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

ShiaMan14

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    8,746
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    54

ShiaMan14 last won the day on October 2 2020

ShiaMan14 had the most liked content!

Contact Methods

  • Facebook
    https://www.facebook.com/ShiaMan14

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ameriland
  • Religion
    Shia (Twelver)
  • Mood
    Always Positive
  • Favorite Subjects
    Life

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

13,312 profile views
  1. Based on your stance, I am making a clear distinction between Muhammad the Prophet and Muhammad the Administrator. As a matter of fact, go back and read my comments from PG9 onwards where I refer to Muhammad as Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Muhammad depending on if we are talking prophetic or political office. So Muhammad occupied the office of State-Administrator; RasoolAllah did not occupy this office. You are the one who has made that distinction. So how can Abu Bakr be the successor of Rasool when "Rasool" did not occupy that office. You can call him and others: Khalifa-e-Muhammad Khalifa-e-Khalifa Khalifa-e-hakim or simply Khalifa. oh okay, I thought this verse meant not to ask rhetorical questions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in a rude and disrespectful manner. Thx.
  2. Of course not. A rhetorical question expects no answer. A leading question expects a specific answer. The style, tone and approach were completely different but we can discuss this on the other thread I create just on this topic. Hey Stupy - created a separate thread on this topic:
  3. From my vantage point, we have 2 options here. Option 1: Caliph Abu Bakr was correct in declaring those Muslims that 'challenged' the writ of the State as apostates and going to war against them. Since he is classified as a Caliph-e-Rashid, this would mean his actions were in complete compliance of the Quran and Sunnah. Therefore, 1) All those who opposed Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at Jamal should also be considered apostates. 2) All those who opposed Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at Siffin should be considered apostates. 3) From Yazid's vantage point, Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) also challenged the writ of the State and as such could be deem an apostate and Yazid's actions were justified. Shimr actually called out that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was preparing for hellfire when they lit a fire around the camps of the Ahlul Bayt at Karbala. 4) Yazid used the actions of Caliph Abu Bakr to justify his own actions. Option 2: Caliph Abu Bakr was incorrect in declaring those Muslims that 'challenged' the writ of the State as apostates and going to war against them. He did not follow Quran; he did not follow sunnah and so was not a Caliph-e-Rashid. Therefore, 1) All those who opposed Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at Jamal were wrong but should not be considered apostates 2) All those who opposed Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at Siffin were wrong but should not be considered apostates. 3) Yazid was wrong in following the sunnah of Caliph Abu Bakr. Instead he should have followed the sunnah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام). When Abdullah bin Umar refused to pay allegiance to Imam Ali (عليه السلام), the people were hugely upset with him. The people forced Abdullah bin Umar give a promise that he would not work against the State. The people also asked for a guarantor for the said promise. Abdullah bin Umar could not find one so the magnanimity of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was such that he gave the guarantee on behalf of Abdullah bin Umar that Abdullah bin Umar would not work against Imam Ali (عليه السلام). <-- This is a Caliph-e-Rashid. 4) The actions of Yazid were not dissimilar to the actions of Caliph Abu Bakr. Both went on offensive wars against Muslims for non-criminal reasons. Both committed major and unforgivable sins.
  4. I was able to write a post on this issue: @starlight @El Cid @Diaz @YoungSkiekh313
  5. The World Health Organization defines Infertility as, "Infertility and subfertility affect a significant proportion of humanity. WHO has calculated that over 10% of women are inflicted – women who have tried unsuccessfully, and have remained in a stable relationship for five years or more. Estimates in women using a two year time frame, result in prevalence values 2.5 times larger. " The map below shows how different countries are impacted by this disease across the world. Obviously, included in these numbers are Muslims. So then the question is how should Muslims and specifically Shia Muslims deal with this disease? Fortunately with the advancement of science and exemplary ijtehad of our marajae, there are lots of options available to us. Below are some solutions that take science and sharia into account from a male and female perspective. Male Infertility When talking about male infertility, there could be 2 primary issues - impotence and sterility. So either the male is unable to inseminate the female naturally or the sperm is of poor quality or does not exist at all. In either case, sperm can be obtain using other methods. If quality is not an issue, then the semen can be inserted into the female using a technique called IUI barring no other issues. With low quality sperm, one option is to try medications that can help improve sperm quality. If that fails, science is advanced enough to where all they need is to find 1 good sperm. But in this case, they would have to extract eggs from the female and literally inject the 1 good sperm into the egg. After 3-5 days, the egg is placed back into the female. This is IVF. The real issue is what happens if there is no sperm. There are various rulings on this topic but based on my research below are acceptable depending on marja. Some marajae say it is permissible to take the semen of another man and perform an IUI. Others don't permit direct semen insertion but do permit taking the semen and fertilizing eggs with it. Then the fertilized eggs can be placed in the female. This would be IVF. There may be some marajae who completely rule out this option. Regardless of IUI or IVF, there are 2 primary issues with respect to taking another man's sperm - mahram and inheritance. Mahram - if a girl is born, she would be mahram because genetically she will belong to the wife but not mahram to the extended family. Non-issue if a boy is born. IVF is actually advanced enough to where the couple can choose of the gender of the baby. Inheritance - technically the child would belong to the genetic father (sperm donor). However, there are ways around this which is similar to adoption inheritance - beyond the scope of this post. Female Infertility: Female infertility is more complicated than male infertility because there could be a multitude of factors. I will summarize them into 2 primary issues - egg and womb. Eggs Infertility related to eggs is where a female's eggs are of poor quality or not sufficient. In this case, there are medications that can be taken as a first option. Next option is IVF. The female would take fertility drugs to increase egg production; doctor would extract all the eggs that mature and fertilize them with the semen from the male. They will be able to tell the quality of the eggs and focus on the high quality ones. After 3-5 days, the best fertilized eggs would be placed back into the female. In case when the eggs are the problem, then donor eggs can be used, fertilized with the male's semen and inserted into the female 3-5 days later. The egg donor or genetic mother is the mother from an islamic perspective but birth mother (wife) is also a mother. Additionally by breastfeeding the baby, the mahram issue would go away. Womb This is the most complicated issue. If the semen and eggs are okay but one or more parts of the 'womb' are the cause of infertility. If no other options are available, then the couple can look at surrogacy. The male's semen and the female's eggs are retrieved, fertilized and placed into another female. In order get around all the issues, this is a perfect opportunity to do mutah with the other female (with no intercourse clause). The baby would be born with a full legal status and genetically belong to the male/female. If a woman agrees to surrogacy, then she would presumably agree to mutah as well. Of course, this assumes the female is not married. Not doing mutah is also permitted but the rulings vary by marja. Summary: This is by no means an exhaustive research article on the available options for couples dealing with infertility. The point is that there are a lot of options available to happily, married couples dealing with this disease. With the multitude of options available, couples should not be looking at divorce as an option to deal with infertility. It does not make sense to lose a perfectly loving spouse for something that doesn't even exist - "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" Lastly, dealing with infertility is extremely stressful mentally, physically, emotionally and financially. There are lots of support options available for each scenarios and couples who deal with this together, get through it for the better. There are lots of prayers and duas that are recommended to deal with this disease. I am hoping people can post them here. Allah says He will try us with health, wealth and children. Infertility is a trial of the Prophets - Ibrahim (عليه السلام), Zakariya (عليه السلام), Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) so be strong.
  6. I was going to use it as a pun but then saw your post.
  7. what will really blow your mind is when you make keema (ground beef or chicken), you can just add potatoes'o'brien in it. Keema 101: 2 lbs (1kg) keema. put enough oil in a pot to cover the bottom put some onions to fry (or buy pre-fried onions) add keema 1 teaspoon red chili 1 teaspoon tumeric 1 teaspoon salt 1 teaspoon ginger 1 teaspoon garlic 1 packet shan masala mix add 2-3 cup of water cook for 1 hour add potatoes/peas/bell pepper and cook for up to 30 min Buy some packets of naan and paratha...enjoy!!!
  8. Yes, I wish I had seen this post back in 2018. I would have been able to help the sister out. Science and our ulema have given us plenty of options so no divorce or re-marrying is required. Inshallah I will write a post on this issue that I hope gets pinned to the top of the Social forum.
  9. @El Cid, When I was single, I used to live off tabarruk in Muharram, Safar. Then in Ramadan, I would go to the local mosques every day since they always served iftar. So that covered 3 full months. Next, thanks to our rich religious calendar, there are always majlis, milad, etc going on so guaranteed food...yay!!! All in all - almost 6 months was covered by religious activities + food served The rest of year, I learned to cook rice and make daal. Go to your grocery store and buy potatoes'o'brian. Put them in a bowl, add some red chili, tumeric and fry. I have also done this with regular frozen fries. Learn to make keema - very easy. Then I would either put peas in it or potatoes (keema aloo, keema matar). Of course you can add other vegetables as well such as bell peppers. hope this helps.
  10. @Ansur Shiat Ali @ShiaofAli12 @Cool The magnanimity of the Shiah is that we are defending Umar saying was repentant per Tabari, Bukhari and Nomani The hypocrisy of the sunni is that they will call Umar a blasphemer and creator of "fasad-fil-ardh" just to try to win an argument that they have already lost. Munafiq is as munafiq does.
  11. Yes let's discuss both. But this topic is about Umar. So whats the verdict?
  12. Fair enough - we can start that topic too but this topic is about Umar. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) "disobedience" was out of respect whereas Umar's disobedience was insolence. Back to Umar...
  13. This is purely an academic discussion and not meant to offend anyone. I am trying to draw parallels between 4 different islamic civil wars (battles). Ridda Wars - Apostasy Wars under the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr against those either stopped being Muslims or refused to acknowledge the leadership of Abu Bakr. Battle of Jamal: Caliph Ali (عليه السلام) against Aisha, Talha, Zubayr and others Battle of Siffin: Caliph Ali (عليه السلام) against Muawiya Battle of Karbala: Yazid against Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) @Cherub786 stated: The justification for Ridda (Apostasy) Wars was the rebels were challenging the writ of the State. Based on the above, we can all agree that challenging the writ of the State is rebellion and not only is it a rebellion but the rebels can be labelled apostates because that is what the Caliphate chose to call them. Q1) Based on the agreement above (blue), can we then assume the Aisha, Talha, Zubayr and other prominent 'sahaba' were apostates? Did they not rebel against Caliph Ali and challenged the writ of the State? Q2) Based on the above agreement (blue), can we assume that Muawiya was an apostate for challenging the writ of the State? Q3) Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) did not challenge the writ of the State directly but isn't not paying allegiance also an act of challenging the writ of the State? Some of the tribes in Ridda Wars were massacred simply for not paying allegiance to Abu Bakr so Yazid had a precedent set before him. Doesn't that justify that Yazid was right in going after Hussain and crushing the rebellion? Based on the agreement, does challenging the writ of the State make Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) an apostate (istagfirullah)? Q4) How are the actions of Yazid different from the actions of Caliph Abu Bakr? Please know that this is a serious academic discussion and not intended to hurt anyone's feelings.
×
×
  • Create New...