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


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,982 profile views

diyaa110's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. ^ the fatwa you shared is a part of it, the other part had a clause for causing 'shahwat' too. And the only reason it can do that should have something to do with posture, what else. And its not the only example, I remember reading fatwa regarding a woman's hair volume (in form of a bun or otherwise) being apparent from over the hijab, too bad somebody asked this and the answer was that if in urf it is supposed to cause shahwat then the woman should not do it otherwise it's okay. Probably the urf shud get itself checked for underlying mental disorders. Also, it isn't part of Islamic law that the women's feet be covered but again it is an urf problem, apparently it is thought that many men in a given society have feet fetish therefore women are required to cover their feet in presence of men.
  2. If running, riding, galloping and sitting on a horseback was allowed then cycling gives no unique posture other than these.. if you say its qiyas then its qiyas but to me it is rigidity to only look for a 'woman on bike' in history to give a law about a woman on bike. By the way, don't you think that riding a horse is much more postural than riding a bike, at least one stays still on the seat of a bike, lol. Yet the arabs didn't make a scene about women riding horses and it turning them on and asking for a ban. Iranians have gotten too sensitive perhaps.
  3. ^ Thanks for translating it nicely, its still much the same thing: there is a ban on females cycling public, as if cycling is some kind of prostitution that it violates your sanctity. You know, scriptures would rather have women speak in low voices and stay hidden and home so that can go very well with societies seeking to silence women in public altogether. And there were camels and donkeys back then. And I am a supporter of the Iranian regime and the Supreme leader otherwise. It's just sometimes the rigidity of these scholars in matters like these is surprising.
  4. That would be good to know.. but in the chat thread above someone did share the fatwa content in Arabic..
  5. So yes ? You're saying that the society's perception of hijab is above the freedom and rights granted by Allah to a woman, or even man ? This is insane. For example, in a society where women are not allowed to speak publicly, it would become haram for her to speak publicly because the society's modesty standards require it ?
  6. Riding a bicycle is not a part of libas or hijab so that it is left to urf. Riding a bike is an activity! And this is my concern in particular: IF you can ban an act or make it haram based on society's negative perception of it, saying that the society perceives it as improper hijab then really it means you can impose all kinds of unnecessary bans upon women in a given society, and seeing from the example of the fatwa in question this society doesnt even have to be state-level but even neighbourhoods and small areas will pass for the definition of society. This is wrong and unislamic.
  7. Its another thing if its seen as inappropriate but how is this thing a fatwa? Islamic laws are Islamic laws, not laws influenced and shaped by societal perception. If it's about societal perception then in societies that don't perceive revealing hair as immodest one should be allowed to reveal hair ? I know, you don't give the fatwa so you don't have to explain. I'm just speaking my mind.
  8. diyaa110

    Islam and Feminism

    Glad I came across this blog and I couldn't agree more. And you're right that in the beginning Feminism dealt with some important issues and did indeed bring a good change for women but today it has gone out of control and it does not serve women in general and is destructive to society.
  9. Just came across this news article and some facebook videos, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37430493 I was wondering if it's true, and why can cycling be haram if you're dressed modestly? Don't we see Iranian cyclists (male and female) winning medals in olympics and other sports tournaments, then how does this fatwa make sense?
  10. When will u guys improve ur search section.... I have never found a single thread using the search provided.... even if I type the exact name of the topic I can still not find it... I always have to go back in pages and then dig it out manually...... Before I used to use google to search within shiachat but now even google is not willing to do that... (something happened). Google won't search for you guys anymore... won't give me the results I would have gotten a few months back typing the same keywords. Too bad. So many threads but if they don't turn up in search then they're all useless. Sincere advice.... plz improve shiachat search... .. Thankyou very much Salam
  11. If I believe God to be good, then it means I have a definition of my own for a 'God' and for 'good', it's not like I learn what is good from the actions of God. I already have a definition of good in my mind prior to accepting God and his version or definition of what good is. So what are you trying to say ? And how is this logically consistent ? What you're saying is that God can be good or evil, just or unjust and be proven to be so, simply by labeling him with the tag we want. I believe that God is good, but at the same time I believe He creates the definition of evil, of finiteness, of mortality, of darkness. Not only that but He creates the definition of if, of you, of believe, of is, of then. What I mean is that we assign words to meanings, the meanings exist before they're named, and although God is the Creator of all meanings or things, but He is not from whom we derive the meanings. We believe in goodness before we believe in God, it means that as believers we accept God because first and foremost we're believers of good, that is why when we witness something apparently evil associated with God we seek clarification or justification - all because we have a well-defined concept of what good is prior to realizing our belief in Him. (Now of course Him being the source of all good it is only a case of falling for the traits of the lover before learning His name - but that's a different thing, right now I'm only saying that the definition of good is one and consistent and any act of Allah can be justified as good by proving it to be in accordance with the definition of good rather than claiming that it is good simply because it is an act of Allah)
  12. It is shocking I know. I actually read the book in urdu in paperback and found it in english on al-islam for reference. When I shared this in a family discussion my uncle said something similar that perhaps the translator didn't do his job very well or failed to understand the point Mutahhiri was making. But both the urdu and english versions give exactly the same idea. Now someone who's well-versed with Mutahhri's views or has read the Persian original can tell better but I doubt that it says anything different, I also doubt that a scholar like Mutahhiri failed to understand the concept of Bada'. And though it seems that what Mutahhri said is contradicting from the definition you give for Bada' (and which is the popular and accepted definition) but I don't find it so and I'm also impressed with using the concept of bada' in this way to solve the dilemma of freewill. I mean.. in this day and age of technology and advancement we can no longer imagine the knowledge of God to be like a fixed timeline or like a book which contains fixed words or letters or events. In other words, it is not like a movie which is played frame by frame... but it is more like a video game or software like Windows. Now, is a video game predestined ? Yes, it is. No matter how we play it, does it add anything new to the knowledge or database of the video game ? No, it doesn't. The game creator knows all possibilities and outcomes of all actions and he knows the minimum and maximum scores and there is nothing a user can do to cause any addition of knowledge to the game or system. So considering this particular example you can also say that whatever happens in the game and how we proceed in the game and all the changes which occur owing to the buttons we press only change from our point of view. . . the game creator knows exactly what comes next; for the player every moment and image is new yet it isn't new for the game creator. If we forget that there is a world outside the video game where we're sitting on the couch, and subtract everything else other than whats needed to play the game, then we only need a thinking mind and an ability to press buttons. Now if these two qualities are implanted within one of the bodily characters in the game then it would represent our life in this world... where we do not create our bodies, do not create the world around us, do not have much control over the way it works - the only thing we truly own here and about which we are responsible is our mind and ability to choose our actions. (Whereby actions are also predestined in that they are limited and have a predestined function assigned to them, and the mind also works in a predestined manner in that it has a certain design, scope and way of operating.. the command to choose is also predestined so that one has to choose one of the available options - and this command precisely requires that there be no compulsion or predestination in what one chooses.) If this was not the case then any accountability of our actions would be absolutely meaningless and unjust.
  13. It's not like he's unable to. If you tell me to murder an innocent person, even if I can still I wont. I wont because it is not in my nature so in a way I've decided never to do it. Similarly God has a nature, He is Good, He is Just . . . I wouldn't say that He can't be unjust (unable to be unjust) because then He would deserve no credit for being just. It would also mean that He is not even as free as we are, because at least we have both options of being just or unjust (even if it is an illusion). وَمَا اللَّهُ يُرِيدُ ظُلْمًا لِلْعَالَمِينَ [3:108] ...And Allah intends no injustice to mankind. This is why I like to think that Allah is Just by His Will and Choice and not out of compulsion or necessity.
  14. http://www.al-islam.org/man-and-his-destiny-ayatullah-murtadha-mutahhari/part-5-freedom-and-liberty#what-possible We always think of the book or knowledge of Allah as written material or space-time frames that have to exactly match the reality that is unfolding... but if we think of this book as a program written in some programming language with commands and clauses and possibility of different outcomes then the 'controlled' and 'written' part holds true too while 'freewill' and 'changeable destiny' holds true all the same. At least in the case of humans (or jinns). Also, read this: “In Islam there is an issue called bada' (revision). The concept of bada' has an apparent meaning which few would regard as acceptable. Some have even criticized the Shi'ah for believing in bada'. The meaning of bada' is revision in Divine Destiny (qada'), meaning that God has not fixed a definite and final form for the course of human history. In other words, God Says to man: "You yourselves are in charge of the fulfilment of Divine Destiny, and it is you who can advance, stop or reverse the course of history." There is no blind determinism either on the part of nature or the means of life or from the viewpoint of Divine Destiny, to rule over history.” - Murtaza Mutahhari http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=641
  • Create New...