Aabiss_Shakari

السلام علیکم یہاں میں دو شیعہ علماء کا مؤقف پیش کر رہا ہوں۔ کیا کوئی دلائل سے بتا سکتا ہ ے کہ کس کا مؤقف بمطابق اسلام ہے؟ https://www.facebook.com/share/r/3pUsTBsetCgWLirB/?mibextid=D5vuiz

Asslam o alaikum If you ask me, I believe Akhbari is a non existent school of thought. Those persons who claim to be Akhbari have least knowledge of Akhbari theology. Akhbari was that school of thought who were against following any scholar's ruling about any problem. They were of the belief that one should deduce the ruling himself from Quran and sayings of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or ahl ul bayt (عليه السلام). But with the passage of time it became clear that it's not possible for everyone to deduce religious rulings from Quran and Hadith directly and a special institution of Ijtehad and Taqleed was developed. Akhbaris are against this but yet today's Akhbaris donot follow this principle. Like for example most of them do Qama Zani or blood matam but can not refer any Hadith justifying it. Actually they claim to be Akhbari just for their opposition to rulings of Usooli scholars otherwise they are ignorant of Akhbari theology

It looks staged to win elections

Trump is attacked. The attacker is killed. It is reported Trump is safe

Asslam o alaikum I lost password of this nick and had been trying to recover it. Even I registered a second nick Aabiss_Shakari1 but today I tried to login and found password saved for this nick. Just clicked and succeeded in logging in. How can I see my saved password?

السلام علیکم کیا سنان بن انس لع جس کے بارے میں مشہور ہے کہ وہ امام حسین ع کا قاتل تھا کسی صحابی رسول ص کا بیٹا تھا؟

Mourning for ahl e bait (عليه السلام) is a commemoration. It makes us keep it in our mind and make us strengthen our bond to Ahl e bait (عليه السلام). This mourning is actually a fuel for all the resistance in the Muslim world against imperialist and Zionist powers.

Asslamaoalaikum, I am a fan of Agha Jawad Naqvi founder of Jamia Urwatul Wusqa Lahore. But a few days back a scholar from Karachi who claimed to have been leading prayer in a mosque in Karachi said that "Agha Jawad Naqvi has denied Ismat-e-Anbiya ((عليه السلام)) (Infallibility of Prophets (عليه السلام)). He said that this is one of the basic pillar faith of Shia faith and is according to main Shia doctrines. He said that "Agha Jawad Naqvi is polluting the Shia faith by his so called unity among Ummah". I have been defending Agah Jawad Naqvi in different religious groups and have heard his lectures on different subjects but this has disturbed me a lot. There is huge split among the scholars in Pakistan and I am very confused. Please guide me in the following:- 1. What is the importance of belief on Ismat e Anbiya ((عليه السلام)) (Infallibility of Prophets (عليه السلام)) 2. What is consequence of non believing on ismat e Anbiya? 3. What is difference between sinning and Tarq e Owla? 4. What are your views about Allama Agha Jawad Naqvi?

Few days back I asked Imam e Jamat of Imam e Zamana Mosque Haider Road Islampura Lahore about this issue. My exact question was "Is it Allahu Akbar or Allaho Akbar". He said both are correct but "Allahu Akbar" is more appropriate because its Arabic accent while "Allaho Akbar" is Persian accent.

A Pakistani politician had shared an animated clip from Grand Theft Auto 5, a video game, suggesting it was real footage. The internet got its laughs in before the lawmaker could delete his tweet. Khurram Nawaz Gandapur, Secretary General of Pakistan’s Awami Tehreek Party, took to Twitter with what he thought was amazing footage of a jetliner barely missing a tanker truck parked on a runway. He added the caption “Narrow escape of an aircraft which could have ended in a great disaster. Miraculous save by pilot’s presence of mind.” https://twitter.com/saptak__mondal/status/1147815589236264962/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1147815589236264962&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fnews%2F463689-Pakistani-politician-video-game%2F Unfortunately for the lawmaker, there was no such “miraculous save” for his tweet, and commenters soon erupted into mockery. “As if our politicians are super intelligent,” one said, while suggesting in a joke the United States might sell virtual fighter jets to Pakistan instead of F-16s. “These innocuous mistakes are what we live for,” another wrote. “Too funny!” It wasn’t the first time a Pakistani official had the internet in stitches. In June, the provincial government of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa accidentally livestreamed an entire meeting on Facebook with the ‘cat filter’ enabled. https://twitter.com/Wabbasi007/status/1139599197441855488 https://twitter.com/Wabbasi007/status/1139599197441855488 https://twitter.com/Wabbasi007/status/1139599197441855488 Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan has been caught breaching diplomatic protocol by sitting down without waiting for his fellow heads of state to arrive at the opening ceremony of a major international summit. Khan took a seat while the rest of the room stood to welcome heads of state, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, to the opening ceremony of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on Thursday. A video of the faux pas was shared by the official Twitter handle of his own party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. https://www.rt.com/news/461883-imran-khan-breaks-diplomatic-protocol/ The prime minister of Pakistan is facing a social media furore for allegedly disrespecting the king of Saudi Arabia when the two leaders met for the Arab nation’s OIC summit in Mecca. Imran Khan was filmed walking the elaborate red carpet to meet King Salman, following a brief handshake and greeting. However, it appeared from the footage that the Pakistani PM spoke directly to the monarch’s translator rather than addressing the royal himself. https://www.rt.com/news/460902-imran-khan-Saudi-king-salman/

Nuclear strike threat? Tehran says US has no other means to ‘obliterate’ Iran Blatantly threatening to launch a nuclear war against another country is not only illegal under international law, Iranian FM explained, but proves that President Trump does not think through the ramifications of his rhetoric. “There is a United Nations charter, and threat of wars is illegal,” Javad Zarif told CNN paraphrasing Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, a day after President Trump spoke menacingly about “obliterating” Iran if the Islamic Republic endangers “anything American.” That statement indicates that US intentions are certainly illegal. The United States is not in a position to obliterate Iran, they do not have the capability other than using prohibited weapons to do this. Zarif did not elaborate on what exactly he meant by prohibited weapons, but he recently pointed out that the US was the only country that ever used nukes, and noted that Iran is ready to defend itself against US aggression in any scenario. https://www.rt.com/news/462776-zarif-Trump-obliteration-illegal/

New Zealand government website erases Israel from map, replaces it with Palestine https://www.rt.com/news/462157-new-zealand-Israel-map/

Jeremy Corbyn has questioned whether the government has "credible evidence" to show Iran is behind the attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said responsibility "almost certainly" lies with the Iranian regime. But the Labour leader tweeted that the United Kingdom should ease tensions in the region, not fuel a military escalation. The explosions on Thursday came in the Gulf of Oman - a strategic waterway crucial to global energy supplies. It is the second time in the past few weeks that tankers appear to have been attacked in the region and comes amid escalating tension between Iran and the United States. The US military released video footage which it said proved Iran was behind the blasts - something Iran has categorically denied.

Pentagon seeks to build global ‘consensus’ on Iran. Is it time to worry? https://www.rt.com/news/461920-washington-build-consensus-Iran/ The Trump administration is looking to “build international consensus” against Iran following attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. But what does that actually mean? And to what end is it used? "The focus for myself and Ambassador Bolton and Secretary Pompeo is to build international consensus to this international problem," acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters outside the Pentagon on Friday. Shanahan went on to say that the Pentagon would contribute to this effort by sharing intelligence with allies, as it did Friday when it released a video it claims shows Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) removing an undetonated mine from the hull of one of two tankers attacked that morning. For National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, consensus-building will likely take a different shape. Pompeo has already blamed Iran for the attack, citing non-specific “intelligence” and Tehran’s alleged history of “unprovoked attacks” in the region. The State Secretary has jetted off in search of consensus before; taking a tour of the Middle East at the beginning of the year to unite the US’ Arab allies against Iran. Bolton has been clamoring for war with Iran for over a decade, advocating pre-emptive strikes on the Islamic Republic since 2008. Shaping consensus for him will likely entail more beating of the war drums on the international stage. Rallying allies Why build consensus at all? There are two reasons: moral and material. The US paints itself not as the “world police” but as a moral beacon, an exemplar for “democracies” to aspire to and follow, so the more allies sign on to its cause the more legitimate it looks. On a more practical level, going against Tehran is not an endeavor the US can do alone. Iran has a population of nearly 90 million people, the world’s 14th-most powerful military, a navy and array of land-to-sea missiles capable of inflicting devastating losses on American ships in the Persian Gulf, and the ability to close off the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil transits. Put simply, the US needs allies on its side, believing its story and fighting its fight, either diplomatically or militarily. Demonizing adversaries When Washington-backed opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself President of Venezuela in January, the US was waiting in the wings to recognize him, having strangled the country with economic sanctions for years in preparation for just this moment, allowing it to declare President Nicolas Maduro had run the country into the ground with his evil corrupt socialist dictatorship, Venezuelans were eating their dogs and zoo animals, and the time had come to recognize this fresh young face whom only a fifth of the country had ever heard of. Additionally, the US had a pre-selected slate of allies on hand in order to give the appearance of massive international support: the Lima Group, consisting of 12 South and Central American governments and Canada, was formed in 2017 with the aim of securing regime change in Venezuela. After they jumped on board the Guaido train, a handful of European nations also offered their recognition, though the EU officially hedged its bets by calling for a ‘fair election’. The UN, notably, did not offer its endorsement of this regime change ‘consensus’. When Syrian leader Bashar Assad was accused of using chemical weapons on the town of Douma last April, the United States reached out to just Britain and France. Though Assad’s guilt had not been ascertained, and remains in doubt, the trio released a joint statement of condemnation and battered Syrian military and scientific targets with airstrikes. The cruise missile stunt did not require support from any other countries – or UN approval, apparently – while the “international consensus” to blame everything on Assad has been established long ago, in the early stages of the war that broke out in 2011. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a different story, and Washington spent months beforehand hammering home the line that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, and was working with Al-Qaeda terrorists. Neither statement was true, and skepticism abounded, but the message was repeated and 39 allies eventually joined the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to aid the US war effort. Incidentally, John Bolton was a member of the Bush administration at the time, serving as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs while Bush delivered his “Axis of Evil” speech to the world. If history has one abiding lesson to offer here, it’s to always be wary of any talk of consensus from Washington. With storm clouds gathering over the Gulf of Oman, Shanahan’s statement could possibly be viewed as a rare telegraphing of intent, and a sign to watch out for the next “axis of evil” speech.