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

Jahangiram

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    1,378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752   
    ^You're being suspicious over nothing now @Sumerian  , the admission has been publicised so theres nothing to hide in that regard anymore. They've made it clear they are more than willing to hand over the plane's black box provided no third party can 'interrupt' (to put it one way) the analysis of the content. 
     
     
     
  2. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752   
    ^You're being suspicious over nothing now @Sumerian  , the admission has been publicised so theres nothing to hide in that regard anymore. They've made it clear they are more than willing to hand over the plane's black box provided no third party can 'interrupt' (to put it one way) the analysis of the content. 
     
     
     
  3. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from TryHard in Sayyid Ammar On Isis   
    You think thats bad? Check out these gems from shiachatters:
     
     
     
     
     
    You take your news from blog posts? I wonder why no credible news agency out there is reporting these statistics from the interior ministry..hmmm...
    Maybe this could explain things: 
     
     
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901360.html
     
     
     
     
    Next time lets report iranians arresting drug traffickers as the captivation of young men. Silly: 
     
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/01/2012117194537484213.html
     
    Relevant parts:
     
  4. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from TryHard in Sayyid Ammar On Isis   
    ^You obviously didn't diligently read anything I quoted, I even put in bold the main points; the article I linked to was from 2005 about the corruption of the Interior Ministry and how it's infiltrated by sectarian militias.This was besides the fact that Palestinians were generally resented by Iraqis as a whole because of Saddam's disproportionate focus on them and not the welfare of his citizens. Point being that the Interior Ministry is the last source you should be looking up to with its long-standing hatred, lies and brutality against Palestinians.
     
    Good luck justifying a 6 year old Palestinian boy being kicked about by these thugs you adore.
  5. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in The teenager married too many times to count   
    Its a front for money laundering no doubt, given that the office of Sistani condemned this exploitation unreservedly, despite these same folks claiming to be followers of Sistani. 
  6. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from ireallywannaknow in Upcoming BBC documentary "Undercover with the clerics"   
    You're mixing two different issues - with entirely different social contexts - in your pessimism towards your fellow Shias whilst giving all the benefit of the doubt to renowned opportunists. I saw a preview of the documentary and the office of Sistani was quoted as condemning the act within the purview of Islamic law, so you can rest assured nothing was justified by the senior authorities. 
    Shias always throwing themselves down the curb then wondering why they're so useless in dealing with the scrutiny of outsiders. 
     
  7. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Marbles in Polygamous marriages   
    Agree with everything except the last part, its mostly only naive teens who heavily sexualise polygamy. The reality is polygamy comes with such a hefty burden of responsibility on a man - from the division of time to the children to the expenses and even alleviating feelings of rivalry in the harem - that his libido will probably decrease more than anything. A truly calculating man who wants to maximise his carnal satisfaction would either
    A) devote his entire love life to one woman or
    B) indulge in regular fornication or adultery as a married man
    This is probably the reason why the classical books of jurisprudence would encourage men to only practise polygamy in a "sunnah-oriented" manner where larger goals are in mind, such as cementing alliances between factions or uplifting the destitute of society.  
  8. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from starlight in Polygamous marriages   
    Agree with everything except the last part, its mostly only naive teens who heavily sexualise polygamy. The reality is polygamy comes with such a hefty burden of responsibility on a man - from the division of time to the children to the expenses and even alleviating feelings of rivalry in the harem - that his libido will probably decrease more than anything. A truly calculating man who wants to maximise his carnal satisfaction would either
    A) devote his entire love life to one woman or
    B) indulge in regular fornication or adultery as a married man
    This is probably the reason why the classical books of jurisprudence would encourage men to only practise polygamy in a "sunnah-oriented" manner where larger goals are in mind, such as cementing alliances between factions or uplifting the destitute of society.  
  9. Like
    Jahangiram reacted to Marbles in Polygamous marriages   
    Men who marry a second wife rarely do that for fair and noble reasons. In almost all cases they marry a younger woman who has her own reasons for getting into a polygynous relationship.
    The second marriage comes only when, broadly speaking, the first marriage stagnates or collapses.
    There are many reasons: lack of interest in each other, lack of respect/love on the part of either spouse, personality clash leading to endless bickering on minor issues which drives a wedge between them, neglect of husband who then looks for companionship elsewhere - or simply breakdown of friendship that is really the true essence of every successful marriage, sometimes even more important than the physical congress.
    Let's not be so naive to believe that men who contract a polygynous marriage or mutah do a favour to their second wife or have best interests of the first in mind. 
    Men do that for their own pleasure and satisfaction, which is not wrong Islamically, but there is always a price to pay. And I'm not even talking about the wallet.
     
  10. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in "Fragile" masculinity   
    Well women were seen as 'internally stronger' in traditional cosmology, and this view seems to be supplemented by modern studies that showcase a stronger immune system in women (although the traditional view of 'internal strength' was more focused on self-restraint wrt sexual issues and anger). Are these the 'complementary' strengths in a woman that your above comment speaks of? 
     
  11. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in "Fragile" masculinity   
    Men being physically stronger than women on average isnt a matter of belief though, its a fact. 
  12. Completely Agree
    Jahangiram got a reaction from habib e najjaar in "Fragile" masculinity   
    Men being physically stronger than women on average isnt a matter of belief though, its a fact. 
  13. Partially Agree
    Jahangiram got a reaction from hasanhh in "Fragile" masculinity   
    Men being physically stronger than women on average isnt a matter of belief though, its a fact. 
  14. Haha
    Jahangiram got a reaction from hasanhh in "Fragile" masculinity   
    Well women were seen as 'internally stronger' in traditional cosmology, and this view seems to be supplemented by modern studies that showcase a stronger immune system in women (although the traditional view of 'internal strength' was more focused on self-restraint wrt sexual issues and anger). Are these the 'complementary' strengths in a woman that your above comment speaks of? 
     
  15. Completely Agree
    Jahangiram got a reaction from notme in "Fragile" masculinity   
    Men being physically stronger than women on average isnt a matter of belief though, its a fact. 
  16. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in Why I Took Off My Headscarf..   
    This article is proof positive that many just use the label 'Wahhabi' as a codeword for conservative muslim; who'd have thought believing in the hijab makes you a Wahhabi?
     
    You might as well say the clerics ruling Iran are Wahhabis.
  17. Completely Agree
    Jahangiram got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in Secular Or Religious Government?   
    One of the best arguments for secularism that eventually caused it to dominate western politics is the fact that when convincing people your faith is true you shouldn't need outward pressure as an addition to the convincing.
     
    The only thing here is, probably 95% of those exporting this discourse to the muslim world have no idea what rights Islamic texts have afforded dhimmis (non-muslim citizens), or at least the nuances of those rights. `For example no one would even imagine books of fiqh afforded minorities the right to administer their own punishments  for the criminals in their communities - and yet this is exactly the case! In contrast to this we currently have big debates in Europe about whether religious courts should even be allowed to merely administer family law (punishments are simply out of the question naturally!). 'One Law For All', as the militant secularists would put it. Secular countries make it a central mission to persecute any religion that is 'politicized', yet almost every religion out there has a political dimension to its teachings. Oh well, reform that religion at the point of the sword. 
     
    Let's remember that much of the legal rulings of religions have a lot of rationale - 'secular reasoning' if you will - behind them; which is why many of those rules are usually maintained in modern secular countries from west to east. Provided that the conservatives win the vote ofcourse.
  18. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Ralvi in Showing body parts after proposal   
    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. 
     
  19. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Zulfiqar1472 in Showing body parts after proposal   
    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. 
     
  20. Completely Agree
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Iraqi delegation in Israel   
    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.  
  21. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Showing body parts after proposal   
    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. 
     
  22. Like
    Jahangiram reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in Showing body parts after proposal   
    This thread is a good example of a ruling's understanding gone completely wrong due to modern customs and norms and as well as due to complete absence of knowledge of the rulings of the Ahl al-Sunnah on this matter. One of the vacuums the followers of a Marja’ have is the complete loss of context and historicity to these rulings. Let us first look at Sayyid Sīstānī’s ruling from his Minhāj al-Ṣāliḥīn (vol. 3, pg. 15, issue # 28):
    This ruling is being extrapolated and interpreted from numerous traditions that were uttered under specific historical contexts and norms, whereas those norms have completely disappeared over the last century or so. These traditions are many, both in Sunnī and Shī’ī works and there is a lot of discussion on them and what they really prove. Nevertheless, most hair-covering women today will find this request from a man very degrading and uncomfortably risky today.
    To put it even more bluntly, this idea that this is supposed to be something that is done as the "last step" or the "final step" after a decision has been made or a proposal has been given or something along those lines - these are all bogus explanations of the ruling - that is not what the ruling says. The ruling has nothing to do with any of that. In fact, this is talking about looking even before a proposal for marriage has been sent and permission or the satisfaction of the woman is not required. Classical scholars (unlike what Sayyid Sīstānī says) would say that this ruling is talking about someone who is merely interested in getting married, and is trying to find someone, even if he has not yet decided to marry any specific woman. In that situation, one of the things that is permissible for him to do is to look at the face, hands, hair and so on. 
    All the Shī’ī jurists and other schools of thought (Sunnī and even Zaydī) say that her permission and her satisfaction is not required. Why do they mention this? Because the Mālikī school of thought believed that her permission is a condition, whereas no other Muslim school of thought agreed to this. The reason the Mālikīs would give is that this ruling would become open to abuse and everyone would just claim that they are looking to get married. Other jurists respond by saying that the conditions for the permissibility of looking are pretty clear and if someone decides to abuse this ruling and check out women, then that can and does happen even without having to resort to this ruling.
    If permission is not required and her satisfaction is not required, then how is one supposed to look at the woman? This is where many Sunnī jurists have said that this happens when you are essentially checking out a woman without her knowledge. The Shī’ī scholars mean the same thing when they say her permission is not required – some Shī’ī scholars make this very clear. In fact, some say asking her permission will defeat the purpose as women are shy and will generally not just grant permission like that.
    Words of some Shī’ī scholars:
    Miqdād Fāḍil Suyūrī (d. 826 AH) in his al-Tanqīḥ al-Rā’i li-Mukhtaṣir al-Sharā’i (vol. 3, pg. 21):
     
    Muḥaqqiq Thānī (d. 940 AH) in Jāmi’ al-Maqāṣid fī Sharḥ al-Qawā’id (vol. 12, pg. 29) writes:
     
    Fāḍil Hindī Isfahānī (d. 1137 AH) in his Kashf al-Lithām (vol. 7, pg. 21) writes:

    Let us break down a few preliminaries to understand this ruling:
    Regarding looking at a free Muslim woman, there are three views: Some jurists say it is allowed to look at her face and hands (without lust) Some say it is allowed to look at her face and hands without lust, but only one glance (view of many of the past jurists) Some say it is not allowed to look at any part of the woman (with or without lust) Marriage is a contract agreed upon by two parties: a man and a woman Since it is a contract which resembles a "business transaction", both sides have the right to know who they are getting married to (just like in a business transaction, when you are exchanging money for a product, you need to know what the product is so there is no chance of fraud and deception) Although some Shī’ī jurists did say that this ruling is not applicable to women, because we have no traditions on it and allowing it would be an instance of Qiyās, majority of the scholars permitted the same thing for women (i.e. she can also look at a man when she is looking for a potential spouse) Hence, this ruling is an exception to that first ruling above (under all three different opinions) and says that a person (man or a woman) who is intending to get married and is looking for a potential spouse has the right to look at certain parts of their potential spouse Though if you notice, according to the proponents of the first view on looking, the face and hands are already allowed to be looked at – so it is only a question of looking at other parts of the body This is so that if they do end up proposing to them or decide to get married to them, they are not deceived - that they knew exactly what they were getting themselves into There is no condition to ask permission for a woman (or vice-versa) The biggest debate is not on whether it is allowed to look or not, but the debate is over what is one allowed to look at? A great number of classical Shī’ī jurists limited this ruling to just the face and hands of a woman, and explicitly prohibited other parts such as the hair or other parts of her body. Furthermore, some jurists would say that if a man is unable to look at the woman himself, because she is overly covered, and is unable to get satisfactory knowledge about her condition, then he should send a woman to go and look for him. For example, al-Shahīd al-Thānī writes in his Masālik al-Afhām (vol. 7, pg. 40-41):
    When you look at the words of the classical jurists (Sunnī and Shī’ī), you will see that this ruling of looking is generally being implemented in day to day life – especially given the fact that we are discussing a context where her permission is not required, and she does not even know she is being looked at. There are traditions (in Sunnī and Shī’ī works) to back this up as well
    In that scenario, if a woman happens to expose part of her leg while walking (as would happen quite often in those days), or part of her neck or shoulder is exposed, or she did not wear many layers of clothes and hence parts of her body would be observable (like the curves and size of her chest), or if part of her hair would be showing (as would also happen quite often in those days), or part of her arms would get exposed etc. then in those scenarios a man who is looking to get married can look at those parts of the body to get an idea of her. This is also why you find words of the scholars saying that this look can take place while she is standing, walking and sitting – a reference to just day to day activities and movements.
    If I were to understand this ruling today myself (after reading the historical precedent of it, the discussions and the way earlier jurists were understanding it), I would say most men can get more than a decent idea of looks, shape and size of an average ḥijābī woman today if they look and observe her closely. Of course, if a woman dresses with a lot of layers where it is hard to tell anything, then in that case before he even sends a marriage proposal a woman who can be trusted can be sent to observe the woman and describe her roughly for him. This is not meant to be a detailed inspection.
    There are further intricate discussions on some traditions that talk about a woman wearing “thin” or “gentle” clothing or fabric and that a man can look at her if she is wearing those. Whether this is referring to see-through clothing or just fewer layers of clothing or just clothing that is tighter is what is being disputed. Many believe it is referring to fewer layers and clothing that is tighter around the body, in which case her shape is a bit more observable.
    Now since the legal ruling says her permission is not required for looking, this necessarily implies that with her permission and satisfaction it would definitely be allowed. However, in real life, this can only happen either with the permission of her guardian or through her direct permission. If she is also interested in marriage and there is a chance that she may also agree to his proposal if he does propose, she can grant him permission and is allowed to expose certain parts to him (or as per some contemporary jurists I was reading, only those parts that are reasonably uncovered in front of blood-relatives, such as feet, arms, hair, neck and as well as clothing that would show her shape and size a bit more than what she would wear outside). However, the girl is under no legal or moral obligation to do any of this - in fact as is obvious even from the words of the classical jurists, they said asking permission would defeat the purpose since most women would never allow such a thing to happen, be it out of embarrassment and shyness, or simply due to the risk factor (if he does not propose, that would be scarring for a woman).
    Researching into this ruling was very fun and I would have loved to translate all the discussions and traditions and opinions on the subject so everyone could benefit and be able to put these rulings into a better context. However, I ain't getting paid for any of this and the world outside is a tough place to survive in  . If there are any inconsistencies in my post or unclear statements, please point them out. I could have overlooked something due to the complexity of some of the discussions and things can be misunderstood through translation.
    [1] Reference to sins such as masturbation, fornication and so on. As for why it is still allowed even if he knows it will result in lust, then that requires a separate explanation which is lengthy.
    [2] I.e. there is a reasonable chance she may say yes to the proposal.
    [3] Sayyid Sīstānī is mentioning this because most past jurists held the view that if a man or a woman had the mere intention of getting married, even if it was not to anyone specific and they were simply in the process of finding someone, then this look would be permissible. Sayyid Sīstānī is saying no, it has to be once a person has already gone through the process of identifying someone and they are intending on sending a proposal to them specifically, only then is this permission granted to them.
  23. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Iraqi delegation in Israel   
    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. 
  24. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Iraqi delegation in Israel   
    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.   
  25. Like
    Jahangiram got a reaction from Carlzone in Showing body parts after proposal   
    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. 
×
×
  • Create New...