Jaane Rabb

Were there agents that were part of the Wakalah system, loyal to Imam al-Kazim, yet rejected the Imamah of Imam al-Rida? Yes, I'm talking about the Waqifiyya. Normally, the reason given for their rejection is apparently due to greed over Khums money. But I think that's a bit of a cop-out. Instead it would appear they believed al-Kazim was the last. Regardless of the reason, wouldn't this cast doubt on the Wakalah system - its reliability and integrity - when trusted agents defect? Casting doubt on the selection process itself and the selector's insight...

Uighur activists say China running hundreds more camps

Nearly Half of Residents of Uyghur-Majority Village in Xinjiang Held in Internment Camps https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/half-10232019144954.html

Some noise needs to be made about these atrocities, as a matter of urgency really. It's sickening to the core. Has any "Islamic" country even tried having any dialogue with China about this? https://www.independent.co.United Kingdom/news/world/Asia/china-xinjiang-uighur-Muslim-detention-camps-xi-jinping-persecution-a9165896.html More info:

Is a man not permitted by Allah to take on a 2nd wife out of want alone?

In regards to intercession on the Day of Judgement. I wish it were that easy, but I think it's not. Much thought needs to go into the verses that talk about intercession. Some of which categorically say that there will be no intercession on the Day. Take this for example: So, do these verses teach that the only intercession acceptable to Allah is that which He permits? Or do these verses actually mean that Allah can permit intercession if He wanted to, but won’t because all intercession belongs to Him exclusively? As explicitly mentioned in 39:43-44? There is a plethora of other verses that question the belief of intercession on the Day: 2:48, 2:122-123, 3:128, 6:51, 6:70, 17:56-57, 32:4, 36:23, 39:19, 40:18, 82:19. Then, you have the verses that mention He would not allow another to intercede except if He permits: 10:3, 19:87, 20:109, 21:28, 34:23. But does this mean He would permit? (And verses that there's no intercession for disbelievers: 9:114, 11:46, 9:80, 7:53, 26:100, 74:48.) As Muslims, we all agree that the Qur'an cannot have any contradiction. Further, Allah clearly says He does not forgive association, only that which is less than that [4:48, 4:116]. Association is something that can be committed quite easily, by taking religion from an unauthorised source [6:121] (and maybe now, some of you who have discussed with me before will understand why I take a Qur'an-centric stance, for it's the only book with Allah's stamp of authority). Lastly, Allah ridicules those that associate with Him in matters of intercession [6:93-94, 10:18]. Just food for thought. At least for me. Wallahu Alam

Unlikely to have promised such a thing. Especially when Muhammad (S) has said: قُلْ مَا كُنْتُ بِدْعًا مِّنَ الرُّسُلِ وَمَآ أَدْرِى مَا يُفْعَلُ بِى وَلَا بِكُمْ  ۖ إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحٰىٓ إِلَىَّ وَمَآ أَنَا۠ إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ مُّبِينٌ "Say, I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner." (QS. Al-Ahqaf 46: Verse 9)

Other than the clergy involved and their lovers, who would expose such a thing? Alas, sometimes it needs a "nawasib" to point out the dirt and that's the shameful part. So they're a victim of their past (raped and pillaged) and now the present too (abused in the name of religion) all because some mullah wants to make a quick buck pimping them out, and they should be concerned about the past? Is this their future? This is justice? This is Islam? The mullahs are no better for preying on the vulnerable - Nay, worse even than the original perpetrators.

Perhaps your first question has confused you yourself?

Just thought you had witnessed something personally, but I misunderstood. I don't trust any scholar, but I prefer to accuse someone with evidence than basing on assumption. I think what some people may find troubling is the "elites" in their religion - the people they look up to - committing these acts. So I can certainly sympathise with them. But that's the hard truth people need to wake up to, that these elites are nothing more than just people. Knowledge is one thing, wisdom is another. The trouble is though, how do the Shia handle this going forward knowing full well the actions can be justified with Shi'I law. How will a denunciation of the clerics involved change anything when they're basing their actions on fiqh, which allows this type of exploitation?

Could you elaborate on your comments? Just curious. No. Yes.

Timing issue aside, if it's a reality then it should be exposed. Disappointed with Moderassi's defensive response without him having even seen it yet. Anyway. I don't know what I'd find more disturbing; The clerics doing this (if the allegations are true) or if they're doing it believing it's completely fine because of the distressing fiqh pertaining to sexual slavery, and in particular the concept of 'Tahleel' which allows the master to loan his slave to another exclusively for sexual pleasure. I guess I'm wondering how they could sell such a practise using fiqh. Alas, it would be quite shocking if these clerics are still living in the dark ages. But the truth is, we laymen across the pond live in a world and have been taught a version of Shia Islam that is just a sugar coated topping. I remember first hearing about an issue in the hawzas few years back through the immediate family of a respected cleric in London. They told me that the reason why the daughter wasn't allowed to study at Hawza is because of a 'mutah issue' that the Ayatollah (girl's father) was concerned with. Sounds like they may have put it mildly for my sanity. This will be very damaging to the clerical institution if the documentary delivers as per the synopsis and depending who are involved. But the bigger question would be if they're using fiqh as justification and what are those fiqhi rules.

Salaam, Just found out about an upcoming BBC documentary titled "Undercover with the clerics: Iraq’s Secret Sex Trade", due to be released in two parts [5th and 11th October]. The allegations being made are serious, as detailed in the synopsis below: Links: Part 1 - https://www.bbc.co.United Kingdom/programmes/m00098jb Part 2 - https://www.bbc.co.United Kingdom/programmes/m00098ff https://www.frontlineclub.com/iraqs-secret-sex-trade/ Definitely one for the diary. Fi Amanillah

Wassalaam, I take the word wali to mean ally. Firstly, Allah is saying in 5:51 to the believers to not take the Jews and Christians as your allies ("awliya", plural for wali). Then He says in 5:55 that only Allah is your ally, and Rasul and the believers (that pray, pay, bow). The latter part of believers being allies (awliya) to one another is further backed up by these verses: (4:139) "Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely." (9:71) "The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." It's clear that believers are allies of one another. Even if you was to take the word wali to mean guardian (hence awliya meaning guardians), both 4:139 and 9:71 still apply with believers being guardians of one another. So, with the strict Shia view it becomes a bit problematic to believe that "only Allah, Rasul and Imam Ali are your guardian" when firstly 5:55 categorically says "Allah, Rasul and believers are your guardian" and secondly you have the other verses quoted above saying believers are guardians of one another. Lastly, if you're going to say that 5:55 says "whilst they bow" and then try to prove that this is in reference to the event where Imam Ali gave Zakat whilst in ruku. Then know that there is also a difference of opinion on whether its "whilst" or "and"... "they bow" which makes quite the difference to the meaning. See here: https://www.islamawakened.com/Qur'an/5/55/default.htm I take the strict Quranic view so don't believe it's in reference to Imam Ali specifically or that it's limited to only three beings. Though, Imam Ali would obviously be an ally because he was a believer and righteous. Wallahu Alam.