Ibn al-Hussain

He is a decent scholar and speaker, not extreme or anything. Most of his topics concern general social and ethical issues from an Islamic perspective (hadith & Qur'an) from what I've seen. Wasalam

What do you want to know about him exactly? I have met him a couple of times and he is a resident scholar in one of the mosques in Toronto. Wasalam

I think before someone becomes a Dev Team member, a Mod or an Admin on ShiaChat, they should first be given a Course for Dummies so they know the difference between a "Grand" "Ayatullah" and what you are supposed to refer to them for so that and their jurisdiction, and experts in otheir fields, so they do not look like fools in front of others. Otherwise, it is tantamount to someone who has a medical ailment referring to a car mechanic for treatment, no matter how "grand" that car mechanic is. Funny enough, another "Grand" "Ayatullah" of Lebanon decided to cast doubt in the whole event of the fire + door + rib. I am sure that Ayatullah is not so "Grand" in your eyes. Wasalam

The event of Fadak and what transpired between the lady (s) and the caliph is one thing, but the lengthy sermon we have with us today is another issue. Even if she actually did give a sermon, there is no way to say what we in our disposal today is actually her words. I am referring to the latter. Not only are the chains seriously problematic, and the fact that there is a confession by the fabricator, and that people were already discussing its fabrication in 3rd century Hijri as attested by the author of the earliest extant book in which the sermon is recorded in (Balaghat al-Nisa of Ibn Abi Tayfur), and the fact al-Mas'udi in his Muruj al-Dhahab describes how Jahiz would make up dialogues between Fatima (s) and Abu Bakr in his works; when you actually being analyzing the contents of it in Arabic you will start realizing that many terms and concepts simply were unheard of in 11 AH and were terms and concepts that developed over the next two centuries after the Prophet (p). Wasalam

The guys who fabricated the sermon (Abu al-'Ayna and al-Jahiz - interestingly both were literary experts and strong grammarians as well as poets) themselves admit to the fabrication. Refer to Tarikh Dimashq, v. 45 - around pg. 441. Unfortunately, the explanation for why these two individuals possibly fabricated the sermon requires expanding on many historical details, an analysis of the Rawandiyah Abbasid sect and so on. Based on experience, it doesn't seem like most members on the site have the ability to digest some of these discussions and hence I'll save my self the hassle. Wasalam

You have to realize, this principle and its application are rooted in the discussion of infallibility, specifically infallibility that concerns the Prophets and the Imams whose Wilayah and obedience is understood to be taken for granted. The discussion on Fatima's (a) infallibility is not rooted in the same theological context so some of these arguments will not apply to her at all. In addition, this is not a universal principle to begin with, for you to then extend it every other matter. It is a theological principle specifically restricted for things that were (later through Prophetic legislation or always, even during the time of Jahiliyyah) considered major sins or detestable acts by society. So for example, certain types of adulterous marriage in the Jahiliyyah period were not abnormal and were a recognized institution, but the Prophet - even before his Prophethood and before actually out-lawing such a marriage - would not have committed such an act. As for minor sins, as long as it was not a minor sin which would result in the belittlement or embarrassment of the Prophets or the Imams, then the Shia theologians did not have a rational problem with that (although Shia theologians will make an exception to Prophet Muhammad even on this specific scenario, but they do not apply this exception to the Imams). As you can see, their main concern was that it should not jeopardize their role as a future leader in society, for people to hold it against them. Not wearing the hijab is excluded from this because, believe it or not, it is not considered a major sin as per definition of the scholars and it is not a minor sin that results in later belittlement or embarrassment, nor does Fatima (s) have the same role of a Prophet or the Imams for the aforementioned principle to apply to her to begin with. The aforementioned arguments are rational; whereas there is no rational argument to establish the infallibility of Fatima (s). You have to resort to religious text and its parameters & extent have to be defined by the text (Qur'an and Hadith). Wasalam

Many people would have been drinking alcohol before its prohibition, not just Umar. I am not sure why that is problematic whatsoever? It was part of life. It is not against any theological belief that we have to presume every single member of the Bani Hashim or other companions of the Prophet could not have drunk alcohol. Yes, the theological belief of the Shi'a argues that Prophet could not have done so, and he could not have committed any minor sins before his Prophethood either - this is also backed up by certain traditions. They will extend this argument to Imam Ali (a) as well (even though in Sunni works this is not the case since they have a report that shows Imam Ali was drunk in one instance while leading prayers - the Shias will reject those reports. As per Sunni theology, this is not problematic at all. I am sure some people remember the case of Dr. Israr Ahmed when he quoted this report once on television). But I am not sure why we would need to extend this to the idea of clothing. Both men and women, the family of the Prophet, his wives, or other free women, would have been covering and wearing clothes like the other Arabs who were dwelling in the urban towns. There is no theological problem in this and neither is there any historical argument to back up the idea that Fatima (s) specifically had a different dress code than anyone else in the whole city. If we go with the presumption that most of these women were already covering their head and much of their hair, then it is to be presumed Fatima (s) was doing that already - especially once she was nearing the age of her marriage, which is around 9-11 and not as a child (I really hope people don't think she was wearing a chador or an abaya covered head to toe while she was growing up as a child or that she was born in the state of wearing niqab - you never know nowadays). Once the verse was revealed asking them to cover up more, such as their chest area, and perhaps their necks, then it is to be expected that Fatima (s) just like the other women such as the wives of the Prophet (p) would have all covered up in a similar fashion. You may be referring to 75:16. The understanding that the Prophet had always known the content of the Qur'an in detail (every single verse, and when it will be revealed etc.) is subject to debate and one needs to look into the idea of revelation (the notion of it being revealed once and then over time, what is the difference between these two revelations and so on). Wasalam

The first tradition quoted above is from Usul al-Kafi of Shaykh Kulayni and the third one is from 'Ilal al-Shara'i of Shaykh Saduq. Both are primary Shi'a texts. The last tradition which is from Sunni books, I mentioned it also exists in Shia works such as the Amali of Sh. Tusi. I am not sure why anyone would even presume the women of Arabia were covering their faces for religious reasons. That would have been utterly abnormal. Also don't forget the Islamic hijab only became obligatory much later on in Medina, so before that, there was no reason for any woman to cover to such a great extent and there is no reason to presume Fatima (s) was covering extraordinarily even before the obligation of such a thing. This is why the verse of the Qur'an comes and tells us the Prophet to tell your wives, daughters and wives of the believers to cover up (33:59) - it mentions daughters as well. Wasalam

Don't interpret words the way you want them to be perceived. Nowhere is the term "force" mentioned anywhere in this whole discussion. I don't need consent of a woman to look at her while she is walking around in public - the concept of force isn't applicable here. I don't know what you guys are arguing against - this is just an exception to the rule of looking and consent is not needed as per the view of every single Shi'a and Sunni scholar (except the Malikis). Wasalam

Yes. Yes. Irrelevant, since her permission and satisfaction is not required and she does not need to know. Stop confusing social norms with Islamic law. Just because someone won't be comfortable with their sister doing Mut'ah doesn't make Mut'ah problematic, just because society doesn't marry a divorcee or widow doesn't make marriage with them problematic, just because society looks at non-virgins in lower light doesn't make marriage with them problematic, just because someone is uncomfortable with a serious candidate looking at a girl before committing doesn't make the law problematic. If you want to make laws based on people's subjective comfort levels you may as well produce a new Fiqh. Wasalam

You can be at the age of menstruation, but perhaps you have not actually menstruated yet and could get pregnant (if a girl is ovulating). Wasalam

Legal Age of Bulūgh for Girls What follows is a summary of a number of discussions held by me and three other seminarians, where arguments of numerous jurists on the legal age of maturity (bulūgh) for girls were investigated. Even though we find a classical scholar considering menstruation as the criterion for the obligation of fasting in the month of Ramaḍan, the popular opinion amongst Shīʿī Imāmī jurists has been that the age of bulūgh for girls for all religious duties including fasting is nine lunar years. However, there are other jurists who do not believe nine to be an indicator of bulūgh but rather other signs of puberty up until the age of thirteen. If no signs of puberty are seen in a girl beyond thirteen then she is to be considered of legal age at the completion of thirteen years. Continue Reading: https://www.iqraonline.net/legal-age-of-bulugh-for-girls/ Iqra Online | https://t.me/IqraOnline | https://www.facebook.com/IqraOnlineBlog/

The reason why I gave so much context in my blog post is because the commonly spread fatwas today do not mention all the details. However, the proof is implicitly in the fatwa itself. It is allowing you to look at the woman and her body (beyond just the neck and feet) which already implies you will be allowed to observe her curves (even with clothes on). Remember, this ruling is only applicable up until you acquire the information you need after which it is impermissible for you to look again.

How is it a violation of a future wife for someone to know what she looks like before he sends a proposal to her? You are just presuming you have random creepy guys going around asking descriptions of every girl they know of - this is not what the law is legislating. It is permitting a serious candidate to do so. Would you rather the person ends up marrying you and then divorcing you because he didn't like what he saw? Also, you are not giving these guys the benefit of the doubt, but giving all the women in your women gathering the benefit of the doubt that no one in there takes pictures and shares them around with other men of their family. The latter seems more naive than letting a serious candidate look at some picture or be given a description. There is nothing dishonest about this. The same religion that has asked you to cover up has also given a serious candidate permission to look at you without hijab in such a scenario with the three, four conditions mentioned in the ruling. The ruling says he gives a reasonable probability she will say yes to the proposal. So that is already a condition mentioned in the ruling. How is this any different than things like if a divorced or widowed woman marries again while her next husband knows that a previous man had not only seen but has had sexual relationships with her? These laws aren't based on someone's personal comfort level. Why do you keep saying "random dudes"? We are talking about a marriage proposer here who is willing to spend the rest of his life with this woman. Not a "random dude". It isn't haram if they have hidden this information to such an extent that no one knows about it. We act based on apparent knowledge. Otherwise, it is for reasons like these and other reasons that it is mustahabb to announce one's marriage. Those who accept that a man can see beyond the face and hands do not debate this bolded part. We have a narration to back this up as well. Wasalam

Why? Just because some woman may describe you to a person who may be interested in marrying you and proposing to you? What is wrong with that? Wasalam