Leaderboard

Bismehe Ta3ala, Assalam Alikum Jouma Mubaraka. If you go to the bakery you order laham bi ajeen. I actually went to the butcher and gave him tomatoes, onions and green pepper and he mixed it up for me. Once he handed the half kilo of laham bi ajeen, I took it to the baker and he made it for me. It was Friday and my children love these meat pies. They drink it with Arayan, it's a yougurt drink.

Wa 'alaykum al-salam, I used to have a similar view as yours, but in retrospect I think it was mostly due to my Sunni background. Looking at the issue more objectively, it's hard to have a positive view of the Shaykhayn with issues like Raziyyat Yawm al-Khamis, the Fadak issue and the threat to burn down the house of Fatimat al-Zahra (peace be upon her). At the same time I do not support going around cursing them or to turn them the center of our attention. I personally do not trust non-Ahl-al-Bayt - be it from the Sunni or the Shi'a side - regarding religion too much, which is why I'm careful regarding their narrations / teachings and accepting them, especially if regarding sensitive topics and not supported by further evidence. The early progeny of al-Hassan wal Hussayn (peace be upon them) clearly believed that Imama and Wilaya was that of Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him) without anyone preceding him in this due to the proclamation of the Best of Creation (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) at Ghadir and other incidents. This point alone should be enough to know that they wouldn't have been great fans of the Shaykhayn.

@YusufAliMuhammad, one major component of Shi'ism involves distancing oneself from the enemies of Muhammad's family (peace be upon them)...before one can do that the enemies have to be properly identified...herein lies the problem...an objective analysis of early Islamic history will have most unbiased observers agreeing that Bani Umayyah were an outright archnemesis to the Bani Hashim...only brainwashed Sunnis who insist on viewing everything through rose-colored glasses will attempt to argue otherwise...the line becomes somewhat blurred when trying to accurately assess the lives of the first three caliphs because of the sincerity and good works you mentioned earlier...people are inclined to think in strictly black and white terms...people are lazy and don't want to investigate for themselves and would rather regurgitate the narrative they've heard all their lives from a charismatic scholar or orator or elder...try telling a Sunni that Umar led a small army to Ali's house and threatened to incenirate the inhabitants if they didn't swear fealty to the new caliph and see if he (she) believes you...similarly, try telling a Shi'i that Umar ate simple foods like dates and barley bread and wore torn garments while delivering the Friday congregational sermon and used to cater to the administrative duties of the fledgling Islamic state via candlelight...and then would later tend to his own (i.e. personal) needs and clerical duties via another candle put aside for personal usage or recreational purposes...basically, if Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman would have chosen to deal with Ali and Fatima in a dignified and nonthreatening manner, most Twelvers, Zaydis and Ismāʿīlis would not harbor the justified resentment they do today...I've studied and carefully considered both approaches to Islamic history and in my modest analysis the Shi'i version of events is the one that most accurately aligns with reality and truth.

Well my point wasn't that cultural way should be followed. My point is can she get an easy divorce and take half your stuff. Just be aware women who are Muslim can still use kafir law against you even when it's unislamic. This is why I think muslim men should not register their marriage with the state in kafir countries. Do a nika never get a marriage license from the state.

Anyone beleiving iran, north korea, south korea, america, china, venezuella, canada, brittan, cuba, france, russia, mongolia, vietnam, etc... are all in some conspiracy together to claim the earth is round, is out of their minds. The earth is round, use common sense.

What have you just wrote is a Sunni point of view not supported by Shia religious studies. A part from what you said, I would like to present to you the Shia narrative. The shia narrative is that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was already declared successors to Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP) at various places beginning from the Dawat Zul-Shera till event of Khum-e-Ghadeer, where even Umar ibn al Khattab had been witnessed to have said that congratulations to you O! Ali for you have become Mola of all Momineen. Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP) did not let people without asking them to pledge allegiance to Imam Ali (عليه السلام) that is well-documented in both Shia and Sunni books. Now, the second question is that whether Abu Bakar or Umar ibn al-Khattab were included into the consultation forcefully to which the history says otherwise. The history says that Abu Bakar tried to lead the prayer on the advice of his aiders even though Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP) was alive and in Medina and Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP) removed him from the prayer mat, thus, ending the very plea that Abu Bakar's leading prayer meant he was the next successor. Not only this, Umar ibn al Khattab after Prophet's demise made a drama that whoever claimed that Prophet (PBUHHP) has left this world, I will kill him solely because he want to threaten anyone standing as a ruling contender other than Abu bakar after Abu bakar was initially sworn by few tribes. If he really was sure that Abu Bakar was the true leader why was there any need to play such drama? Further, there is clear cut evidence from Quran about the one who should be the leader of Muslim Ummah that is to say in Surah Baqarah Allah (عزّ وجلّ) says regarding chosing of Talut as leader of Bani Israel that the main reason of his selection was that he was both courageous and knowledgeable. Thus, who was more brave and knowledgeable after Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP)? It was Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and all including his very opponents agreed to it. Finally, If Syeda Fatima Zahra (عليه السلام) did oppose Abu Bakar and Umar, who has the audacity to challenge her decision because she was Syeda Nisa-al-Alimeen. If she exhibited her discontent for both these individuals, it means both these were not sanctioned by Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP). So, there is no doubt in the minds of shia that both these persons and the third one and Bani Ummayah and Bani Abbas left sufficient proofs that these individuals lacked devotion towards Allah (عزّ وجلّ) and his Prophet (PBUHHP). These are the few things, I could write as short as I can, there are plenty more for which if you search, you will find plenty.

Salamun Aleykum dear Brothers, In my family, I have some relatives—especially on my mother’s side—who are mostly Shia, while my father's side is entirely Sunni (Turkish). Because of that, I’ve generally been more inclined toward Sunni practices, though I’ve always been familiar with Shia perspectives as well. You could say I fall somewhere in between—what people often jokingly refer to as “Sushi.” Over time, I’ve come across a range of Shia individuals—just as there are various types of Sunnis. Some I’ve met were quite extreme (openly cursing certain figures when their names come up), while others were much more balanced. I even have two friends who fall somewhere in between: they believe ʿAlī was more deserving of leadership, and that’s essentially where their view ends. What I would really like to understand is this: what is the true, humble Shia position toward the Rashidun caliphs—aside from ʿAlī? Some Shia individuals I’ve encountered openly insult them, while others take a more reserved stance—acknowledging major disagreements and errors but ultimately saying, “We leave their matter to God.” Right now, I’m in the process of reading their biographies. I’ve already read about Abū Bakr and ʿUmar through Ṣallābī’s works, and also studied the more historical account of ʿUmar by Shiblī Nuʿmānī. I’m now beginning with ʿUthmān. Some sections of these books highlight their virtues, but I’ve tried not to let that shape my overall view too much—although I admit it had some influence. My focus has mainly been on the historical content itself, which was especially prominent in Nuʿmānī’s biography (more of a historical sīrah than that of Sallabi). From what I’ve read, aside from the praise, I personally believe that Abū Bakr and ʿUmar sincerely believed in Islam and acted in ways they thought were best for the Muslim community. ʿUmar in particular struck me as very strict—sometimes, in my opinion, even too harsh—especially when it came to anything he saw as a potential cause of fitnah or disunity. One example would be the private meetings that took place at Fāṭima’s house between ʿAlī and al-Zubayr without informing others. At the same time, ʿUmar also had a strong sense of justice. He sometimes sided with ʿAlī—for instance, in a case involving Khālid ibn al-Walīd, where his stance may have even been stricter than ʿAlī’s. That sense of trust is also reflected in how often he consulted ʿAlī, spoke of him positively (at least in Sunni narrations), and ultimately included him in the Shūrā council. According to a hadith in Ibn Mājah (no. 154, graded sahih), ʿAlī is described as the best judge, while ʿUmar is described as the one who adheres most SEVERE to Islam—though again, this is according to the Sunni tradition. Of course, I’m also aware of the controversial aspects—such as the Saqīfa meeting. Sunni sources generally frame it as a rushed effort to preserve unity, while Shia sources often present it as an act of usurpation. In Muslim 1759 (Sunni view), ʿAlī’s main grievance seems to have been that he wasn’t consulted—rather than the fact that Abū Bakr was chosen. Meaning, had he been consulted and the outcome was the same, he may have accepted it. Other hadiths also suggest that Abū Bakr justified the decision based on urgency. It’s also worth noting that the Ansār were already discussing leadership, reportedly in favor of Saʿd ibn ʿUbādah. Abū Bakr and ʿUmar came LATER into the conversation. So in my view, the whole thing was spontaneous and unplanned, especially since Abu Bakr and Umar didnt plot it, they rushed in when the Ansar discussed it within themselves. Was it the perfect or ideal process? Probably not. Was it necessary at the time? It’s hard to say. We can’t know for sure what would’ve happened if they had decided to wait due to the urgency imposed by the other tribes. All in all, I’m still exploring and learning about these figures, and my views may evolve as I go. Just wanted to share where I currently stand. Jazakum Allahu khayran for reading.

I don't think a Chinese physical invasion of Taiwan will happen. But ultimately I think it is game over for Taiwan as an independent nation. As for the US, AIUI current military analysis is that the relative power of the US military vs. China will weaken as time passes i.e. it makes sense for them to have a conflict sooner rather than later. Overall US posture e.g. in terms of tariffs etc. has been very much to try and get a global anti-China coalition together: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-plans-use-tariff-negotiations-isolate-china-wsj-reports-2025-04-15/ A conflict would force countries in the region to choose which side they are on. The US might be calculating that everyone else will side with them.

Let's certainly hope no war breaks out. I am optimistic that there won't be a war for the following reasons: 1. If China invades Taiwan, it wouldn't just be the US that would be outraged, and potentially respond militarily, most other western nations would sanction and denounce China immediately. 2. China has deep economic ties with Taiwanese companies: all of that would go up in smoke, causing further economic damage 3. Even if the US didn't respond militarily, it would us its deep-water navy to completely cut off all oil from the ME (including Iran) to China--it would blockade 75% of China's oil almost overnight. 4. Potential nuclear conflict In short, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be suicidal, and I don't think Xi is insane, or even has the authority to launch an invasion. But the US is very paranoid that he will do it

Prompt to chatGPT The Fetishisation of the Tool Shop: Blue-Collar Nostalgia in American Culture and Politics The American cultural imagination has long romanticised blue-collar labour, particularly the imagery associated with factories, workshops, and tool benches. From Norman Rockwell’s wartime paintings of riveters to modern television portrayals like American Chopper or Dirty Jobs, the aesthetics of physical labour are celebrated as the backbone of national identity. Yet this symbolic reverence often exists in tension with economic realities, particularly in the context of late-stage industrial decline and political appeals to restore lost manufacturing greatness—an agenda revitalised in the rhetoric of a potential second Trump administration. At the heart of this fetishisation lies a cultural narrative about authenticity, masculinity, and self-reliance. Blue-collar workers are routinely cast as moral avatars in a fractured nation—a trope that Laurie Ouellette (2014) explores in her analysis of reality television. Shows like Dirty Jobs offer what she calls “an affective mapping of neoliberal labour,” simultaneously celebrating manual work while displacing systemic critiques of deindustrialisation (Ouellette, 2014, Television & New Media). This aligns with the visual economy of blue-collar imagery, from Dorothea Lange’s Depression-era portraits to campaign trail photos of candidates in hard hats and rolled-up sleeves—an image that persists even as the jobs themselves have disappeared or transformed beyond recognition. The persistence of this imagery has been theorised as a form of “cultural lag,” where symbolic frameworks outlive the material conditions they once represented (Swidler, 1986, American Sociological Review). Blue-collar labour, in this sense, becomes more myth than reality—a backdrop for both nostalgia and political mobilisation. Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign capitalised on this disconnect with remarkable acuity, promising a revival of U.S. manufacturing that many economists considered unfeasible due to global supply chains, automation, and cost pressures (Autor, Dorn & Hanson, 2016, American Economic Review). A potential second Trump administration has revived this language with even more vigour, invoking “repatriation” of industry as a nationalist cause rather than an economic strategy. Yet, empirical evidence suggests that such repatriation is largely symbolic. As Edward Alden of the Council on Foreign Relations argues, “the vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost in the U.S. are gone not because of offshoring, but because of technological change” (Alden, 2020, Foreign Affairs). The emphasis on factories and shop floors thus functions more as political theatre than policy blueprint. Manufacturing jobs are lionised not for their economic centrality but for their mythic value in what Arlie Hochschild (2016) calls the “deep story” of American decline—a narrative in which white, male, industrial workers are cast as the rightful protagonists of the national drama. In conclusion, the tool shop is less a workplace than a stage set in the ongoing performance of American identity. As cultural artefact, it signifies resilience and dignity; as political symbol, it disguises structural transformation and economic dislocation. Understanding this dual function is essential to unpacking the symbolic economy of blue-collar labour—and the political futures it continues to animate. References Alden, E. (2020). "Can America Regain Its Industrial Base?" Foreign Affairs. Autor, D., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. (2016). "The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade." American Economic Review, 106(10), 2121–2168. Hochschild, A. R. (2016). Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. The New Press. Ouellette, L. (2014). "Lifestyle Television and the Politics of Its Time." Television & New Media, 15(5), 395–412. Swidler, A. (1986). "Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies." American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.

@YusufAliMuhammad, we're having a similar discussion here

Salaam, yes what you say is sadly a reality. And unfortunately it can be difficult to know what kind of a person someone truly is especially with the way "get married, get married!" is pushed so quickly on people. Its like chill man, on this day and age it takes more than a few convos and the elders meeting to decide if a person is truly momin and decent. Divorce seems to bring out the "ugly" in a lot of people, just like death and inheritance does. It shouldnt be this way, but "people"

Salaam, I see where you're coming from but I disagree as we're supposed to model the characteristics of the imams and I'm sorry to say this, but some countries and cultures absolutely do not have the best manner of responding in such a situation so I would try and stick with what Islam teaches us and not culture. Because whatever Islam teaches us is going to be correct but nine times out of 10, culture will misguide you and create worse problems.

Tell her the conversation seems to be off track and you are happy to talk with her when she can be nice again. Then walk away and don’t engage until you notice a softening in her behaviour

Assalam o Alaikum respected members, I’m honored to share a beautiful and powerful Dua from Imam Zainul Abideen علیہ السلام the great-grandson of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) which is a heartfelt prayer for the protection of Muslim lands, soldiers, and borders. This prayer is timeless and feels even more relevant today for our beloved Pakistan and its brave defenders. May Allah make the arms of our soldiers as strong as steel May the pure blood of our martyrs light the path of success May every evil eye on Pakistan be blinded May our green crescent flag always fly high till the Day of Judgment, Ameen This video includes the original supplication and an additional special prayer for Pakistan’s army, people, and borders. Let’s all unite in this spiritual effort to pray for peace, safety, and victory. Watch the video here:

Of course they're unvaccinated. MMR would have protected them. The measles vaccine is a live attenuated vaccine. It is a weakened form of the virus that doesn't effect healthy people but does stimulate the immune system. If you haven't got it, get it before they make an mRNA version.

I think if you were to post details of someone online and someone else went off and killed them, the police would be knocking on your door. You could argue that what's different is that you'd expect the US military to have better controls in place. The experience in Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that that is optimistic - people in those countries were known to settle tribal scores by telling the Americans the other group were terrorists.

Obviously if a person is being rude to you, its best to defuse the situation by responding with kindness. This is especially important if you are trying to communicate with someone who you should love and have devoted yourself to, such as your spouse or child.

Yes Hasan al-Basri did participate according to The Quṣṣāṣ of Early Islam by Lyall R. Armstrong, which is also corroborated by Sulaym's book where Aban hides the house of a said "Abu Khalifa" with al-Hasan al-Basri during the uprising against al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi. Qays ibn Ubad also participated according to Sunni rijal and they actually say he was killed, although in Kitab Sulaym Aban says that Sulaym passed away in his house. If we put the two together he may have fled when the uprising started to fail? Either way and regardless of how he exactly died the similarities are too much to ignore. In Sulaym's book Aban records his conversations with Hasan al-Basri and questions him why he has changed his tune regarding what he narrates from Imam 'Ali (عليه السلام). He says he is practicing taqiyyah to save himself from al-Hajjaj and co. In fact there are narrations on the authority of Qays ibn Abbad praising the caliphs from Imam 'Ali which are obvious concoctions, because Hasan himself makes the opposite statements in Kitab Sulaym. Take this long narration which Hasan al-Basri apparently narrates from Imam 'Ali which features ibn Kawwa (also features in Sulaym's book): The funny thing is about this narration is that in Kitab Sulaym Hasan al-Basri explicitly states Abu Bakr did not lead the prayers and states the Imam 'Ali was most worthy of being the leader. As you can see, these types of taqiyyah/fabricated narrations is what eventually created Sufism which tried to seek a middle path between Shia Islam and the Umayyad currents at the time. For example most Sufi orders venerate Imam 'Ali and their chains often pass through Hasan al-Basri... It is most interesting that Hasan narrates from Qais ibn Abbad but Hasan received much more fame for knowing Imam 'Ali.. Ibn ‘Asakir narrates that Hassan al Basri (رضي الله عنه) once said: When Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu arrived in Basrah to inquire about Talhah and his associates, ‘Abdullah ibn al Kawa’ — a leader from the Khawarij — and Qais ibn ‘Abbad, stood up and said: “Why have you come, O Amir al Mu’minin? Was it an instruction from the Rasul of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? Or was it an obligation that the Rasul of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked you to fulfil? Or was it simply something you chose out of your own volition because of the ummah’s fragmentation and current state of affairs?” ‘Ali responded and said: “The truth is, by Allah, Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was neither killed nor did he leave this world unexpectedly. He remained ill for such a period of time wherein the mu’addhin would call for salah and then Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would direct Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to lead the salah (knowing full well that I was present). One of his wives attempted to substitute Abu Bakr (with someone else); not only did Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam refuse, the mere suggestion infuriated him and he said: أنتن صواحب يوسف ، مروا أبا بكر فليصل بالناس You are like the companions of Yusuf ‘alayh al Salam! Put Abu Bakr forward, for he shall lead the salah. When Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away, we pondered over our affairs and decided to elect such an individual to administer our earthly affairs whom Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was pleased with to regulate our religious affairs. Salah is a fundamental aspect of Islam; and Abu Bakr was upright and loyal. And so, we pledged our allegiance to him radiya Llahu ‘anhu, for he was most deserving of this position. No two of us differed (with this decision) and we neither objected nor did we behave seditiously towards him; we remained loyal to him and continued to uphold his honour. I fulfilled his due rights and acknowledged his right to be obeyed and followed. I served as a foot soldier in his army and would accept any proposition he proposed. I remained ever-ready (for battle) whenever he called. In his presence, I even executed the hudud (legal punishment) with my whip. When he passed away, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu followed in his footsteps. He oversaw, governed, and administered matters in the same manner as his predecessor. And so, we pledged our allegiance to him, for he was most deserving of this position. No two of us differed (with this decision) and we neither objected nor did we behave seditiously towards him; we remained loyal to him and continued to uphold his honour. I fulfilled his due rights and acknowledged his right to be obeyed and followed. I served as a foot soldier in his army and would accept whatever proposition he proposed. I remained ever-ready (for battle) whenever he called. In his presence, I even executed the hudud (punishment) with my whip. When he passed away, I began reminiscing about my (close) relationship (with Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), my own virtues, and the fact that I was of the first (people) to embrace Islam. I was almost certain that they (the Muslims) would elect me (as his successor). ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Awf radiya Llahu ‘anhu and I took an oath to listen and obey the person who was going to be elected as ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu successor. Not soon thereafter did I notice him (‘Abdul Rahman radiya Llahu ‘anhu) pledging his allegiance to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. After introspecting, I realised that the promise I made to obey the newly-elected successor was more important than my own desire of being the next khalifah. And so, we pledged our allegiance to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. I fulfilled his due rights and acknowledged his right to be obeyed and followed. I served as a foot soldier in his army and remained ever-ready (for battle) whenever he called. In his presence, I even executed the hudud (punishment) with my whip. Eventually, when he was martyred, I began introspecting (again); and no sooner did I realise that everyone had pledged their allegiance to me, the people of Makkah, Madinah, Kufah, and Basrah. Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 2/352 Now we turn to Kitab Sulaym to see the truth: Aban says: O Abu Saeed, [Hasan al-Basri] what are you reporting regarding Ali and what has been heard from you saying regarding him?’ He said, ‘O brother, I am trying to save my blood from these oppressive tyrants, may the Curse of Allah be upon them. O my brother, had it not been for that, I would have been lifted by the wood (my funeral would have taken place), but, I am saying what you have heard so that it would reach them and they would hold back from me. But what I mean by hatred is hatred towards other than Ali Bin Abu Talib, so that they will count me as a friend to them... (Kitab Sulaym - Hadith 6) Abaan said, ‘I said, ‘O Abu Saeed [Hasan al-Basri], did not the Rasool Allah order Abu Bakr that he should (lead) the people in Prayer?’ He said, ‘Where are you going, O Abaan? Surely, Ali was not with the people whom Abu Bakr had been ordered to Pray with, but rather, he was with the Rasool Allah comforting him in his illness and was bequeating to him and pratying with him. And also the prophet (s) Rasool Allahs did not let Abu Bakr lead the Salat but Rasool Allah came out, moved Abu Bakr behind, and Prayed with the people (similar to the preaching of the Verse of Barat). Abaan said, ‘Al-Hassan said these words during the first part of his life, and the beginning of the rule of Al-Hajjaj, and he was hiding in the house of Abu Khalifa, and in those days he was from the Shiites. When he got older and became famous, I heard him say what he said regarding Ali so I went alone to be with him and reminded him of what I had heard from him. So he said, ‘conceal it’ for I am doing what I am doing to save my blood, and had it not been for that, the wood would have fallen upon me (buried)’. (Kitab Sulaym - Hadith 58) Hasan al-Basri also narrates from Qays in some of the Sunni chains along with Sulayman al-Tarkhan al-Taymi which I posted above. There are a few narrations by Qays ibn Ubad in the history books which are refuted themselves by the Imams in Kitab Sulaym - like the angels feeling shy of Uthman etc that sort of stuff. Clearly these are counter-Umayyad traditions to oppose Qays ibn Abbad/Abbad ibn Qays - they desperately try to portray Imam 'Ali as having not even a single issue with any of the previous caliphs.. There seems to have been some tension between the Imams and Hasan al-Basri to his approach of taqiyyah for example take the following narration: Ayashi relates a third narration on Ghadir. He quotes Ziyad Ibn Munzir as saying: “I was in the presence of Imam Baqir ((عليه السلام).). As he was narrating traditions for people, a person from Basra named Uthman A’sha – who was quoting narrations from Hasan Basri – came in the presence of Imam saying: “O‟ son of Prophet of Allah, May I be your ransom! Hasan Basri quotes a narration to us according to which this verse: (Quran 5:67)... is revealed concerning one of the companions (of the Prophet), but he has not mentioned the name of that companion. (That is to say: are you afraid of people? Do not be worried; God will protect you against their evils.) Imam Muhammad Baqir ((عليه السلام).) said: “What has happened to Hasan Basri? May Allah not pay his debt! (May Allah not accept his prayer!). Be aware, if he wanted, he would have mentioned the name of that companion.” Gabriel descended upon Prophet of Allah (S) and said; (Imam al-Baqir narrates the Ghadir tradition).. [source] Evidently it is politics why Hasan al-Basri was promoted by certain people and Qays ibn Abbad wasn't!

I'm so confused with Syria and exactly what Jolani is planning. Just to play devils advocate, at this point the only thing that makes sense to me is that he's trying to play the long game. Show Israel that HTS is no threat and then strike them when they're not expecting it. I know everyone says he's working for Israeli and US interests but it just makes no sense how someone could be a Jihad extremist, to now openly being diplomatic with these two and then, have a whole army of ex Al-Qaeda and ex-ISIS backing him up. Those soldiers are still bloodthirsty for their Islam but they haven't tried a coup against their leader for not even speaking against Israel? I don't know.

I don't understand why people disagree with what I said. If you live in the west you will see muslim women who go against shariah in order to win. It isn't every case but it happens. I want more than one wife hence I will never register my marriages with the government. The shariah allows multiple wives and I will not call what is halal haram.