Ibn al-Hussain

So you are fine with the killing of current Islamophobes such as Tommy Robinson, Ayaan Hirsi, various Hindu Nationalists and others who have made it their career as being open enemies of Islam? Wasalam

For Ayatullah Sistani, yes - since he says Khums has to be paid on wealth that is acquired even without having worked for it. Wasalam

This is because people have an absurd understanding of what divine individuals were about - this is primarily an issue for Shi'as who are brought up with a very delusional and imbalanced image of the Prophets and the Imams. If they were actually familiar and well-read with the primary texts of the hadith literature, they would not have such an absurd understanding and would realize that the Prophets and Imams also engaged in very human and relatable activities on a daily basis. This included participating in most social norms and customs of the time, be it in physical behaviour or in speech. N

Unfortunately, these type of questions cannot really be addressed on a forum in detail for a number of reasons: 1) they require a lot of expounding of the issue to get to the crux of the matter and as well as an investigation of individual's presumptions and their validity (universality of their particular moral perceptions across time and space); 2) addressing actual misunderstandings of what the laws were (or are) and putting them in their appropriate historical contexts to better understand their moral positions; 3) addressing the flaws of the alternative being offered, such

I was only speaking about 2 minutes of the video (between 1:05 to 1:07), not anything else.

I found 1 hour 5 minutes to 1 hour 7 relevant:

You are talking about instances where the woman is not aroused and so on, have you seen absolutely any religious source legitimizing this or even bringing such a scenario up? I have yet to see anything encouraging or permitting this - on the contrary there are traditions saying make sure the woman is aroused and so on. You seem to be conflating your understanding of war-rape with what these narrations are talking about. You cannot harm a slave, or even your wife, but what does that have to do with consent? You are tying consent with harm because this is what has been understood to be the case

There is enough documentation to show Muslims were also being taken as slaves, especially by Europeans, and that it isn't just that Muslims were the ones capturing slaves. In fact during the Safavid period there were even Shi'as being taken as slaves in the Bukhara regions by the Sunnis. So it's not about agreeing with it since one hopes the results will be in their favour, rather the whole point is that if you can acknowledge that it is a phenomenon that simply exists in all societies and the functionality of society is heavily dependent on it, you will not argue "against" slavery even if you

There is no necessary relationship between these two sentences, since something simply being in religious literature and being justified in the past does not always mean it has to be justified today. The laws are always revolving around specific subject-matters and if those subject matters do not exist then the law is not applicable. Slavery laws are a good example of that since their subject-matter (I.e. slaves in the legal sense) do not exist anymore. This also does not necessarily mean there is no possibility of the world returning back to an era in the near future where slaves coul

Around 4-6 months - I was in Iran and hence why I picked it up really quick.

Yes I am fluent and I speak mostly informal Farsi now, even though I began with learning formal.

Fair enough, I am not going to defend the actual ruling since there are many theological presumptions being made to arrive at these rulings, but my point is that so far the responses on against the traditionalist position are weak and based on a very subjective moral compass - there is no reason to take Western normative definitions as the criteria especially when the premises of these norms are very problematic.

Rape is prohibited in Islam and is punishable by death, but why should I care about your definition of rape and about your judgement of the traditional framework and definition of things?Even in the West the definition of rape has changed multiple times over the last century, let alone since the time of the Greeks where it had no sexual connotation, and will probably continue to change. To answer your question: yes, in a scenario where consent has no meaning such an act is justified and it is not defined as rape. Rape only has meaning in a place where consent has relevance. You are presuming r

http://www.easypersian.com/ Wasalam