Path2Felicity

Sis kaneez- please stop accusing members here of terrible acts because they don't agree with what you've done. I do have one question though- why is it that you never checked on your daughter when you heard footsteps? why did you never put a hidden camera or something to catch him in the act?

This thread is way off topic and no longer about Bibi Fatima (SA). Feel free to open another thread about shia-sunni unity. Thread closed.

It seems that yet another thread has turned to nothing but personal attacks. Thread Closed.

When you say "above the fray of politics" what do you mean exactly? Should the WF have any role in politics at all? If not, what is the point of keeping him there? If the clergy are just a voice of morality, how is that any different than keeping them out of politics entirely? Also, if the laws contradict Islamic ideals, would not the WF be held responsible, even if he is just a figurehead? I'm all for checks and balances with a government, but all in all, I am confused about what role the clergy would play in such a system. I would imagine that it would be difficult for a marja to just have a figurehead position in a government because he, even as a figurehead, is responsible for what happens in the government. Someone suggested to keep the clergy out of the role of government entirely.... but there would be a council of scholars who would have oversight about laws being passed to make sure they are within an Islamic framework. What would you think of such a system? But ayatullah Sistani doesn't really play a role in politics... not even a figurehead role. His role is to basically give advice and direct people (and not very often it seems) in political matters. Thanks :)

This is true. But, the question that you pose (whether we need clerics to have explicit review power over legislation to protect the moral course of civilization), has different varieties of what that could look like. Iran's example is not the model that exists on a theoretical level. Wasalaam

I think that bro Fyst makes the most convincing argument because he is using Quran (4:24) as a reference, and it makes sense that the female captives would not be Muslim converts because, as he pointed out, that would annul their marriages to their mushrik husbands. This is difficult for me to think through and to reconcile, but if anybody has insight into this verse and its implications, it would be greatly appreciated. Fyst- have you ever consulted anyone (e.g., a scholar) about this?

Are there any reports of any of the Infallibles or Prophets every smacking their children? I am really curious about this. Personally, I was never hit as a child, and I never plan on physically hurting any of my children insha'Allah. I personally don't see the purpose of it. In my mind, the most effective disciplining is through building a relationship with the child right from the start that is based on trust, love, and mutual understanding. Wasalaam Good point. Also, in Islamic law, if you hit your child and leave a mark, can't you be punished for that? I thought I heard this somewhere, but need to confirm it.

There are a few points here that I think should be clarified. 1) Zahratul-Islam, not every law in the West is about harming others. The most prominent examples that come to my mind are seat belts and bicycle/motorcycle helmets. These laws were made to protect the individual from themselves. I am sure there are more out there- these are just the ones that come to my mind. 2) Even in Iran, the do no harm to others rule does apply to a certain level. For example, if you want to sit at home and drink alcohol until you die, then you are free to do so. What is banned is to make a public display of it. Do you think that drug use for example is not a problem in Iran? If the Iranian government was so strict and was enforcing fiqh in people's personal lives, they would go to people's houses and throw out all their alcohol bottles, for example. Or monitor who comes and leaves their houses. But, they don't. 3) People are assuming that individual behaviors do not affect society at large. This is untrue. When certain behaviors are shunned in public, they have a certain level of stigma attached to it. For example, people don't bat an eye here if they are watching a movie on public television with an inappropriate scene between a man and a woman. We've become desensitized to it. We're corrupting our own eyes and being influenced in the West whether we like it or not... it is practically impossible to not be exposed to these things as they are literally everywhere. I am not knocking the West and saying nothing good comes out of here and blah blah blah... but, there are certain realities here that we have to think about. It's a tradeoff- just like there are tradeoffs living anywhere else in the world, including Iran. Wasalaam

Same... it gets to the point where I want to tell my husband that he's not as good as he thinks he is :dry: (he actually is... sigh... he's a much better cook than me).

I think we can all agree that the death of the martyrs of the revolution and the Iran-Iraq war can not be compared to this. To make such a comparison is insulting to the martyrs of the war. I also don't want this thread to be an excuse to turn into a Neda-bashing session- she is answerable to God now... there is no reason to disrespect the dead. If we want to discuss how her death is being used as political exploitation, then feel free to start another thread. Thread Closed.