, Supplications and Prayers $27.00 +321 123 4567 +321 123 4568 Toronto, Canada Description https://www.hamim.ca/product/call-on-me-i-answer-you-supplications-prayers-ziarats/ https://www.hamim.ca/contact/ SUPPLICATIONS, PRAYERS AND ZIARATS; CALL ON ME, I ANSWER YOU H/C SKU: KB 78615 $45.00 Regular Price $35.00Sale Price https://www.khatoons.com/product-page/supplications-prayers-and-ziarats-call-on-me-i-answer-you https://almurtaza.co.uk/product/call-on-me-i-answer-you-supplications-prayers-ziarats/ https://www.amazon.com/Call-Me-Answer-You-Supplications/dp/B003FZ6ULA

The following links may be seen for details in this concern: 'Ali al-Akbar (a) - wikishia Ali Akbar ibn Hussain ((عليه السلام))

There is nothing really to expand bro. Simply a faqih in the house of Ahlebait (عليه السلام) cannot go against teachings of Ahlebait and if he does, he is not a faqih anymore. Similarly, wilayat of a faqih is related to his role of being a faqih, he retains such position until he remains a faqih and not otherwise. If he is no more a faqih, the role of wilayat cannot be attached to him because it is related to the one who is in harmony with the teachings of Quran and Ahlebait (عليه السلام).

People often ignore that back in the day people went from children to adult in 1 day, they didn't have this concept of teenage years. You can still see this with tribes today, where when they put a glove full of bullet ants, they turn from boys to men in 1 second. In islam it's when you "titkhalaf", for boys usually at 13 and girls usually at 9. This wasn't exclusive to islam too, so many religions beleived this, even the Greeks 2000 years ago. When they saw hair grow on boys body, they sent them to the army to fight and die in some battle and the girls they went on to do house chores. That's how it was back then, this has 0 to do with pedophilia and it's only ignorant fools who say it is. Back then the world was far harsher.

I think there's a difference of opinion regarding this matter. People relying on hadiths consider it 6 or 9, historians consider it to be 16+ Soo far i've just seen one shia hadith, that too wasn't narrated from any imams (عليه السلام) rather Ismail bin Jafer and hadith doesn't make sense either Aside from this, we've plenty of hadiths suggesting minimum age for girl's marriage at that time was 9 or 10 (refer to wasail us shia). it's mutawatir i:e there are just too many traditions to deny this in my opinion there's no wrong or right here, right age for marriage for both men and women has changed with respect to the time and society they live in recently world has shifted to more of knowledge and skilled based jobs that are high paying instead of labour and it takes time to go through education institutes to finally be at a stage where you can start earning so early marriage doesn't seem like a good idea at all and hadiths also suggest fasting for those who can't afford to marry or maintain their own families. besides these kinds of jobs are also better for women as intense labour etc isn't really something they could've done back then hence we see women studying, working etc thus not marrying early on.

This is so wrong and misinformed that I don't even know how and where to begin fixing it. It needs a whole thread in its own right to unpack and rectify the blunders. It looks like some 20 year-old college goer watched a botched You Tube video on the early history of Islam, or copy-pasted from some lazy senior's assignment, and wrote an essay. Sorry to be this blunt but I am really annoyed when people write such bunkum with such gall and confidence when they are hardly conversant with what they are talking about and play with people's confidence. I'm not blaming you, I'm merely angry at the guy who wrote the original answer.

Brilliant 5 year old post by a certain brother on Quora...brother Abbas Nafoosh...I think this deserves sharing and I echo his sentiments... Abbas Nafoosh engineer with constructive logical expertise in Religion Was Ali ibn Abu Talib practicing the same Islam as Abu Bakr and the rest of Sahabah? If yes, then how did Shias deviate from Sunni Islam? "They definitely did not practice the same Islam, and they had significant difference of opinion. But that’s fine. And nobody expects two people to behave exactly alike. For example, Abu Bakr and Uthman were generous in giving their relatives and tribesmen positions of wealth and power, while Umar and Ali strictly frowned upon doing so. That does not immediately mean that Umar and Ali make a sect that is opposed to that of Abu Bakr and Uthman, although at the time, their style of leadership did, and resulted in a lot of opposition. The differences between Shia and Sunni Islam were revealed politically yet were fundamentally ideological. This is a very very important thing to note. The revelation of the differences is not necessarily the same as formation of the sect, it simply resulted in masses getting behind the flag of each sect. For example, up to the time of Hussain ibn Ali, being Shia was frowned upon, but not strictly persecuted. Once Hussain was killed by Yazid ibn Muawiyah, a surge of Shia sectarianism took over the Arab world, but was crushed down by significant persecution. This continued way past the time of Al-Sadiq, until the time of Al-Ridha and al-Ma’mun, whom moved his capital from Baghdad to Khurasan, were people were significantly Shia and allowed to be so without persecution. And since that time, Shia became the majority in the majority of Iran and Khurasan areas, with the rise of the Buyid and Samanid dynasties after the decline of Abbasids. However, this is “the first major political rise of Shia”, which is also different from “the rise of the political Shia”, which was much later at the Safavid dynasty. Many people mistakenly take the former or the latter to mean the beginning of Shia Islam, and thus believe there was only a sect centuries after the Rashidun time. However, as pointed earlier, that is not correct. Even at the time of Ali, there were plenty of people who identified as Shia. And even at the time of the prophet, there were plenty who identified as Shia. By plenty, I mean 20–100 people, and not 100 million like it is today, however, these were still significant and influential companions of the prophet, and were about to have an armed uprising spearheaded by Ali himself to take the caliphate back from Abu Bakr, whom had taken it unjustly according to their viewpoint (however this uprising was quickly crushed down, and Ali was basically under house arrest for a while). Now the fundamental differences are also not about Ali being a relative of the prophet, but are ideological. Shia believe in intrinsic ethics, in reason being the arbiter, and in absolute immaculacy of the prophet, while Sunni believe in immaculacy only in delivering the message of God. That’s where the sects are formed, right at the beginning of the Islam, with different takes on the prophet. Since Shia believe every action of the prophet is a sign of God, they take the events of Ghadir Khumm strictly as the prophet appointing Ali as his successor, and as a direct order from God, while Sunni see it as a political opinion of the prophet which does not need to be strictly enforced. And that’s where the schism starts, fundamentally ideological, with political implications appearing later on. With all that being said, I see many Muslims attempting to force unify the Ummah in their image by eradicating any differences and attributing the differences to later in time, and thus not Islamic. This is not the correct approach, my brothers and sisters. Unity does not mean suffocation of different opinions and eradicating them. Unity means embracing this diversity of opinion and focusing on common ground, rather than on differences. Muslims have 95% common ground with Christians, and Shia have 99% common ground with Sunnis. Yet that tiny differences has been used by evil men throughout history to drive these groups to fight each other and see each other as the enemy, rather than as a unified body of humans. Unity of Ummah is only achievable by openly, yet critically and scholarly talking and discussing this topics, and not by fanfares and fanfights on Internet forums and in the streets. Identifying the differences, the reasoning and historic realities behind them, accepting which areas can be false and need to be mended and which areas are absolute, and then coming to peace with this reality and living with it, is the path to unity. Conformity is not unity, and that’s not God wants of any human being. Unity is a means to human salvation, not an ends to it. Sacrificing human salvation and truth for unity is just wrong."

And ? ofcourse khadija was a much better lady The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) cannot marry someone for just looks ? preference over other women ( IF this Sunni Hadith is correct ) maybe just based on looks God knows best

And uthmans is first Umayyad ruler

Yeah so have millions of non sectarian Muslims is just a claim like a said earlier non religious ones maybe , religious ones of any sect only care for well being of their own unless ofcourse they unite with other sects to fight a third ideology foreign or local. surely against Israeli aggression many will unite in the short term but that’s not lasting unity it’s just an alliance of convenience That being said most people of any ideology are peaceful and want to just take of their own private affairs, does not mean they are non sectarian

Salam alaykum, whilst a discussion was taking place on sin between a Christian and a Muslim here, someone said something that I found deserved a discussion. The statement was on the effects of sin on the soul: "Something not mentioned oftentimes in these discussions is yes, Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) forgives our sins, but there is still a type of "damage" that occurs to the soul that doesn't disappear with only forgiveness. Thats why is SOOOO important to not sin in the first place. " What is this damage being talked about? If anyone could shed some lights it would be very appreciated. Is it your soul being damaged and even if you're purified and forgiven you won't enter the higher levels of heaven? Is this what this is about? I obviously won't be able to engage much as I will be busy in the comming weeks/months, so I might come later on to join in the discussion, but I still thought it would be intresting to have this discussion as it might rase awareness for people to not sin as much as they used to.

There is an additional issue here: They also implemented Shura and that's why they have a parliament. Now before the Sunnis claim this for themselves due to the Shaykhayn also taking consultation into consideration: You're the people who made obedience obligatory even to unjust oppressive criminals! So don't claim anything for yourself! If any thing the Mu'tazila could take credit for this, because they stressed justice in governance and not you. (I obviously don't know how good or bad this is implemented in Iran as I have not lived there and I don't want to believe Western propaganda or the propaganda by worthless Khalijis with their Bani-Umayya-style-governments.)

Nothing about what I said was emotional, you just can't accept that your arguments are ridicilous. Good to know. That's your problem, your misguided view of "reality" is what makes you sectarian. I never claimed sectarianism never happened before european colonizers came(no idea why you even put it in quotations, they colonised and caused more issues with ideologies like zionism). That doesn't negate my point about millions of non sectarian sunnis and shias existing. You keep not understanding my point or just ignoring it, which is why I won't waste anymore time with you as this is a huge waste of my time. Same to you too.

This is because they (12ers) are taught about history, but not in a true and accurate manner, but rather in a manner that results in hating close to all companions (meaning the exact opposite of Sunnis, which is not better) including even the Muhajirin and Ansar, who were honest followers of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam). They are for example not told that the majority of the people, who participated in Badr or who pledged the allegiance of Ridwan, later on sided with Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) against Mu'awiya. They are also not told that most Muhajirin / Ansar and their children did not accept Yazid - especially after the martyrdom of Imam Hussayn (peace be upon him) - and that many of them got martyred likewise. Another issue, which many people don't realize is the following: Those who planned towards the killing of 'Uthman were the likes of Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan, Marwan bin al-Hakam and 'Amr bin al-'As. As for Mu'awiya: One of his men - Ruman al-Asbahi - was directly involved in killing 'Uthman and despite this he remained without problems (rather the opposite!) until the time of 'Abd al-Malik bin Marwan. And another one of his men - Abul A'war al-Sulami - wrote the famous fake letter to Egypt in the name of 'Uthman. As for 'Amr bin al-'As - a major supporter of Mu'awiya - then he was stirring up the people of Egypt against 'Uthman! As for Marwan bin al-Hakam, then one could right whole books about his evil tactics and his deviousness. He caused the killing of a Badri companion through a servant of his, which then led to a complete escalation of the situation and attack on 'Uthman himself and his killing.

That’s why ibn saba was unfairly blamed for all evils to absolve the majority of any crime

Yes, hence why he can't become a contradiction by limiting himself into a human. I went into more detail in my response to your initial statement above in case you missed it. No, because it would contradict his justice. If he put say hitler in hell just after creating him, that would be unjust. This is heavily emphasized in islam too, that you had your entire life to do what's right, so evil people can't complain once they get to hell, their actions are recorded and will be played to them on judgment day atom by atom, second by second, they will see everything they did. You will see your entire life being played as a movie and will be questioned about everything. With due respect my friend, most Christians also beleive this world is a test. Suffering comes from a lot of things, our sins, the sins of others or natural calamities that might have nothing to do with sin. Suffering is necessary to build your soul, character, etc... this is a lesson you learn in life over and over again, the suffering you endure will most likley make you stronger and more resilient, you need to work hard/smart to get gains in life. Suffering being used to test us, happens irregardless of sin, good people get tested the hardest as a matter of fact. The prophets(عليه السلام) or immams(عليه السلام) were sinless(0 sin) yet were tried the hardest out of all humanity. It's usually evil people that have comfortable lives. Ultimatley if you tried your best, you will end up in heaven, this is a promise from Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), a guarentee. If you are sinciere and try your best you're not going to end up in hell or atleast try even a little bit, you potentially won't be in hell or eternally in hell. All this suffering is insignificant when you go to heaven. Unless by "sin" you mean the "sin" of Adam(عليه السلام) and eve and the "state" of the world? In that case we heavily disagree, as we shia muslims don't see Adam(عليه السلام) eating the fruit as a sin, but rather a slip, a small insignificant mistake, like slipping on a banana peel, that accelerated Adam(عليه السلام) inevtiable descent to earth so he can be tried and grow as a human being on this green earth. Adam(عليه السلام) being on earth is not him being in a "state of sin" or as a result of some "sin". Adam(عليه السلام) like every human being in existence is naturally going have a tendency to sin, irregardless of what happened in the garden. Unless you meant something else, then please elaborate. I gave answers here based on what others Christians have said. There is a plan in islam, you explained what christians beleive will happen. We Muslims also have an explanation to what will happen or what happened, it's found all over the quran and the multitudes of ahadiths. I urge you to ask learned people here so they can go to great details on this subject of Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) plan, when it comes to many things, including sins we all commit. Sin is in the world for many reasons, if I decided to wrong Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) by wasting my time for example, that is a sin. Now Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) forgives my sin if I repent and try my best to not repeat that sin. When Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) forgives your sin, no more debt. Another example is if I miss a prayer, I will need to make up that missed prayer, repent, try my best not to repeat that action and then I'm forgiven. Simple concept in islam. That's your choice my friend, I would suggest to use your fitra(human wisdom) to understand that this goes against basic human intuition and you should probably look into the problems that come with such a doctrine and maybe find out that Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) never said such a thing. A lot of humans died by submitting their will to Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). He's probably calling it weak due to the problem I mentionned multiple times such as God limiting himself as a contradiction.

Wilāyat al-Faqīh system has aligned Twelverism with Zaydi conception of Imamate to a great extent...Allah seems to be bringing the two schools of thought into arrangement with one another for a divine purpose

Nevermind he left me yesterday... Over a stupid excuse about his dad not agreeing. All that was fake promises and false hope. My heart feels broken into a million pieces. Ya Allah give me sabr. I'm blocked everywhere and he didn't answer any of my questions. I told him to call my dad saying he no longer wants to marry me and it's not me refusing... I'll just look bad in everyone's eyes now. I need advice. I am the one to blame my dad was completely right the first time. Everyone knew about us, that's the problem. All the sheikhs here and the known ppl... It's a big problem.

Allahumma salli ala muhammadiw wa ali muhammadin wa ajjil faraja hum Rabbinee lima anzalta ilayya min khayrin faqir Audhu billahi minash shaytanir rajeem دع كل الشتائم ضدي تُعاد سبعة أضعاف. Astaghfirillah Ya Allah, protect my sister from further harm and abuse Ya as-Sadiq, pray on my behalf, to Al-Haqq that my friend is guided to Islam and healed of her headaches. Verily with hardship comes ease. (إِنَّ مَعَ الْعُسْرِ يُسْرًا - 94:6) Ya Kadhim, pray to As-Sabur on my behalf that me and my brother in Islam are rewarded with a wife each and also that he can find the strength and to overcome his sadness. Verily with hardship comes ease. (إِنَّ مَعَ الْعُسْرِ يُسْرًا - 94:6) Ya Ridha, pray to Al-Wadud on my behalf that she gets peace of mind, verily with hardship comes ease. (إِنَّ مَعَ الْعُسْرِ يُسْرًا - 94:6) Ya Taqi, pray to Al Hakim on my behalf that my burden is lessened and I get the strength to take this deen and the sanctity of my life seriously. Verily with hardship comes ease. (إِنَّ مَعَ الْعُسْرِ يُسْرًا - 94:6) I ask nothing more than for our happiness and well-being

اللّهُمّ صَلّ عَلَى مُحَمّدٍ وَآلِ مُحَمّدٍ Allahumma salli `ala muhammadin wa ali muhammadin

This strategy has been used in Vietnam, Iraq and Palestine for decades.... it doesn't work. Also Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has provided all humans with basic ethics and morals , like killing of children and women is an anathema to even evil soldiers like the Israeli...if you talk to the Veterans of the above conflicts that killed innocents ...this results in PTSD, Suicidal and Homocidal tendencies which they then try to drown out with alcohol and drugs. Islamic war ethics avoids this issue, since we are judged on our niyyat , we don't intend to kill innocents and even try to avoid it, so our conscience remains clear. We must not abandon our ethics for expediency...that is what shaytan wants ...so you drop to the level of asfila safeyleen. Karbala is our guide, even in the worst of odds and against the most cruel of enemies, the Hussainya forces never wavered in ethical and honorable combat.

Salam The lesson out. the highest level courses seminary is. traditionally this period, initiates after a two-periods of basic & Sat'h (level) . The Kharij lesson is Focus point of , providing the latest scientific achievements of Masters, and also an opportunity to learn methods of Ijtihad and kneaded in it. I can be thus defined: "the presentation of argumentative lessons, etc. without relying on a particular text." In this classroom, master discusses about different opinions about a topic ,so recounts and criticises evidences of it, and, in the end, considers his offers.[۱] The purpose of the Kharij lesson Some students of religious sciences finish their studies after completing the level stage, but those who seek to acquire a higher level of knowledge and reach the level of ijtihad, enter the Kharij stage.[4] New topics in the Kharij lessons In recent years, due to new and emerging issues, some professors proposed discussions in the Kharij lessons that had no history before, or if they have been discussed, they have been briefly discussed in other chapters. As an example, the jurisprudence of (Ghana) music, the jurisprudence of sculpture, the jurisprudence of governance and Wilayat Faqih, the jurisprudence of virtual space, the governance of virtual space, etc. have been formed. https://fa.wikishia.net/view/درس_خارج About things like economics martyr Muhammad Baqir sadr has talked briefly about it in his book "Iqtisaduna"(our economics) which unfortunately after his martyrdom his work about economics has remained unfinished which inshaAllah his work about economics will be revived by new generation of Shia scholars likewise you inshAllah. . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqtisaduna Iqtisaduna, Our Economics, Volume 1, Part 1 Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr https://www.al-islam.org/iqtisaduna-our-economics-volume-1-part-1-sayyid-muhammad-baqir-al-sadr https://www.al-islam.org/iqtisaduna-our-economics-volume-1-part-2-sayyid-muhammad-baqir-al-sadr https://www.al-islam.org/iqtisaduna-our-economics-volume-2-part-1-sayyid-muhammad-baqir-al-sadr https://www.al-islam.org/iqtisaduna-our-economics-volume-2-part-2-sayyid-muhammad-baqir-al-sadr https://islamic-laws.com/iqtisaduna.htm Towards An Islamic Economy Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr https://www.al-islam.org/towards-islamic-economy-sayyid-muhammad-baqir-al-sadr https://www.al-islam.org/tribute-sadr-martyrs/brief-biography-sayyid-muhammad-baqir-al-sadr https://ijtihadnet.com/ayatollah-muhammad-baqir-sadr-sign-jihad-ijtihad/ https://www.islamicinsights.com/religion/history/sayyid-muhammad-baqir-al-sadr.html Economic Thought of Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr: A Study of Iqtisaduna (Our Economics) Dissertation Submitted to the University of Kashmir https://www.isfin.net/sites/isfin.com/files/economic_thought_of_muhammad_baqir_al-sadr-_a_study_of_iqtisaduna_our_economics.pdf https://www.academia.edu/8120514/Muhammad_Baqir_As_Sadr_Iqtisaduna_Our_Economics_Volume_01_I https://fivebooks.com/book/iqtisaduna-by-muhammad-baqir-sadr/ https://themuslimvibe.com/faith-islam/beyond-capitalism-and-socialism-muhammad-baqir-al-sadrs-quest-for-an-islamic-economic-system

Salam it's highly recommend that at least one of children in house have name of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) which naming child girl as "Fatimah" has highly all of infallible Imams . also you can name her "Zahra" or "Batool"(separated from world and joined to Allah ) or "Tahira" or common titles of both lady Maryam & Lady Fatima Uzra"(virgin ) as title of lady Fatima Sadiqeh (feminine of Sadiq : friend) or "Masoumah" (chaste & innocent woman) (It's name of my mother too ) فهرست کامل اسم دختر مذهبی همراه با ریشه و معنی complete list of religious girl name with root & meaning https://setare.com/fa/news/18644/فهرست-کامل-اسم-دختر-مذهبی-همراه-با-ریشه-و-معنی/ Hebrew girl name https://abadis.ir/name/girl/hebrew/

@ireallywannaknow I came up with one more- Hawra ('hoorie-like' or 'the one from heaven'). It's one of the names of Fatimah (sa).

Salam yeah education is free in hozah ilmia qom although you must consider some points which you can see it in Howza Life | English https://islamicpulse.tv/video_category/howza-life/ preliminaries this course in the new curriculum of the field last six years. [4] The main goal of this course is to teach Arabic literature (syntax, meaning and expression, etc.) The language of the Qur'an" as well as a preliminary introduction to jurisprudence and the principles of jurisprudence. Sat'h This stage includes 7th to 10th grades. level in the new educational system of the field Level courses in the new educational system of the field last for four years. During these four years, Sheikh Ansari's book of jurisprudence is taught. In the first two years, Sheikh Ansari's "Fara'id al-usul" and in the last two years, Akhund Khorasani's book "Kifayat al-usul" on the principles of jurisprudence is presenting to the students. The following goals are pursued in this course: Kharij Main article: Kharij lesson Some students of religious sciences finish their studies after completing the Sat'h stage, but those who seek to acquire a higher level of knowledge and achieve the status of ijtihad, enter the Kharij stage.[10] Since reaching the power of ijtihad depends on the talent and personal effort of people, therefore the time of this course is different for people. Specialized courses Minor or general courses https://fa.wikishia.net/view/نظام_درسی_حوزه_علمیه https://en.wikishia.net/view/Fara'id_al-usul_(book) https://en.wikishia.net/view/Kifayat_al-usul_(book) A Day in the Life of a Hawza Student | Mini Documentary

Salam Alaykum Salatul Layl The time for Salatul Layl begins after midnight until the time for Fajr (morning) prayers. The best time for it is as close to the Fajr prayer as possible. When there is not enough time, it is recommended to at least recite the last three raka’ats, or even just the last rak’ah of Salatul Witr. Salatul Layl consists of a total of 11 raka’ats, divided into the following prayers: 1. Nafilah of Layl: 8 raka’ats (4 x 2 raka’ats) 2. Salât al-Shaf’a: 2 raka’ats 3. Salat al-Witr: 1 raka’at https://www.al-islam.org/salatul-layl-tahera-kassamali-hasnain-kassamali/salatul-layl https://www.al-islam.org/salat-al-layl-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/method-reciting-salat-al-layl https://www.duas.org/tahajjud.htm

Being questioned for about every single LITTLE thing!

Salamun 'alaykum, this is one of the topics were most Sunnis and Shi'a today can only think in a "black or white"-manner and as such are unable to accept any criticism of their views in one direction or the other. Instead of thinking of the Shaykhayn as two angels (as most Sunnis today do) or as two evil persons (as most Shi'a today do), there is also the option to look at them from a more balanced perspective: They were two Muslim rulers, who tried to be just - that's why the majority of the Muhajirin and Ansar did not oppose their rule - but had also mistakes. The view of them being similar to angels and the view of them being evil are both based upon narrations. These narrations - especially concerning this subject - were heavily influenced by politics and as such far away from being reliable unlike what the two opposing sides claim. We know that Allah ta'ala has praised the Sabiqun al-Awwalun from among the Muhajirin and the Ansar and we also know that the majority of them did not oppose the rule of the Shaykhayn. We also know - unlike what some Shi'a today claim - that they did care for justice and would for example never accepted that anyone hits Fatima (peace be upon her) as is claimed in some narrations. (There are different versions, some are nearer to the truth, while other contain clear exaggerations, which are insulting towards all Muslims of that time in reality.) How does it come that the same Muhajirin and Ansar were not pleased when 'Uthman bin 'Affan started to put his relatives in positions of power? How does it come that the majority of the Muslims that participated in the Battle of Badr and those who pledged allegiance to the Best of Creation (peace and blessings be upon him) under the tree sided with the Prince of the Believers (peace be upon him) against Mu'awiya and his ilk. How does it come that the same Muhajirin / Ansar and their children stood against Yazid after the martyrdom of Imam al-Hussayn (peace be upon him) and were likewise martyred as a result. Then: Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) was in the Majlis al-Shura of 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, who would usually take the position of Imam 'Ali, if he would have a recommendation regarding an issue. Not just that: Major companions that were close to Imam 'Ali, were in positions of power under 'Umar. What people do not take into consideration is that some positions became issues of creed later on, but were not understood as such by earlier Muslims. Take the event of Ghadir: Yes, it's not possible to get out of this event without acknowledging a special status and religious leadership to Imam 'Ali bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him) upon all believers and without understanding that Imam 'Ali is with the truth and those opposing him are upon falsehood, but it does not necessitate political leadership. Especially when Imam 'Ali did not declare himself as such (which he could have done from the very beginning on) and only drew the sword when it came to Mu'awiya and his likes and not before. Even if political leadership is meant, then it's still possible that the Shaykhayn knew that the Bani Umayya would not accept such a leadership and would cause problems and tried to find another solution. Think about it: 'Umar put those close to Imam 'Ali in positions of power and would have even preferred him as the Khalifa after his rule. What is ironic here is that the above mentioned way of thinking is closer to that of the companions, who supported Imam 'Ali (meaning the very first real Shi'a), which is why they had no problems to be under the Shaykhayn (even in positions of power!), but clearly had a problem with Mu'awiya. I personally believe that the Zaydiyya (majority of Shi'a were Zaydiyya or close to them in the past) and someone like Shakyh Ahmad al-Waeli from among the Twelvers had a more balanced view than many Sunnis and Shi'a today.

Second major difference is that wilayat al faqih is valid until it is in harmony with Quran and with the hadith of Masoomeen. But Zaydism has no such law.

Regarding the Mu'tazila: They were quite close to the Zaydiyya in most issues and many early Ahnaf were Mu'tazila. This could also explain the good relationship between Abu Hanifa and Imam Zaid. What's interesting here to know are several things: Imam Abu Hanifa differed with the so called Ahl al-Hadith in his methodology and was therefore heavily attacked by them. The reason behind this is that the Ahl al-Hadith heavily relied on Ahadith - many of whom were not authentic in reality - while Abu Hanifa relied on the Quran and the deduction that follows from it. That's why they made up the claim that he was "weak in Hadith"! In addition to that his creed was similar to what would later become known as the creed of the Mu'tazila. The attacks of the Ahl al-Hadith also attest to that. Unfortunately his later followers did move towards the Ahl al-Hadith in Fiqh. In creed they also moved away in a number of important issues, while they still remained much more intelligent (especially regarding divine attributes) than let's say many of the mindless Hanabila. (If it were not for the Ash'aris, the Hanabila would have authenticated all anthropormphic narrations that crept in from the Ahl al-Kitab into our Turath and were unjustly declared as Prophetic narrations!) What is also interesting to know is that the Mu'tazila were much harsher when it came to accepting Ahadith than let's say Asha'ira. (I won't mention Hanabila, because they were mostly mindless regarding the subject of Hadith, which is funny because they regarded themselves as Ahl al-Hadith).

Good point. The rule of 'Uthman basically refutes both sides. As for the refutation of the Sunni stance: When 'Uthman started to install his relatives into power, it caused the majority of Muhajirin and Ansar to be opposed to his rule and even prefer him not to be the Khalifa anymore. This shows that the Muhajirin and Ansar only believed in obedience towards a just leader, which destroys the famous Sunni "a Qurayshi leader no matter if just or not"-stance. As for the refutation of the Shi'a stance: When 'Uthman was still ruling in the manner of the Shaykhayn, there was no opposition. Why? Because then his rule was still just, which basically means that the Shaykhayn were just otherwise the Muhajirin and Ansar would have opposed them in the same manner it happened later on to 'Uthman, when his style of ruling changed. The above also explains why Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) differentiated between the Shaykhayn on one side and the Bani Umayya on the other.

Asa brother I understand that is the 12er official stance but then logically Sunnis should be in the same category as disbelievers as they refuse to accept a divinely appointed leader i can’t understand why then they are treated differently from others who refuse to believe in Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as divinely appointed

As for Shia "solution" there is infallible Imam as Imam Mahdi (aj) so all conditions of following just infallible progeny as members of Ahl al-Bayt has been always continued since demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu) until now which deputies of Imam Mahdi (aj) as Marjas & Wilaya faqih fullfil all conditions of Zaydis & Mu'tazila which Mu'tazila solution is just a pardoxical solution by Sunnis who rejected infallible leader but on the other hand have tried to find a just muslim leader in similar fashion of Shia infallible Imam which Mu'tazila solution has been failed since initiating until perishing which reviving it doesn't change anything because still it has no proper solution while after OCT 7 many Sunnis have initiated leaning toward Shia solution because it has been proven it's only proper solution .

Salam all arab speakers are calling him Salaman "al-Farsi" which only some radical sunnis likewise Wahabis have tried to change his name into so called "al-Farisi" which has no basis even in sunni texts which they have just do it to manipulate people that he has not been Iranian because of their hate toward Iranians whether Shia or Sunni . Then: your defeating battle for justification of three sunni Shaykhayn is really laughable ; because their void actions after usurping right of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) & opposing orders of prophet Muahhamd (pbu) & creation of innovations & distortion of Islam by them have made them unjust rulers although of sunni saga about their fake justice which even people likewise Genghis Khan & Alexander & Hitler & other ruthless conquerors tried to be just rulers. Then : The pan Arab issue is real historical matter which second Shaykhayn Umar has been clearly a pan arab anti Iranian which new converts from Iranians have not an equal place in similar fashion of Arab muslims during era of all three Shaykhayn which it's a historical fact which even mentioned in so called Sunni Sahih books which only at era of rulership of Amir Al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) Iranians have gained some rights by efforts of Amir Al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) ; which later cursed Umayyads have returned to pan Arab anti Iranian policy of three Shaykhain ; which even during Abbasids Iranians whether Sunni or shia have suffered from pan arab policy of Abbasids although they owed their rulership to Iranians . And bt the way : Three sunni shaykahyn have been conquerors likewise Genghis Khan & Alexander & Hitler & other ruthless conquerors who used Islam just for justifications of conquering new lands likewise Iran & Iraq which nobody owes his Islam to them which cooperation Sahabis likewise Salman "Al-Farsi" (Muhammadi) have cooperated with them to do damage control to stop mass killing of Iranians by army of three sunni Shaykhayn which saga spreading Islam by army of three sunni Shaykhayn is just good for naive people likewise Wahabis who still have dream of reviving era of cursed umayyads.

Hope you're right. I've read, but not seen, that satellite images show that a fuel manufacturing facility for balistic missiles was hit, along with some air defense sites.

Fareedah and Hameedah

Does it matter? He found her attractive and married her That's a perfectly normal reason Per Sunni hadith prophet says superiority of aisha over other women is like thaarad over other food , so he wasn't referring to her piety when he made the food comparison was he ?