Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Jahangiram

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    1,369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jahangiram last won the day on March 21 2013

Jahangiram had the most liked content!

About Jahangiram

  • Rank
    Level 4 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,753 profile views
  1. I read your piece on Iqraonline and it was very informative, and it also sounds much more sensible than asking her to strip in her father's house when preparing to propose. I only have two questions: 1. Since a woman (especially in the early period of Islam) could very well be a non-Muslim or someone with any personality trait you wouldn't want to be exposed to for the rest of your life, would an 'intent to marry' connotate awareness of a woman's religious affiliation and other desirable traits? It would seem so given the emphasis on prioritizing akhlaq/deen over beauty in the hadith literature, but im not entirely sure. 2. For those who decide to send a woman to inspect the features of a potential wife, would this very limited inspection exclude the hair, neck and legs (besides the awrah that she is obliged to conceal in front of other females either way)? I ask because you said it isn't meant to be a detailed inspection and the hadith only mentions the ankles and odour as things to be inspected. The Nabi is the examplar for all muslims afterall.
  2. There is no trust and there never will be trust with this tribe, that's the entire point i was trying to make. To give me an example of Israel cynically aiding Jordan just when the national interest of both countries intersected completely glosses over my point. Israel is also one of America's biggest trading partners, yet the nationalists in that country have enough dignity to reject such a faustian pact that spits on the blood and trust of the American people. Hopefully you will have enough dignity to reject a similar faustian pact, and not turn into an undignified apologist for a country unparalleled in its duplicity. There is no equivalence with Israel's duplicity and that of other countries - a fact best demonstrated by our knowledge that Israel has gone as far as directly murdering America's Navy crew in the past to advance its goals.
  3. Its their worry, but it provides a very important lesson to anyone who wants to extend an olive branch to these leeches. Like I said earlier, if they are willing to stab even their closest allies in the back like this - allies who have been their lifeline for the last six decades - then expect much worse for any newfound 'friend' of such a country. Especially if this newfound friend has a history of militant hostility.
  4. Im not sure you realise this, but the western world and Russia are both growing increasingly tired of Israel's duplicitous 'relations' with them. From the downing of a Russian military plane to frame Assad, to the hosting of paedophile asylum seekers from all across the world, to the endless spying on their 'number one ally', Israel has proven again and again that international norms mean nothing if its national interest can be furthered. One of the main reasons Anti-Semitism is rising like wildfire in America is the shameless treachery and callousness Israel has shown with the constant espionage and theft of classified documents (not to mention the history of murderous false flag attacks like the Lavon affair). If this is how they deal with their closest allies, imagine what dastardly deeds they would think of undertaking with their newfound 'friends' in the Middle East. The simple reality is it's not the 'cool' thing to establish close ties with Israel anymore, and for good reason. Let's focus more on the far east (Japan, South Korea etc) and continue discarding these parasites known as Zionists.
  5. I dont think dishonest methods were ever advocated in the hadiths (not sure why the other brothers here aren't clarifying this though); when it comes to women reporting about other women's features the narrations are quite clear that the lady makes a request to inspect her features for another man without any intentions being hidden. In any case, the Aql (intellect) is a source of rulings besides the Quran and Hadiths and you can find comfort in Sistani's rulings which are frankly very reasonable in this regard. After all akhlaq and deen are prioritised above everything else when seeking a partner, as many hadiths emphasize. In such a framework it would be exceedingly odd for a man to just request details about a woman's beauty before anything else.
  6. Criteria isnt really the right word, its more of a recommended accessory to a marriage; character is the ultimate priority at the end of the day as many hadiths comparing the two clarify. Naturally bhooka isnt interested in mentioning such narrations because his whole blog existly mainly for shock value lol.
  7. The problem lies with many muslims - even the relatively educated ones - who reduce the purpose of the hijab to 'preventing sexual assault' without actually delving into the in-depth rationale behind the entire dress code (which includes but is not limited to the headscarf). You could convince the most left leaning feminist to become modestly dressed were you to actually present the multifaceted logic behind it all, but unfortunately there are few candidates who properly study this subject. Key terms like 'tabarruj', 'awrah' and 'haya' - just how many people on this website are familiar with them? How many people have actually pondered on why a woman has to cover herself during prayer when not a single man is around? Food for thought.
  8. Why would they need to comment on the rationale behind the requirement of 2 female witnesses when the Quran itself provides us with the rationale? Does the Quran's succinct explanation not suffice (for some nebulous reason we are unaware of)?
  9. This is incorrect, 33:59 is not about preventing sexual harassment per se, it's about helping smitten men - who are already sinning with their gaze - to distinguish between women who want male attention and women who dont so the latter will be 'known' (as the Quran says) and not approached. It certainly doesnt pertain to men who want to impose themselves on women since the former couldnt care less about whether a woman wants male attention or not. Naser Makarem Al-Shirazi clarifies the reasons for why this verse was revealed in vol.13, pg 349 of his tafsir: أنه كان من المتعارف ذلك اليوم أن تخرج الجواري من المنازل مكشوفات الرأس والرقبة، ولما لم يكن مقبولات من الناحية الأخلاقية، فقد كان بعض الشباب المتهور يضايقوهن، فأمرت المسلمات الحرائر أن يلتزمن الحجاب التام ليتميزن عن الجواري، وبالتالي لا يقدر أن يؤذيهن أولئك الشباب
  10. If he found a shia hadith, he would have mentioned it like he does for other topics; there was only a sunni hadith available to him which he used as evidence for his ruling. Yes the mas2ala was about hajj but he had clarified that the hadith he used as evidence in favour of his ruling also a priori allowed women to attend a masjid without any restriction from the husband (provided certain conditions are fulfilled of course). The caveat from sistani is meant to make clear that a man shouldnt be overly burdensome on his wife by preventing her from performing even praiseworthy acts like ziyara - she should still inform him nonetheless to receive his permission.
  11. Yeah i wasnt drawing a connection between the two, just relating what ive come across in regards to this subject. The Khilaf is a book for shias and gives rulings for them, with the occasional sunni hadith used if nothing in shia hadith literature speaks on the matter. Its common in old books of fiqh to mention and contrast rulings found amongst both the shia and the 'Aaama. As for the ruling you mentioned, its only about the obligation of seeking permission of the husband, not about the unilateral right of the husband to prevent her doing anything (hence why he qualified his answer by saying ولكن لا يجوز له معاشرتها بغير المعروف ). In some cases (like visits to the Masjid) its incumbent on him to give her permission; even in the hadith about not preventing women it is assumed that a woman is informing her husband, otherwise his 'prevention' is redundant.
  12. Sistani (and other maraji3) state that if a woman can be sufficiently secluded in a Masjid then its preferable for her to pray in such an environment, otherwise homes are preferable. I have not found a single marja who says he can prevent her, Tusi uses the commonly cited sunni hadith as evidence for the impermissibility of men preventing their wives from performing Hajj (and by extension prayers in a Masjid): مسألة 325: ليس للرجل أن يمنع زوجته الحرة من حجة الإسلام إذا وجبت عليها. وبه قال مالك، وأبو حنيفة، والشافعي في اختلاف الحديث (3). وقال في القديم والجديد: له منعها من ذلك (4). وقال أصحابه: والأول لا يجئ على مذهبه، وهو قول غريب (5). دليلنا: إن الحج على الفور، فإذا ثبت ذلك فليس لأحد منعها من ذلك، لأن جواز ذلك يحتاج إلى دليل، ولأن الشافعي إنما أجاز ذلك لقوله إن الحج على التراخي. وأيضا روي عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله، رواه أبو هريرة، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله قال: " لا تمنعوا إماء الله عن مساجد الله فإذا خرجن فليخرجن تفلات (1) (2) وهذا عام في سائر المساجد، والمسجد الأعظم منها (Al-Khilaf, vol. 2, pgs 431-32)
  13. Actually he cant, Shaykh Tusi and others explicitly state this. Probably in exceptional circumstances he can (like when its night or the security conditions are broken down) but as a general rule he has no right.
  14. Nurture definitely plays a part and traditional gender roles are indeed a social construct. However social constructivism is categorically wrong in reducing the entirety of gender into a social construct, even if we define gender as a merely performative phenomenon. As the link I provided earlier clarifies, both sexes retain preferences and traits that are even more strongly pronounced in countries with greater gender equality - so social conditioning is evidently not to blame here. Well I did state that the masochistic impulses were unhealthy, so i certainly dont endorse it. A few years earlier if you asked me the above question i would have answered that nurture is the culprit. But when even self-avowed feminists concede that they prefer their partner to have some domineering qualities in him, then i think its fair to say nurture plays a very minor role here. Of course in Shia Islam (and even in most sunni madhahib), a man doesnt have absolute authority over his wife like a master over his slave; she is neither obliged to cook nor clean for him. This limited authority is unlike other religions which impose complete servitude on the woman, so it can certainly be said that the 'scope' of male authority is socially constructed.
  15. The problem is it has yet to be proven many of these inbuilt preferences and temparaments have any biological grounding, which is why they are usually left to the realm of evolutionary psychology to be analysed; the lack of material foundation is also exploited by the sophists of third wave feminism to charactarize such traits as mere social constructs. But as I said earlier: research has consistently established time and again that such traits are not only gender-specific on a global scale, but even more strongly pronounced in egalitarian societies: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899 I was also pointing out the fact that there are third wave feminists out there who go as far as to conflate gender with biological sex then proceed to charactarize both as social constructs. This epistemological nightmare is by no means concerned with what is factual in any objective sense. It may seem stupid to us at first since we were conditioned by our country's curriculum to adopt an egalitarian charactarization of both sexes, but anyone who is even remotely familiar with the dating sphere will not be surprised by this at all. The most liberated women will still lust after dominant men, equate them with their father as a form of endearment and even have an unhealthy desire for pain to compensate for the lack of male authority in their lives. There are many articles available on the internet that can enlighten you about such a reality, where women end up abandoning their partners because they were 'too nice' and didnt ever reproach them for their words or actions.
×
×
  • Create New...