Jaabir

These people will throw around phrases like "British Shi'ism"/"American Sunnism" or "Marg bar America"/"Marg bar Engleez" and then get surprised when they receive pushback. It's clear only to those of us who have read into what you mean when you throw these phrases around. Can you blame the average American for questioning why all these people are calling for "Death to America?" Can you blame the layman Shi'i in the UK to question why they are being attacked for being a "British Shi'a?" If you have a problem with the Shirazi followers of London who are known for their anti-Sunni rhetoric then make it clear you are referring to them instead of lumping all "British Shi'as" together. If you mean death to the US's foreign policies then make it clear in a way it doesn't seem like you're calling for the destruction of an entire country. Sayed Ammar even mentioned at around the 55 minute mark to be clear exactly who you are referring to. SAN is trying to point out that even if there are disagreements within the community, you shouldn't cause it to disunite you. If I have a problem with IRI's foreign policies will their supporters make takfir on me?

I truly wish misery on every Shi'a that has willingly turned a blind eye to the oppression their Afghan counterparts have been facing/will face now that the Taliban have taken over. The irony that this is happening during Muharram with tears rolling down their cheeks and beating their chests for those who were oppressed, while at the same time not caring for the oppressed of today, exposes how ignorant they actually are about the lessons from the martyrdom of Hussain. Not only being uncaring, but having cups of chai on their borders with the present-day Yazid army. We now see the vile intentions of Afghanistan's neighbours. Pakistan being the largest backer of the Taliban (no surprise here) while many ignorant ultra-nationalist Pakistani Shi'as will reject any sort of wrongdoing by their country's PM, army, or intelligence. Iranians and "al-Moqawama" taking the opportunity to cheer as the U.S departs and reminding you every 2 minutes how the U.S failed and will continue failing in the region. All of this at the expense of the Afghans who will now suffer. But hey! Don't forget the U.S's failure in the region! I guess al-Muqawima is only against those who we don't like, and we like the Taliban now! I now realize how Iran's "help" for Iraq in 2014 was nothing but for their own interests. Iran can form militias out of thin air for Assad, fund and supply powerful missiles to heavily blockaded-Palestinians, "rush" for help when Iraq needs it, but can't lift a finger for Afghanistan? No, there is no conspiracy to "trick" Iran to intervene in Afghanistan so the West can attack Iran. Iran using the shrewd tactics they've used in other countries can easily end the Taliban's rule. If the actual armed forces of Iran intervened the Taliban would be finished in less than 24 hours. But no! Our help is only reserved for those we actually care about, and that doesn't include the Afghan Shi'as. My heart truly breaks for all those Afghans who have been betrayed by their neighbours. One that clearly has been working against them for years, but also one that was supposed to be its well-wisher. Afghans have been recruited to fight in Iran's dirty war in Syria, dying in the thousands, but are abandoned when they need help in their home country. Pakistani Shi'a fighters are abandoned when they're arrested and vanished by ISI in Pakistan. May God's curses be upon those individual decision-makers responsible for the abandonment and betrayal of these oppressed people.

Kindly do me a favour and reread the two sentences out of my entire reply you chose to quote in your response. Read it again, over and over until the hamster on the wheel finally starts running fast enough and you've figured out that it isn't me saying the U.S should stay in Afghanistan, *it is the Hazaras* on the ground, at the funeral of those schoolgirls, in Dasht e Barchi, in Afghanistan that are saying *they* would like the U.S troops to stay. I would rather have Iranian troops in Afghanistan to protect them from such attacks instead of U.S troops. Does that satisfy your earth-shattering hypothesis about my "pro-U.S, pro-occupation, pro-colonialism" mentality? It's Iran's atrocious failure of protecting Shi'as that has led so many Hazaras to choose this other terrible option of wanting the U.S to stay in Afghanistan. Because many of them believe Abdul Ghani can't protect them, many of them believe Iran doesn't care about them unless it's recruiting them to fight in Syria for Iran, many of them believe the "new all-inclusive-modernized Taliban" will target them, forget protecting them. Let me get back to my main point and simplify my stances since it seems so many are struggling to grasp what I am saying: Iran sends military equipment, billions of dollars, military advice, etc. to Palestine. Great! It makes statements in support of Palestine and has condemned Israel everyday since May 6th and beyond. Great! Iran declares victory over Israel and boasts about Palestinian groups thanking Iran for their help. Great! Afghan Hazaras and Shi'as are massacred day after day and suffer far worse oppression than Palestine. In fact, Da3esh in their magazine revealed killing even more Hazaras as part of their campaign against the "Rafida" mere days after those schoolgirls were murdered. How many Shi'as can honestly say they even knew about this? Where is Iran? Pakistani Shi'as who fought as part of the Zainabiyoun in Syria return home to Pakistan and are subsequently abducted by Pakistani intelligence agencies and left to either rot or die in Pakistani prisons without their families knowing their fate. When Iran needs them to fight they'll hire them but when they need Iran to help them, where is Iran? Bahraini Shi'as are serving life-sentences for protesting conditions far worse than Palestinians. Can they not use Iranian missiles to defend themselves? Where is Iran? Qatifi/Medinian Shi'as are living under daily threats and in conditions far worse than Palestinians. Where is Iran? For all the geniuses that love to play the "you're being sectarian" card: majority-Sunni Kashmir faces almost exactly the same oppression as the Palestinians. They have been fighting for their land just as long as the Palestinians. More lives have been lost fighting for the liberation of Kashmir than for the liberation of Palestine. There are over 10 million (!) more Kashmiris who seek freedom than the few millions of Palestinians who seek freedom. The same ethnic cleansing practices Israel does, India does the same and far worse in Kashmir. The Kashmiri Sunnis, who don't have the same pro-Saddam anti-Shi'a sentiment as the Palestinians, deserve more of our support than the Palestinians. Kashmir is geographically thousands of miles closer to Iran than Palestine. Where are the missiles and money for the Kashmiris to defend themselves. Where is Iran? The Yemeni Zaydis - about whom SHN through his own mouth - said have been oppressed far worse than the oppression of Palestinians, have been getting starved and sieged to death on top of the daily bombings. In the words of the Ansarallah themselves, if they had Iranian weapons since the start of the war they would be in Riyadh right now. Where is Iran? It's kind of funny how some Shi'as think they are being honourable by supporting an oppressed people who are fighting over man-made borders whilst at the same time neglecting, even outright abandoning their nearer kin in our God-made religion. Forget the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians love Saddam and dissociate with Shiism in its entirety, ask the Palestinians what they think about Shi'as and Shi'a Iran supporting them. Of course you'll find a few Palestinian groups glorifying Iran waiting for Iranian tomans to get in their bank accounts, but you have the internet to show you the full story. You can search for polls for who they generally view more favourably. In one 2015 poll, Palestinians were asked about their favourable/unfavourable views about Turkey vs. Saudi vs. Iran. Anyone with a little bit of knowledge of the ikhwani movement would expect Palestinians to have more favourable views of Turkey over Iran and Saudi, right? What they actually found is the Palestinians viewed Saudi Arabia even more favourable than Turkey or Iran. Where is Palestinian support for the oppressed Shi'as? One can even find the 'Palestinian heroine' Ahed Tamimi praising the shuhada' of January 3rd, 2020 while cursing the Houthis as well. TL;DR - If my position isn't clear enough already: Iran - as the only strong enough Shi'a-majority nation - has a responsibility and needs to focus on protecting the lives of the oppressed in the region before heading to liberation wars for much less-oppressed people. Iran first needs to fight the ideology that believes killing Shi'a schoolgirls will send the suicide bomber to heaven. (The threats to life even West-based Shi'as have faced, albeit in smaller cases.) Imam Khomeini's view of the precedence of the Mu'min over the Muslim: http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/487_المكاسب-المحرمة-السيد-الخميني-ج-١/الصفحة_250#top I understand majority of the Shi'as would rather keep the status quo and give priority to Palestine over so many others oppressed. It's the 'stay with the majority' mentality one could expect. Unless there is actually some sort of fruitful reply, this is likely my last response. مع السلامه

Another fundraiser for the victims: https://www.gofundme.com/f/dashtebarchiblast?utm_campaign=p_cp_url&utm_medium=os&utm_source=customer You can donate the zakat al-Fitra you'd usually give before Eid this year to the victims' families instead of giving it to your local mosque. This attack is truly heart-shattering. Du'as if you can't donate.

Looks like some Shi'as have already forgotten the plight of their own people just a few days later, focusing their attention on the plight of their favourite Shi'a-hating people and how their missiles have managed to get through and damage a few Zionist cars. Do people think lighting up some tower in Tehran in Afghanistan's colours is going to bring solace to the mothers and fathers of the schoolgirls who were killed. Do they think making a routine statement or two condemning the frequent attacks will help get Shi'as out of the slums in Kabul or Baghdad? It truly is heart-wrenching to see the same Shi'as who will make 500 statements for Palestine and attack Israel at every chance make a few hollow statements for Afghanistan and act like it was an earthquake or natural disaster that took them but not say a word for the ideology that actually took them. If someone has a papercut on one hand and a bullet wound on the other hand, these Shi'as would rather choose to heal the papercut before tending to the bullet wound. Jahl. Take your politically-motivated conspiracy theories and share them on unicornfantasies.com but don't use them on me. Shi'as who blame "Israel & Zionism" or the U.S for every a Shi'i killed in Kabul, Baghdad, Parachinar or Quetta because of their love for Imam Ali are *helping* the real killers and *stealing* the justice from the victims. Are you going to blame Zionism for the centuries of oppression the Shi'a endured under the Ottomans, Abbasids, and Ummayads? Go and ask the Hazaras in Dasht e Barchi at the funeral of those forgotten schoolgirls, what they are saying regarding American presence in Afghanistan. Even the most pro-Iran Hazaras are pleading U.S troops to stay and not leave the country in September as they are planning to withdraw, whereas Iran is warming relations with the Taliban, who have the blood of thousands of Shi'as on their hands, for their own political gains. Because the Hazaras know they have been left alone, especially neglected by the same country that claims to be the 'voice for the oppressed' and a safe-haven for the lovers of Amir al-Mu'mineen during the occultation of Imam al-Mahdi. Once again, every Shi'a Muslim of the world should definitely defend Palestine against its oppressors, but we have a duty to protect your own family first. If the IRGC wanted, the money/missiles sent to Palestine to shatter a few Israeli Toyota windows could rather be used on the Hazaras to defend themselves and save their own lives, or better yet, to educate the region's anti-Shi'as on their misguided ways the same way Saudi Arabia pumps billions for madressahs in Pakistan and Afghanistan spreading their takfiri ideology. But no, the oppressed Muslims of Myanmar and China don't matter as much as Palestine, the Shi'a who've been oppressed for a millennium don't matter as much as Palestine. Al-Quds is mort important than the blood of 100 Shi'a schoolgirls.

It's actually one of those ironic tragedies of this world, that the same people who have been oppressed for over a thousand years would rather voice *more* support for Palestinians, the overwhelming majority of whom view Saddam as a hero (over a million Iranian + Iraqi lives lost at the hands of this "hero") and many of whom don't even consider Shi'as as Muslims. Someone please tell me why I should spend my time and money on Palestine, ahead of the Yemeni children being bombed in school busses, the Qatifi children who are slaughtered in front of their mothers, the Syrian children who were bombed while escaping a warzone, etc.? Why does Palestine deserve more focus than the persecuted Sunni Muslims of Myanmar and China? They deserve more of our voice than Palestine. Take a look at activity on the Palestine thread while only a handful of replies for Afghanistan. Sickening. We are seeing schoolgirls (!) who are being attacked less than a year after women in a maternity ward were gunned down in broad daylight. All thanks to a barbaric ideology that would rather kill Shi'as more than the ideology cares for Palestine itself. I won't mince words in saying Iran has utterly failed Shi'as even though it considers itself as the "protector of Shi'as" and it is Iran that has Shi'as not knowing what their priorities should be. Pakistani Shi'as who fought in Syria as part of Zainabiyoun under Iranian command have been kidnapped and disappeared by intelligence agencies in Pakistan and Iran has completely abandoned them. Afghan Hazaras are the poorest and most persecuted minority neighbouring Iran (and in Iran!) but they would rather spend money on billboards of Sayed Khamene'i in Iraq and Lebanon? It baffles me how much I used to blindly support IRI in almost everything they did, donate towards Palestine in all the Quds day rallies I attended, defend IRI wherever I could. But they don't even consider our own oppressed in Bahrain-Qatif, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. a priority in place of Palestine. Iran is losing it's closest supporters and it's their own fault

Great, another routine condemnation by Iran every time Shi'as around the world are killed. I'm sure the bereaved of the victims will find peace after this condemnation. Yet again, we see the stark difference of priorities Iran has in its policies. Saddam-loving Palestinians continue their struggle against the occupiers whilst almost a hundred Shi'a Hazara schoolgirls are killed in Kabul. One would think Iran would value the survival of the schoolgirls, but no, Palestine is the priority. Maybe if Iran spent 10% of the effort/money it spends on Palestine instead for the persecuted Shi'a of Afghanistan and of the world, these schoolgirls and many previous victims would be alive today. Maybe if more was spent on defending against a terrorist ideology that wants to see Shi'as killed, many more would be alive today.

As a kid when I saw homeless people living on the streets or begging for money I always used to wonder why poor people even existed in the first place when they could just attempt to rob a bank or something and get free housing and food in jail

The Prophet (saww) himself told Ali b. Abi Talib that he and the Imams from his children will be able to separate the believers from the criminals on the Day of Judgement. The Prophet himself says the Ali will be the divider of those who enter heaven and hell. These aren't small words and neither have they been said for any Abu Tom, Abu Richard, or Abu Harry. If you believe the Shi'as at the time "only saw him as their leader and not as a divinely appointed authority" then you haven't understood wilayah yourself. قال حدثنا أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين قال حدثني أبي قال حدثني محمد بن يحيى العطار قال حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن علي بن الحكم عن هشام بن سالم عن سليمان بن خالد عن أبي عبد الله جعفر بن محمد الصادق عن آبائه ع قال قال رسول الله ص لعلي ع يا علي أنت مني و أنا منك وليك وليي و وليي ولي الله و عدوك عدوي و عدوي عدو الله يا علي أنا حرب لمن حاربك و سلم لمن سالمك يا علي لك كنز في الجنة و أنت ذو قرنيها يا علي أنت قسيم الجنة و النار لا يدخل الجنة إلا من عرفك و عرفته و لا يدخل النار إلا من أنكرك و أنكرته يا علي أنت و الأئمة من ولدك على الأعراف يوم القيامة تعرف المجرمين بسيماهم و المؤمنين بعلاماتهم يا علي لولاك لم يعرف المؤمنون بعدي Rasul Allah (saww) said: [...] Oh Ali, you and the A’immah from your children are upon al-A`raf on the Day of Judgment, you will recognize the criminals by their marks, and the believers by their signs. http://www.revivingalislam.com/2012/09/merits-of-ali.html

As Shi'as are being gunned down in broad daylight and their properties vandalized, the Prime Minister is cracking down on Shi'as for reciting a religious text on one of the holiest days of the month. All this while Shi'as continue to hail the government as some kind of heroic revolution against corruption and mismanagement. As economic hardship and corruption is still rampant, the governments sets its sights on Shi'as.

Great, someone was arrested for posting 'anti-Shia' things. Let's alert the presses to show how balanced and equitable Pakistan law enforcement is to it's Sunni and Shiite populations. Then a few months later once the Shi'as have forgotten about it, let's release the anti-Shi'a convict, such as the the leader of the notorious Shi'a killing org Lashkar Jhangvi https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/dreaded-terrorist-malik-ishaq-released-by-pakistan-government/articleshow/45617614.cms. The difference between someone posting 'anti-Shia things' on Facebook and that of a Shi'a zakir reciting from a religious text is that one is acting strictly out of personal vendetta against the other sect, whereas the other is simply reciting a religious text as an act of worship.

I finally got around to watching the video. I would've appreciated a time stamp for what you were referencing him to have said. Instead I had to watch the entire speech. See below. Yes, the narration is reliable. Narrations encouraging mourning of Imam al-Hussain are mutawatir. Nobody is arguing whether one should grieve over his martyrdom or not. It's the jaz3 that people have misconstrued to represent much of what we see today. The term الجزع itself has always had a negative connotation to it since it's viewed as one having lost control - distancing oneself from their nafs. This is why, as you mentioned, it's makruh except for al-Hussain. Could either you or @ShiaMan14 provide the narration Sayed Ammar is referring to where al-Baqir (عليه السلام) explains to Jabir b. Abdallah al-Ansari what the meaning of jaza` is? He gave no source. All he said was it's mu`tabar. Could you bring forth your other proofs that you speak of for latom? I quickly scanned all of Ziyarat al-Nahiyeh and couldn't find anything related to the Ahlul Bayt encouraging latom, perhaps I'm missing it. As for the Fatimiyat you mentioned beating themselves, I believe you are referring to the one narration in tahdheeb al-ahkam where the 'Fatimiyat' did latom over Imam al-Hussain. Do you know who the Fatimiyat were? If you are understanding them to be the women of al-Hussain beating themselves, then the best example that could be used is that of Sayeda Zainab striking her head on a pole (for the sake of argument, since the narration for this is weak itself). Sayeda Zainab was not ma`sum, nor would we be bound to believe her actions/teachings are that of the Ahlul Bayt and therefore having merit as an Islamic practice. Why not look at Sayedah Fatima (sa) herself as an example? We know she was under extreme grief after the passing of Rasul Allah (saww) to the point where Medinians would speak to Imam Ali about her weeping, yet we have no mention of her striking herself or 'performing' jaza` in any way that's practiced today. This is while the Prophet was the greatest shaheed for the religion of all time. The fact that we have reliable narrations of the Prophet mourning for Imam al-Hussain without slapping his chest, pulling his hair, or striking himself with others in congregation raises several question marks. He could've also easily organized majales for Sayed al-shuhada Hamza b. Abi Muttalib. Also, even if we can accept that jaza` from the words of one Imam was to slap one's chest or face, or pull one's hair, how have we evolved this into something to be done in congregation? The only reason we consider salat al-tarawee7 as bid`ah is because it is done with the intention of congregation. Otherwise one can pray any mustahab prayer individually as was taught by the Prophet. So now we have the issue of how jaza` as practiced today, with rhythmic intervals in a congregation. If you believe this to be a form of `ibadah, everything about it spells innovation. This is why every culture around the world does latom differently. Which is why I believe it is permissible at best, but not `ibadah. Unreliable hadith. Indeed there is reward for visiting Imam al-Hussain. Walking to any mosque is a good action. But do we have any evidence for walking to his mosque for the 40th after his martyrdom? http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2013/12/arbaeen-bidah.html محمد بن حيىي، عن أْحد بن محمد بن عيىس، عن الحسن بن محبوب، عن معاوية بن وهب قال: سمعت ابا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: قال رسول الله صَل الله عليه وآله : ان عند كل بدعة تكون من بعدي يكاد بها الايمان وليا من أهل بيتي موكلا به يذب عنه، ينطق ِبالهام من الله ويعلن الحق وينوره، ويرد كيد الكائدين، يعبر عن الضعفاء فاعتبروا يا أولي الابصار وتوكلوا عَل الله‎

Thanks for sharing your ordeals, brother. It's extremely saddening to hear your troubles and how the law seems to be so lopsided against Shi'as in general. Last year I saw a video circulating on social media of a Pakistani man cursing Imam al-Mahdi (عليه السلام) with vulgarity, but did not hear a single report of any arrests or charges on him. It's an extreme shame, for a country where the army and intelligence are above the law and can do anything at all with complete impunity, that they are glorified as being some sort of honest safeguard of the country. It seems that constitution itself is deeply flawed. As a Sunni, why can't you accept that history is not clear-cut, and that there are alternative views of history held by various peoples? In your books the Sahaba are viewed in a positive light, whereas in our books (many of them) aren't viewed in a positive light. Would you like us to reject our own books? Another question: do you believe it's acceptable for Muslims who are a minority in the West to be able to recite controversial verses of the Qur'an freely? There are plenty of verses that the majority Christians would find offensive and Jews who would also find offensive. So why is it that when Sunnis are a minority in other parts of the world that they demand to be able to freely practice their religion, but when they are a majority in other countries, they do not let others freely practice?

I truly hate reviving an almost year-old thread. I've been on and off of SC for several years now sometimes logging in after several months. Not sure if I'm breaking any SC rules and apologies if it is, but I did want to add to my point with additional relevant news. A brother in Karachi, Pakistan, has apparently been arrested for reciting Ziyarat al-Ashura on a TV station which was relayed live. The recitation was so outrageous to some in Pakistan that even PM Imran Khan tweeted it and mentioned how he will act harshly with anyone peddling sectarianism. Brother Taqi Jaffer is being portrayed as the offender, for sending la`nah on Mu`awiyah and Abi Sufyan (which is in the text of the Ziyarat). I only read about this on social media today. It's extremely disheartening to see the amount of blind support Pakistan gets from its Shi'a population even as it oppresses them. Prior to this instance, it was mainly veiled oppression. Now that a Shi'a can get arrested even for reciting a religious text it's become so much more blatantly obvious. The fact that a major portion of Imran Khan's supporters are Shi'a is even more troubling. Reminiscent of the Shi'a Ba'athists that were such staunch supporters of Saddam that they'd terrorize their own people, then lament for Imam Hussain afterwards. The main problem I find in them is their priority to serve the country over their madhhab.

No, I don't see. This is probably the worst attempt I've seen of someone trying to portray themself as some sort of philosopher. This sounds like one of those Confucius Says memes. Using your logic, the Prophet (saww) should have named the year his uncle and wife were martyred (Sayed al-Shuhada2 Hamza and Lady Khadija) as 'The Year of Celebration' instead of what he actually named it 'The Year of Sadness' (aam al-huzn).

If anyone wants to take part in chest-beating/self-flagellation rituals you can go right ahead. Just don't claim you are doing it as an Islamic practice or as a mustahab act prescribed by the Ahlul Bayt. Even if you believe you are seeking nearness to Imam Hussain through beating your chest (which I found to be the most reasonable common answer of people when asked why they do what they do), there is no way you can say this is an Islamic tradition. *These acts are permissible at best.* Our ulema have consensus that there is no third testimony in the adhan but it is permissible to include it if one chooses to on the strict condition you have not included it with the niyyah of it being an inherent part of the adhan. If anyone mentions the third testimony with the belief it is a part of the adhan, his/her adhan is batil since they have innovated the adhan. Similarly, if you want to slap your chest or strike your head you do it without the niyyah of it being an act of worship for Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or part of our deen. You can literally do anything at all to seek nearness to Imam Hussain (as long as it is clearly not haram) without claiming it to be a part of Islam or a mustahab act. And whether it will be seen as a commendable act can only be known on the Day of Judgement since we have no evidence that beating oneself under grief for the Ahlul Bayt is included in Islam.

Many maraje` permit tatbir, zanjeer/qama zani, and other forms of lamentations. Many of us have seen Ayatullah Basheer al-Najafi's video of him encouraging these acts and I was personally also a staunch supporter of it at one point. However over the years I have backtracked even to the point where I've started questioning our chest-beating rituals. There are many narrations of the Prophet himself weeping over his grandson's fate, even appearing in one of his wives' dreams grief-stricken and with dusty clothes (in the famous hadith al-qarurah). We even have narrations of the Ahlul Bayt encouraging weeping/eulogizing for the tragedy of Karbala and how they will be rewarded for it by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). This is indeed a teaching of the Ahlul Bayt. But is there any evidence for the act of chest-beating itself being a rewarded practice? Was it performed by the Ahlul Bayt themselves in any way similar to how it's done today (in a synchronized congregation)? I've heard many argue that striking oneself in grief is permissible in Islam. But the question is not if it's a permissible practice, but if it's a practice that's rewarded. As someone who has walked over 80 kms from Najaf to Karbala in the past in a very physically painful journey, only to find out that the walk itself doesn't really have any basis in Islam, I started to reflect on many of our rituals for sayed al-shuhada'. In my opinion, it seems all of these acts are simply permissible, but we have no evidence that they are rewarded by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) other than the hope that the Ahlul Bayt may grant us intercession on the Day of Judgement.

I agree it is quite creepy-like the way I told it. But I didn't hear the story from the couple themselves, just through conversations within the family. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of detail. Also, in some of the pre-2010 threads I've stumbled upon, I noticed the members were a lot more open/joking with one another than the sort of atmosphere we have today. I might be wrong since I'm not on here much anymore, but it seems like there was a period where ShiaChat was like another MSN Messenger for some, and things were a lot more loose, possibly paving the way for these kinds of escalations in relationships.

I was (recently) made aware that a relative of mine "met" his future spouse on ShiaChat. Apparently they had some good convos here which led one of them to search for the other on Facebook. Once confirming their newfound Facebook friend was the same person on ShiaChat, I assume that's where they got to know one another even better. They now have a child and (from what it seems) are quite happy. Although they didn't seem too religious from when I once met them (just my personal observation), it seems that SC marriages are not unheard of! You only live once brother

I've come across various opinions of our scholars, both classical and contemporary, discussing how there exists a difference of opinion on whether the A'immah are greater than the rest of prophets (after Prophet Muhammad). Or if the A'immah are greater only than the rest of the prophets after ulu al-`azm. Or if the Ai'mmah are only the greatest of creation after all the prophets. I may be wrong, but I haven't seen any of our scholars even discuss whether Imam Ali was equal to Prophet Muhammad. They probably underestimated the threat and the extent of ghuluw which has crept into the beliefs of Shi'as today. Sayed Mahdi Modaressi is the first sheikh I've come across saying Imam Ali is equal to the Prophet. I've heard many speakers on the minbar also implying similar claims trying to get a rouse out of the audience. But to hear this sort of thing from a much more learned person is disappointing. The closest thing I could find which clearly mentions rankings (which is what seems people here are looking for) is in al-Kafi (...) فقال: إن خير الخلق يوم يجمعهم الله الرسل وإن أفضل الرسل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وإن أفضل كل أمة بعد نبيها وصي نبيها حتى يدركه نبي، ألا وإن أفضل الأوصياء وصي محمد عليه وآله السلام، ألا وإن أفضل الخلق بعد الأوصياء الشهداء (...) http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1122_الكافي-الشيخ-الكليني-ج-١/الصفحة_498

1. In legal vs. ethical discussions, the police are often viewed as examples of the former and nothing further. Do American police officers get trained/told to act ethically when there is a dispute between with what's legally correct and what's morally correct? 2. Georgia ranks quite high in number of registered weapons. Do you believe the general feeling of the police is to increase gun control in Georgia? In all of the U.S.? 3. What brings you to offer this pleasant service to ShiaChat?

Salam brother. Sending la`nah on the first three caliphs is not a pillar of our aqeeda - if you are asking if it is part of our usul al-madhhab or dharuriyat al-deen (usul al-deen). According to the scholars that derived our pillars of faith, one can have favourable views of the shaykhain and still be Shi'a if they hold all the other necessary beliefs. This is in contrast with what many major Sunni scholars have said, that if one considers `Ali to be better than the Sahaba apart from Shaykhain, then you are only a Shi'a. However if one believes `Ali was better than all the Sahaba including the Shaykhain, that person is a Rafidhi who is part of ahl al-bid`ah which translates to hell-fire. I myself am of the opinion that the first three caliphs of Islam had done many good deeds during the lifetime of the Prophet (with many questionable deeds along the way). But their actions after the death of the Prophet was as though they poured oil and dropped fire on all their previous deeds and wiped them all away. The same way Iblees served Allah before disobeying Him, later he became of the kafireen according to the Qur'an (2:34).

I thought it was common knowledge that Abu Bakr was in the cave... and had no clue that there are some Shi'a that believed it was someone else. We have numerous narrations from the Ahlulbayt confirming it was Abu bakr ibn Abi Quhafa in the cave with the Prophet and not the person who you've mentioned. I don't know of any of our major scholars believing it was anyone other than Abu Bakr in the cave. I stopped reading your 'evidence' for why it was Abdullah ibn Ariqat when the person posed the second question, "where's the third in the cave?" which did give me a good chuckle. After quickly scanning the rest of your evidence, the only sources used were Sunni sources. The Sunnis have ijma` that it was Abu Bakr in the cave with the Prophet. Could you provide any Shi'i sources for why you hold the belief it was anyone other than Abu Bakr? Could you provide the opinion of any of our major scholars that it wasn't Abu Bakr in the cave? I have only ever heard of many of our great scholars (al-Mufid, al-Hilli, al-Tabarasi, etc) presenting proof of why Abu Bakr being the cave with the Prophet is not a merit. Kindly provide proof from our books or verdicts from our scholars so your belief has some legs to stand on. I'm also glad you've retracted your opinion of 'Shi'as don't curse the Sahaba because we don't believe they were Sahaba.' Sorry, I don't understand your point here brother, are you saying Ziyarat al-Ashura does not refer to the first three caliphs in some of its verses?

^ I find this to be a weak response by Shi'as who say "we do not curse the Sahaba because we do not consider them to be Sahaba in the first place." The Qur'an in the Verse of the Cave 9:40 literally uses the word for "companion" for the first caliph, and we all know how the rights of the Ahlulbayt were stolen and trampled upon by him. Being a Sahaba of the Prophet is in no way any kind of merit or deserving of praise. So what if someone is Sahaba? So what if someone is related to the Prophet (Abu Lahab)? Anybody deserving of praise should have earned it, and anyone deserving of la`nah must have earned it as well. The Sahaba cursed each other on many occasions, are Sunnis going to attack them the same way they attack us? Shi'as also send la`nah on many of those who lied upon the Imams even though they were related to the Ahlulbayt. As other have mentioned, Ziyarat al-Ashura is full of la`nah and quite clearly makes reference to the first caliphs without naming them. The Qur'an is full of la`nah and has even explicitly mentioned those that angered Allah (azwj) He made of them apes and pigs (5:60). Many Shi'as today feel like la`nah has no place in religion because it seems aggressive or might hurt others' beliefs but fail to realize it is everywhere in our texts. I find it it very important to discuss these issues because the first thing Sunnis usually ask when they encounter Shi'as is, "do you curse the Sahaba?" or "what do you think of <caliph x>?" and some Shi'as do get a bit nervous. We do have to answer them with evidence and rationale. I still find it disappointing that many Shi'as don't even know what the status of the first three caliphs is to them because we so often not want to discuss it and sweep it under the rug rather than address it (i.e. are they Muslim? Kafir? Muslim-Fasiq? Munafiq?). I don't think even I know what the mainstream position of Shi'as is in this regard. That being said, it's quite weird how some Shi'as have made la`nah to being almost an usul al-deen where they send la`n more than they pray in a day. It's as though they do it to provoke Sunnis more than they wish to attain closeness to Allah, and He truly knows their intentions. Long story short, indeed many of the Sahaba deserve the removal of Allah's mercy upon them because of their actions in this world. Many of the Sahaba do deserve praise for their actions, and (in my opinion) many of the Sahaba do not deserve either la`nah or praise because of their complicated decisions (i.e. Zubair ibn al-Awwam).

And how do you know those that are anti-Shi'a are "Salafi-Wahhabi"? Do they have it written on their forehead that you call them Salafis or Wahhabis? It's frustrating the way so many Shi'i try to make excuses for Sunnis in general by excluding the ones that hate Shi'as as "Salafis/Wahhabis" while the ones that don't hate Shi'as are "the real Sunnis." Do you know the Grand Mufti of Iraq Shaykh Mehdi Sumaidaei is Salafi, and has publicly met Imam Khamenei and Gen. Soleimani on several occasions, and have cordial relations? The truth is that many Hanafis, Shafi'is, and Malikis are just as capable of hating Shi'as as are Salafis. Any school of thought within Sunni Islam is just as capable of having good relations with Shi'as, including Salafis/Wahhabis. You have no right to label someone to be Salafi just because they are anti-Shi'a. Many Shi'as do this because they don't want to appear sectarian and truly the intentions of such Shi'as is pure, but extremely naive. Sunnis have marginalized, hated, and killed Shi'as for 1400+ years. When Sunnis are a minority in the West they cry Islamophobia when they themselves are discriminated against but oppress minorities several times worse when they are majority in their own countries, and even in the West. We all want peaceful co-existence with not only Sunnis, but every human being in this world, without having to compromise our beliefs. And sadly many Sunnis are not willing to co-exist with us without us changing our stance on the companions of the Prophet. And to them is good riddance. It's time Shi'as see things for how they are and stop expecting any sort of recognition from Sunnis. They have their own ways and we have ours. The tragedy of Sister Aya is that she was probably killed because of what some Islamophobe saw was terrorism by Sunnis. Even when Shi'as are killed because of what others have done to the image of Islam, those same people oppress Shi'as at our funerals.