Sirius_Bright

Followers of عمر killed followers of علي (عليه السلام).
May Imam (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) reappear and destroy the root of evil. 

Followers of عمر killed followers of علي (عليه السلام).
May Imam (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) reappear and destroy the root of evil. 

I am sorry that you have lost your faith. This happens to many people, and most of the people I have met have been able to bounce back from this. I came to Shi'a Islam as an adult, and so I have a different experience than you. Perhaps you coming here and listing your reasons is an attempt to understand these issues in more depth. I will try to answer a few points, at least to provide food for thought.
1. Most of the intimate details that pertain to the life of the Prophet Muhammad (s) have embedded lessons for our daily lives. The Quran acted as a guide for those in his lifetime, but it also mostly deals with realities that are relatable to the average believer.
2. "Trivial things" is subjective. Some may say, "The universe is 93 billion light-years in size, why would a God care about my private life?" By this logic, your public life shouldn't matter either. Murder is an insignificant event in a trillion-star universe with an endless amount of planets. And yet, we all agree that it is morally reprehensible. The size of an offense is also no measurement of its rightness or its wrongness. There are many big permissible things and small impermissible things, and vice versa. God is not someone on a far-away planet looking at us through a telescope. He created and sustains every atom of existence, and has concern over the lives of the smallest of creatures. Any system of morality that He puts in place is for our own benefit and not His. To Him, the dunya has the significance of the wing of a mosquito. And yet, He gave balance to both.
3. Why do you suppose that 5:106-107 would never happen?
4. The question of ethics (wife-beating, free man killing a slave) is very pertinent. What is the yardstick by which we measure good and evil? How are we to derive just laws? We live in a time that is dominated by utilitarian and liberal ethics, and yet there is much disagreement in liberalism on issues related to freedom and harm. For example: can you say with certainty that incest, if practiced safely, is morally wrong? Many secularist philosophers have a hard time answering this question. You believe in a God - that is good - so do you think this God cares about what happens in the universe, or no (Deism)? If the latter, then there would be no such thing as objective morality, because morality would just be a social construct coming out of culture. Murder would just be one group of molecules hitting another. We object to that. Liberalism also has constantly shifting definitions of morality - when I was born, liberal societies had very different views on issues like drugs, gay marriage, marital rape, and even the basic rights of the individual (COVID has changed that significantly). Many of these views are driven by states, markets, and mass media. So, when we analyze Islam through the lens of liberalism, we are really just using a stretchy ruler that constantly differs in size. For example: we have no record of anyone ever leaving or doubting Islam as a whole due to the famous "wife beating" verse until the 20th century. That is because the standard of morality in the 20th century has shifted, enshrining the rights and freedoms of the individual. This isn't always necessarily wrong, but it is, again, subjective and requires justification. What are our first principles and how did we come up with them? In our school, this "beating" is the last step (in a list of steps) in dealing with nushuz. It cannot be injurious, it cannot leave any marks, and it cannot be against the face - if it is, then the wife can go to the judge and hold her husband accountable. One tradition (I believe from Ibn Abbas) even used a miswak (tooth stick) to demonstrate that it is a gentle physical reminder rather than something designed to inflict pain. This today would be the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, shaking someone, pulling someone by the collar, or stepping on their foot, which few of us today would consider to be morally abhorrent. On the contrary, in liberal society, if you break the law, then strange policemen can subject you to any form of violence to contain you. The state has a full monopoly on violence, which comes at a cost.
I am not a literary scholar in Arabic, so I cannot comment on specific literary i`jaz that are unique to the Quran alone. However, we can agree that there is no book like it, in that it produced a movement of bedouins that quickly became the largest civilization that the world had ever seen in less than a decade after its completion. It has been memorized word-for-word by millions of people, and it can be preserved and reproduced in a way that no other book can. 1400 years later, we don't know of a book or document that can be compared to that.
If you'd like to see what non-Muslim experts of the Arabic language have said about the literary style of the Quran, then you can find the words of scholars like Sir Hamilton AR Gibb, Tor Andrae, or Edward Henry Palmer (Navid Kermani's book "God is Beautiful" compiles many of these).
If Islam simply plagiarized the stories of previous religions, then why do the stories differ in key ways? For example, the Quranic Jesus is free from the pagan elements that were attributed to the story of the Christian Jesus. You gave an example about the Flood as well, which the Quran never says is global.
It is important to note that Muhammad (s) never claimed to be bringing a new religion altogether. The Quran is mostly reminding people of familiar stories so that they may draw lessons from them. The Quranic stories are full of lessons on human frailty (Adam), economic justice (Shu`ayb), jealousy (Yusuf), standing up to oppressors (Musa), etc,
Did the Quran copy the Flood narrative from other texts? The Flood narrative is universal. It is found in ancient Mesopotamian, Indic, Chinese, Greek, Norse, and even Aboriginal (American and Australian) cultures. Some of these cultures have been isolated for thousands of years, and probably didn't just copy the myth from one place to the other. What is likely is that they were all describing a massive event; one worth teaching and documenting on an intergenerational level for thousands of years. Perhaps the most pertinent archeological debate right now is on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. It is a debate that could change our understanding of history as we know it. If true, then there would have been a mass flood and extinction roughly 12,800 years ago, wiping out a prior civilization.
-
This is a lot, so let's start here, unless you think the other issues you mentioned are bigger or more serious.

My wife's cousin and his elderly father were martyred in the blast. The mosque is located in an overwhelmingly Shia neighburhood where most of the extended family go for Friday prayers and muharram majalis.
It is the same neighbourhood where the famous Shia-Sunni debate took place about a century ago which is known as Peshawar Nights. The above-mentioned momins who were martyred today are the direct descendents of the person in whose house the debate took place. They still own and maintain the house.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshawar_Nights
Iltamas-e-dua.

Update: There is news of 80+ martyred and 150+ injured.

Bismillah, salaam.
 
There was an attack on a Imam Bargah in Peshawar, Pakistan, during Jumu'ah prayers. 30 martyred, over 50 injured. Please pray for the maghfirah of the martyred, well-being and patience for the injured and afflicted families, and of course for the swift advent of our Imam a.j.t.f (عليه السلام) so the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and His Messenger's Progeny (عليه السلام) may be brought to 'Adl.
 
Wasalaam.

Ex-Muslims be like:

Dude (or dudette), you need to get married if you want to get married.  Don't let the sunni-shia divide stop you if that's all that's available to you.
Look, it's unfortunate that we're divided, but if you want to be close with someone, if you want to have kids, if you want to be intimate and love someone, and you believe in Islam, the only lawful way to do all that is through marriage.  The last thing you want to do is be so strict now that you end up regretting it 20 years down the line and realize you missed out on 5, 10, 15, 20+ years of a potential lovely relationship with someone.
Just because someone is sunni doesn't mean they are firm in their desire to raise sunni children.  Doesn't mean they are firm in their desire to pray hands crossed,  Heck, they may not even really pray, or do anything sunni.  You may be perfectly free to raise kids how you want to raise them, and you may even bring someone else into the fold.  
Think about it.  

Can we say same thing for Haseen ibn Nameer (la), qatil e Janabe Ali Akbar (a.s.).?
Our 4th Imam was kind to this mal'oon, so by your logic, we should not curse him too. 
 

There isn't anything as such in shia fiqh. Wear the color you like. 

(Salam)
Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Quhafah is, no doubt, a very important figure in Islamic history. Asin over 80% of the Muslim world revere him as the first Khalifa (successor) to Rasulullah Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). But is Abu Bakr really what he is made out to be?
First and foremost, the point of this topic isn't to cause disunity, but it's just discussing our Islamic history. In the Qur'an, how many times does it say 'And remember...'? This is because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wanted to stress that taking lessons from the past is just as important as taking lessons from today.
Now let's get into the personality that is Abu Bakr. We very well know that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is the soul of the Prophet, as is evident is Surah Aali Imran 3:61: "...and ourselves and yourselves..." So what does Imam Ali (عليه السلام) have to say about Abu Bakr?
In Sahih Bukhari, it is narrated that, long story short, Abbas and Ali went to Abu Bakr seeking their rights, and both Abbas and ALI think that Abu Bakr is 
'A liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.' 
 
This is in Sunni books, not Shia. Reference:
 
Reference                  : Sahih Muslim 1757c
In-book reference     : Book 32, Hadith 58
Imam Ali has a sermon in Nahjul Balagha, sermon number 3. He talks about how the Khilafat was usurped from him and he talks about Abu Bakr:
"By Allah, [Abu Bakr] the son of Abi Quhafah has dressed himself with it [the Khilafat]..."
"It is strange that during his [Abu Bakr's] lifetime he wished to be released from the Khilafat but he confirmed it for the other one [Umar] after his death. No doubt these two [Abu Bakr & Umar] shared its [the Khilafat's] udders strictly among themselves."
As can be inferred from the words of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), Abu Bakr was someone who was hungry for power. 
Question: 'Wasn't Abu Bakr honoured with Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the cave in Surah al-Tawbah, 9:40:
[Shakir] "If you will not aid him [the Prophet], Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he [the Prophet] being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he [the Prophet] said to his companion [Abu Bakr]: 'Grieve not, surely Allah is with us.' So Allah sent down His tranquillity upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see, and made lowest the word of those who disbelieved; and the word of Allah, that is the highest; and Allah is Mighty, Wise."?
In the Ayat, Allah calls Abu Bakr the 'companion' of Rasulullah, and therefore it's an honour, isn't it? No. Being a companion on its own isn't an honour.  For example, Allah uses 'companion' when referring to the polytheists who were in the prison with Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) (عليه السلام):
[Shakir] "[Yusuf said:] 'O my two mates ['saahibay] of the prison! are sundry lords better or Allah the One, the Supreme?'" (Surah Yusuf 12:39)
Yusuf's 'companions' weren't even Muslims, so how can one say that Abu Bakr being a 'companion' of the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is an honour?
Let's analyise this Ayat. First Allah says that He will help the Prophet (عليه السلام), and that He did help the Prophet in the incident of the cave. So why was Abu Bakr with him in the first place? The answer is no one really knows. There's no hadith that says that the Prophet asked Abu Bakr to join him. Allah says that the Prophet said to Abu Bakr 'Do not grieve,' and apparently this is the Prophet consoling Abu Bakr. Nay, this is not the like. The disbelievers were trying to kill the Prophet, and they found the cave. Abu Bakr was being loud because of his sobbing, and that's why the Prophet said 'Do not grieve.' It was because if the disbelievers heard Abu Bakr, they would kill the Prophet, not because the Prophet was consoling Abu Bakr.
Now Allah says that He sent down tranquility onto Abu Bakr, right? Wrong. Allah sent down tranquility onto the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Notice how Allah was using pronouns to refer to the Prophet throughout the whole Ayat: 
"If you do not help him, Allah has helped him, when he was one of two and he said to his companion 'Do not grieve..."
So why suddenly do the pronouns change? When Allah says "So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him...," like in the rest of the Ayat, 'him' means the Prophet (Muhammad, peace be upon him and his family).
So we've established that the verse of the cave has no virtue for Abu Bakr whatsoever. But why should we think negatively of Abu Bakr? What is Saqifa? I'll tell you:
The Prophet (sawa) died on Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) lap. The Imam executed the Prophet's will, buried him and led the funeral prayers. Abu Bakr was in the Prophet's house, and Umar comes in and tells him to go quickly to (a place called) Saqifa, where people have chosen a leader. Abu Bakr rushes straight to Saqifa, leaving the Prophet, and gave a sermon that explained why he should be Khalifa.
A part of Abu Bakr's sermon:
"The Muhajiroon (immigrants) have a greater right to Khilafat than the Ansar (helpers), because they are closer to the Prophet..."
Let's refute. Firstly, notice how Abu Bakr never says 'I was appointed.' This is because firstly, he wasn't appointed, and secondly, he doesn't have the audacity to say that he was.
Also, if Abu Bakr's argument for him being the Khalifa is closeness to the Prophet, who was closer than Imam Ali?
Imam Ali (عليه السلام) himself says 'When there were only three people in the religion, it was always the Prophet, Khadija, and I [Ali].'
O Abu Bakr, if you are so close to the Prophet, at the shi'b of Abu Talib, where were you? At Badr, where were you? Abu Bakr was not with the Prophet in his early days, that was only one man, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام).
So if everything Abu Bakr said was nonsense, how did he become leader? 
What happened was that Umar grabbed Abu Bakr's hand, pledged allegiance, and Abu Bakr is now Khalifa.
Is that how Muslims choose their leaders? If a non-Muslim saw this they'll make fun of our religion.
Question: 'If Abu Bakr was an illegitimate leader, why didn't people stand up to him?'
They did stand up to him, but Abu Bakr ordered Khalid Ibn Walid to kill the ones who didn't pledge allegiance. Simple as that.
For this one, only Sunni sources are used.
There's a hadith in Sahih Bukhari that says:

"Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Fatima is a part of me, 
and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.""
 
There's another hadith, and you can use 'Sunnah.com' to find this, that says:
"Fatima and Al `Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and at that time, they were asking for their land at Fadak and their share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said to them, " I have heard from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, 'Our property cannot be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity, but the family of Muhammad may take their provisions from this property." Abu Bakr added, "By Allah, I will not leave the procedure I saw Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) following during his lifetime concerning this property." Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him until she died."
Fatima, daughter of the Prophet of Allah, had a secret funeral and was buried during the night.
To this day, no one knows where her grave is.
The hadith about Fatima's burial:
 
 "...So she [Fatima] became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not speak to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself."
 
Now you tell me: do you want a leader who makes the daughter of the Prophet of Allah angry? Do you want a leader who stole the khilafat from Imam Ali and killed anyone who didn't pledge allegiance? I'm not forcing anyone to say that Abu Bakr is illegitimate, but not gonna lie, it's kinda obvious.
 
I want to stress again that this topic is not meant to cause disunity. If there was anything I said that was offensive, reply and I'll change it, insha Allah.
 
May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all.
(Wa sallallahu 'alaa Sayyidina wan-Nabiyyina Muhammad)
(Wa 'alaa AhlulBaytihit tayyibeenat tahireen)
Ameen, Ya Arhamar-Rahimeen!

Eid al zahra Mubarak everyone, what are you guys planning to do? I’m planning to fast today.

I generally don't go very much with chain of narrators. I see enemy of Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) left for an-naar any day of the year, I celebrate. I'll call it Eid-e-Zehra (sa) since he was Qatil of Bibi Zehra (sa).
You got problems, don't celebrate. 

Yes. That is what I am saying. We are living in a time where not everyone agrees with us. We should be respectful of that. Not being respectful of that has very bad consequences, as you can see happening before your eyes. 
Tabarra means distancing yourself from the enemies of Islam. This was done by the Imams((عليه السلام)). Tabarra does not involve mocking anyone or telling lies about the enemies or misrepresenting who they were. Show me a single instance or a single hadith (authentic of course) where the Imams((عليه السلام)) mocked their enemies. If we call ouselves their 'Shia', that means we emulate their behavior, what they did and what they did not do. 
We have different fiqh from our Sunni brothers and sisters. They even have different fiqh from each other. Noone, let's say no reasonable and rational person, expects someone to violate their fiqh just for the sake of 'Unity'. I agree that would not be good. This discussion is not about fiqh. 
 
 
 
وَإِنَّ هَـٰذِهِۦٓ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَٰحِدَةً وَأَنَا۠ رَبُّكُمْ فَٱتَّقُونِ
And, verily, this Ummah of yours is one Ummah, since I am the Sustainer of you all: remain, then, conscious of Me.
Holy Quran 23:52
Comprehensive Unity means we are all under one leadership, as muslims were during the time of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). This will happen again after the rise of Al Qaim Al Hujjat(a.f.s)
 
 

Also, people are forgetting their deen, literature and Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) for the so-called unity which is never possible to achieve. Followers of Omar killed shi'as yesterday and they will kill you today, no matter you curse or not. So it is better that movie should be used for propagating the haqq. The idea is very good. 

I know about sayed Khamenei but Sayed Ali Sistani does not have any fatwa on the movie. Don't pick up his old fatwa and make conjecture and deviate people. 
If he has given direct fatwa on this movie, please post along with link to his website. 

There are different flavors to the unity. If you say that you are living in a society with different sects so behave nicely. That's fine. But when you start compromising on your beliefs then that would be a problem. That is not unity but surrendering to other sects due to inferiority complex and this is the most common form of unity propagated by some shi'as today. For eg. One guy with an amamah on his head says from Minbar, let us open our fast 5 mins early with sunnis to strengthen unity with them. This would not be an issue to sunnis but it will definitely break our fast (haraam and kafarrah). Some other people think we should not do Tabarrah either publicly or privately. We should be proud to be a Shi'a and not the one who surrenders to them along with our beliefs. 
Please quote the ayah. 
What do you mean by comprehensive unity? 
There are some other points like Tabarrah doesn't involve cursing and tabbarah puts other shi'as in danger that I disagree but I'm not discussing as it would open too many topic for discussion at once. 

There are different flavors to the unity. If you say that you are living in a society with different sects so behave nicely. That's fine. But when you start compromising on your beliefs then that would be a problem. That is not unity but surrendering to other sects due to inferiority complex and this is the most common form of unity propagated by some shi'as today. For eg. One guy with an amamah on his head says from Minbar, let us open our fast 5 mins early with sunnis to strengthen unity with them. This would not be an issue to sunnis but it will definitely break our fast (haraam and kafarrah). Some other people think we should not do Tabarrah either publicly or privately. We should be proud to be a Shi'a and not the one who surrenders to them along with our beliefs. 
Please quote the ayah. 
What do you mean by comprehensive unity? 
There are some other points like Tabarrah doesn't involve cursing and tabbarah puts other shi'as in danger that I disagree but I'm not discussing as it would open too many topic for discussion at once. 

Unity is possible. Maybe not the comprehensive unity which will happen during the time of Imam Zaman(a.f.s), but some unity is better than no unity. With some unity, there will be a question mark in front of statements by Salafis that Shiaism is based on cursing the Sahaba. If we don't refrain from this, then there will be no question mark in front of this statement (in the minds of the ignorant people who don't know anything about Tashau) and our brothers and sisters in certain areas which are controlled by Salafis and Wahabis will suffer as a result of this. That is why some unity is better than no unity. Since we are told in the Holy Quran that we are 'Umatin Wahidatin', one ummah, then we should work toward this. The word 'Ummah' comes from the term that was used in Pre-Islamic Arabia for a group of archers that were shooting at the same target. We are all shooting at the same target, all of us who are muslim and not munafiq. Our goal is to please Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h), make it to heaven and save ourselves from the punishment of hell. That is the target, for all of us. We can't allow a disagreement over leadership make us forget about this fact. It is still a fact, whether we remember it or not. 
I agree that the comprehensive unity is not possible without the leadership of the Masoom(a.f.s). At the same time, we are expected, as followers of Imams((عليه السلام)), to work toward this goal, in whatever way we can and not forget about it completely. This is part of Amr Bil Maroof wa Nahiya Al Munkhar (enjoining good and forbidding evil), which is a duty on every muslim/a. 
I think there is a misunderstanding by some about what the term 'Tabarra' really means. It means disassociating ourselves from the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). In doing Tabarra, we should seek to imitate how the Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) did Tabarra. The Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) did Tabarra, this Tabarra did not involve cursing or mocking the 1,2,3 plus some wives. They did not fail to point out who the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) were and describe their actions, when circumstances allowed them to do this, but that is where it stopped. They did not go beyond this point. So if we are their followers, we should do the same. Doing anything else is not being a true follower of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). 

Big issue. That's what is happening.
See Hasan Shrmani from ts.net .They've used social media the best way to spread there beliefs against shias. What have Rehbaris done in response? This has damaged shia islam alot.
When Allahyari challenged him, he was labeled has Agent, non-shia,  even though Hassan shimrani ran away from debating Allahyari, but a group of our own shias insulted him, labled him as Mi6 etc.
Bro if it wasn't for people like him, I might had gotten confused in deceptions of Salafis about Ghadeer e Khum. Again i don't like when he openly insults 1 2 3.
But Scholars could've politely asked him to avoid it, instead a big group labeled him as agent and non shia which further created tensions among shia themselves and definitely our enemies got chance to exploit us.

Also, people are forgetting their deen, literature and Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) for the so-called unity which is never possible to achieve. Followers of Omar killed shi'as yesterday and they will kill you today, no matter you curse or not. So it is better that movie should be used for propagating the haqq. The idea is very good. 

I'm not supporting or opposing the movie in any post. I just pointed out that you are trying to portray as if Sayed Ali Sistani forbade to watch Lady of heaven, which he hasn't till now. Don't beat around the bush, if you have specific fatwa then post otherwise don't attribute something to him he hasn't said. 

Also, people are forgetting their deen, literature and Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) for the so-called unity which is never possible to achieve. Followers of Omar killed shi'as yesterday and they will kill you today, no matter you curse or not. So it is better that movie should be used for propagating the haqq. The idea is very good. 

Also, people are forgetting their deen, literature and Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) for the so-called unity which is never possible to achieve. Followers of Omar killed shi'as yesterday and they will kill you today, no matter you curse or not. So it is better that movie should be used for propagating the haqq. The idea is very good. 

How many people here think there are only three Mujtahids Khamaenai, Sayed Sistani and Khomeini? Lol
There are countless Shia Maraje karam who have dis agreed with so called unity you people are forcing and on top of that they aren't even shirazi.
Scholars have cursed other scholars in past see rijal books for that. But doesn't mean jahils have right to make parties and curse the opposing group.
Ever heard who's Wahid Khorasani? And that he's said unity between shia ad sunni is like unity between Ali and Umar. He's non shirazi and a grand ayatullah and this sentence was also confirmed by Allamah Sayed Ali Shakri sahab.
I agree we shouldn't insult  1 2 3 and Aisha openly because that would cause fitnah and it may make many people go away from truth forever. But i don't know why Rehbaris want shias to actually start respecting Abu Bakr Umar Usman or Aisha.  Thats never going to happen. And the one who respects them, he's not a shia in light of hadiths. We need to propogate the true hisotry and events that took place and if Sayed Ammar is doing this, he's doing right.
Ofcourse we can dis agree with Sheikh Yasir Habib for openly insulting 1 2 3 4. but that doesn't make Sheikh Yasir an enemy of Islam. Why some people take anyone opposing fatwa of Khamenai as if he opposed clear cut verses of Quran of Mutawatir hadith? For God's sake. Khamenai is just a scholar like others are.