Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Muhammad A-H

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from Malsayagh.11 in Wiping the feet in wudu   
    I have also seen people wipe the feet starting from the top of the nails. However, I do not believe this is correct. You are required to wipe from the tip of the toe. If you look at the videos of how Al-Sayyid As-Sistani and Al-Sayyed Al-Khoei perform wudu', they wipe from the tip of the toe (the image on the left which you presented).
  2. Completely Agree
    Muhammad A-H reacted to -Rejector- in Singapore decriminalizes homosexual intimacy   
    The reason for Allah's mentioning of women is clear. 
    We cannot try to twist the words of Allah to suit our own desires. Islam is called islam for a reason. 
    I'm actually stunned at this comment. Especially considering the fact that no marj3a allows homosexuality. 
    Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) has stated:
    “Penetrating the anal opening is a greater sin than penetrating the [female private part]. Certainly Allah destroyed a complete Ummah (Ummah of Prophet Loot (عليه السلام)) because they indulged in sodomy. Allah has not destroyed even one man for adultery."
    (Source: al-Kafi)
    The holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said:
    “A person who commits sodomy with a boy will acquire such an impurity that even all the water of this world cannot remove it. Allah will be wrathful at him and curse him.  What a dreadful place it is! Then the Heavens shudder of it. And the person who allows another to mount him from behind to commit sodomy, then Allah puts him on the fringe of Hell (in extreme heat) and keeps him there till He completes the reckoning of all the people. Then He orders him to be put into Hell. One by one he is made to suffer all the punishments of Hell till he reaches the lowest stage. Then he never comes out from there.”
    (Source: Wasaail al-Shia)

    Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad, from Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Talha Bin Zayd,
    From Abu Abdillah (عليه السلام) who said that Rasoolullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said:
    "The one who kisses a boy out of lustful desire, Allah would bridle him on the Day of Judgement with a bridle of Fire."
    (Sources: al-Kafi, Vol. 5, The Book of Marriage, Biharol Anwar, Vol. 79, Pg. 7)

    Ali Bin Ahmad narrated to us, from Muhammad Bin Abu Abdullah, from Muhammad Bin Ismail, from Ali Bin Al Abbas, from Al-Qasim Bin Rabie Al-Sahaaf, from Muhammad Bin Sinan, says that
    Abu Al-Hassan Ali ibn Musa Al-Reda (عليه السلام) wrote to him in answer regarding what he had written to ask him:
    "The reason for the Prohibition of the males for the males, and the females for the females is due to what is perpetrated among the women and the men what is not their natural disposition, and due to what is involved in the males coming to the males, and the females coming to the females, from the cutting off of the lineages, and the corruption of the system and the spoiling of the world."
    (Source: ILLAL AL SHARAIE – V 2 Ch 340 H 2)
    I could go on all day...our ahadeeth is filled with prohibitions of homosexuality. It's impossible to deny.
    Okay. Let's make a list of people who have mental problems:
    Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani Ayatollah Makarem Al-Shirazi Ayatollah Sadiq Al-Shirazi Ayatollah Muqtada Al-Sadr And many, many more highly respected scholars of Ahlul Tashayyu'. 
    Or, it could just mean that we were biologically made for male-female relationships, and Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) laws are being broken by men going to men and women going to women. 
    How about, instead of creating our own tafseers, we just ask Ahlulbayt (a)? Sound good?
    Tafseer of Quran Surah al-Araf 7:80-84
    وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُمْ بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِنْ دُونِ النِّسَاءِ ۚ بَلْ أَنْتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُسْرِفُونَ وَمَا كَانَ جَوَابَ قَوْمِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ قَالُوا أَخْرِجُوهُمْ مِنْ قَرْيَتِكُمْ ۖ إِنَّهُمْ أُنَاسٌ يَتَطَهَّرُونَ فَأَنْجَيْنَاهُ وَأَهْلَهُ إِلَّا امْرَأَتَهُ كَانَتْ مِنَ الْغَابِرِينَ وَأَمْطَرْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ مَطَرًا ۖ فَانْظُرْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُجْرِمِينَ
    And Lot, when he said to his people, ‘What! Do you commit an outrage none in the world ever committed before you?! Indeed you come to men with desire instead of women! Indeed, you are a profligate lot.’ But the only answer of his people was that they said, ‘Expel them from your town! They are indeed a puritanical lot.’ Thereupon We delivered him and his family, except his wife; she was one of those who remained behind. Then We poured down upon them a rain [of stones]. So observe how was the fate of the guilty! [7:80-84]

    So Allah Mighty and Majestic said to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم): "never far from the wrongdoers." [11:83] - from the unjust ones of you community that they should know what the people of Loot did. And Rasoolullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said:
    "The one who persists in copulating with the men will not die until he invites the men to himself."
    (Source: al-Kafi, Vol. 5, The Book of Marriage)

    Jalaal Al Deen Suyuti – Akhraj Bin Abu Al Danya and Al Bayhaqi, and Ibn Asakir, from Abu Hamza who said,
    "I said to Muhammad ibn Ali:
    "Allah punished the women of the people of Loot for the deeds of their men."
    The Imam said: "Allah is more just than that. The men satisfied themselves with the men, and the women with the women."
    (Source: Tafseer Abu Hamza Al Sumaly - H 102)

    Al Ayyashi, from Yazeed Bin Sabit who said,
    ‘A man asked Amir al-Momineen (عليه السلام):
    "Can I go to the women into their backs?"
    He said: "You are the lowest, may Allah lower you! Have you not heard Allah saying: "Do you commit an outrage none in the world ever committed before you?!" [7:80]?"
    (Source: Tafseer al-Ayyashi, 2:22)
    Tafseer of Quran Surah al-Shu'ara 26:165-166
    أَتَأْتُونَ الذُّكْرَانَ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ وَتَذَرُونَ مَا خَلَقَ لَكُمْ رَبُّكُمْ مِنْ أَزْوَاجِكُمْ ۚ بَلْ أَنْتُمْ قَوْمٌ عَادُونَ
    What! Of all people do you come to males, abandoning your wives your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are a transgressing lot.’ [26:165-166]
    Sayyid Kamal Faqih Imani writes in his tafseer:
    Tafseer of Quran Surah al-Naml 27:54-55
    وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ وَأَنْتُمْ تُبْصِرُونَ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِنْ دُونِ النِّسَاءِ ۚ بَلْ أَنْتُمْ قَوْمٌ تَجْهَلُونَ فَمَا كَانَ جَوَابَ قَوْمِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ قَالُوا أَخْرِجُوا آلَ لُوطٍ مِنْ قَرْيَتِكُمْ ۖ إِنَّهُمْ أُنَاسٌ يَتَطَهَّرُونَ فَأَنْجَيْنَاهُ وَأَهْلَهُ إِلَّا امْرَأَتَهُ قَدَّرْنَاهَا مِنَ الْغَابِرِينَ وَأَمْطَرْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ مَطَرًا ۖ فَسَاءَ مَطَرُ الْمُنْذَرِينَ
    [We also sent] Lot, when he said to his people, ‘What! Do you commit this indecency while you look on? Do you approach men with [sexual] desire instead of women?! Indeed, you are a senseless lot!’ But the only answer of his people was that they said, ‘Expel Lot’s family from your town! They are indeed a puritanical lot.’ So We delivered him and his family, except his wife. We ordained her to be among those who remained behind. Then We poured down upon them a rain [of stones]. Evil was that rain for those who had been warned! [27:54-58]
    Tafseer of Quran Surah al-Ankaboot 29:28-29
    وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُمْ بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ وَتَقْطَعُونَ السَّبِيلَ وَتَأْتُونَ فِي نَادِيكُمُ الْمُنْكَرَ ۖ فَمَا كَانَ جَوَابَ قَوْمِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ قَالُوا ائْتِنَا بِعَذَابِ اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ
    And Lot, when he said to his people, ‘You indeed commit an indecency none in the world has ever committed before you! What! Do you come to men, and cut off the way, and commit outrages in your gatherings?’ But the only answer of his people was that they said, ‘Bring down us Allah’s punishment, if you are truthful.’ [29:28-29]
    The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said:
    “If you find someone who does the act of the people of Lot, do know that its punishment in Islam is execution.”
    (Source: Al-Tarqib Wal-Tarhib, Vol. 7, Pg. 288)
     Imam al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) said:
    “If the act of sodomy were lawful, the men would be needless of women, and the generation [of mankind] might be cut, women remained without husband, and there would exist many corruptions in the authorization of sodomy.
    And Allah created women for men so that they associate with them and gain tranquility by them, and women are the site of men’s lust and mothers of their children.”
    (Source: Biharol Anwar, Vol. 10, Pg. 181)
    The evidence regarding the prohibition of homosexuality is overwhelming. 
    We Muslims need to stop becoming slaves of the West and return to being slaves of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).
    If Allah orders something, it's final. And the Ahlulbayt (a) have shown that Allah has ordered homosexuality to be completely haram. 
    May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all.
  3. Thanks
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from ireallywannaknow in Removal of najasat from surface   
    If you follow Al-Sayyid Al-Sistani, then one wash with qalil water or kurr water is sufficient to purify the najis areas of the floor. So you should pour water over the impure areas after removing the urine, then you should remove the impure used water with a towel or something similar if you washed the floor with qalil water.
    If you do not remove the used water with a towel, then whatever the impure used water had touched remains najis (third mutanajjis), but it doesn't make anything else impure after drying because third mutanajjis things do not make anything else impure according to Al-Sayyid Al-Sistani.
    Ruling 174. If ground that is paved with stone or brick, or hard ground that does not absorb water, becomes impure, it can be purified with qalīl water; however, one must pour water over it to the extent that it flows. And if the water that is poured over it does not disappear down holes in the ground but instead gathers somewhere, then in order to purify that place, the gathered water must be removed with a cloth or a utensil.
    Ruling 25. If qalīl water is poured onto an impure object in order to remove an intrinsic impurity from it and the qalīl water separates from the impure object, and if the impure object is from among those things that do not become pure by washing once(1),16 then in such a case, the qalīl water [that has separated from it] is impure. Similarly, if after removing the intrinsic impurity, qalīl water is poured onto an impure object in order to purify it and the qalīl water separates from it, then based on obligatory precaution it is impure.
    Ruling 154. If a person wants to wash with qalīl water an object that has become impure with urine, in the event that water is poured over it once and separates from it and urine does not remain on the object, it becomes pure. However, with clothing and a person’s body, water must be poured over it twice in order for it to become pure. As for washing clothing, rugs, and similar things with qalīl water, in all cases, one must wring them until the remaining water comes out (and the meaning of ‘the remaining water’ is water that usually drips out by itself or by wringing at the time of washing and after washing).
    Ruling 119. If a pure object touches an impure object and both or one of them is wet – such that the wetness of one transfers onto the other – the pure object also becomes impure; however, it does not become impure through multiple intermediaries [i.e. the transfer of impurity is limited to two intermediaries].

    An example: if the right hand has become impure (mutanajjis) with urine, and [after drying,] that hand touches the left hand with a new wetness, this touching causes the left hand to become impure; and if after drying, the left hand touches some wet clothing, for example, the clothing also becomes impure; but, if the clothing touches some other wet object, that other object is not ruled as being impure. Furthermore, if the wetness is so little that it does not transfer onto another object, the object that was pure does not become impure even if it touches an intrinsic impurity.
  4. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Mahdavist in Is the idea of static fiqh rationally defensible?   
    I don't think it's the same argument.  To put it simply, you are saying the Quran was mainly intended for early Muslims, I am saying it never claimed to address only early Muslims.
    Your previous response to the hadith was 'how come its not in in Quran?' to which I responded that an authentic hadith of the Prophet is hujjah on us anyway since the Quran orders us to obey him, and that if in general you are rejecting hadith completely then you will need to explain where you take the sunnah from.
    So I am not seeing how these arguments are the same.
    Ok, well the fact that for 1400 years we have been referring to the Quran and the sunnah for jurisprudence is already telling me that it is possible. Unless you are suggesting that it is possible for 14 centuries but becomes impossible after 15, 16 or 17...
    In other terms, you are saying that you will refer to them first but overrule them as and when it feels appropriate (thus my claim that they are no longer leading or governing, in the model you propose,  rather they are only accepted to the extent that they fit your decisions otherwise they are revised or rejected)
  5. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Mahdavist in Is the idea of static fiqh rationally defensible?   
    Repeating myself here, but the nature of the Quran as the final revelation,  as the word or God and its follow up through the sunnah of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). 
    If these were intended to be changed or reinterpreted, then rather than defining themselves as eternal guides for mankind they would have been described as vague references which can be substituted by interpretations. Clearly this isn't the case.
    If there are specific points to be addressed I am happy to do so.
    But this suggests that the Quran is still in the lead, whereas what you are suggesting is that it is a sort of side reference which might give hints and echoes and mainly addressed early Muslims, but ultimately the intelligent Muslims (not clear who exactly this would be ) will decide what flies and what doesn't. 
  6. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Mahdavist in Is the idea of static fiqh rationally defensible?   
    Thanks for your reply brother. In terms of timing I would say feel free to read or post whenever it works out even if there is a gap of several days or weeks.
    Based on your feedback, here is how i see the overall situation:
    -traditional fiqh is based on the Quran, hadith, ijma (consensus) and 'aql (rationality in this context) and this is also the order of priority. The Quran is essentially the 'master', and if the jurisprudential issue isn't solved through it then one moves on to the hadith. If it still isn't clarified then the consensus of the scholars is the next checkpoint and finally if a conclusion still isn't reached then the jurist who is well versed in the Quran, sunnah and research of classical and contemporary scholars will finally rationalize the information that is available and provide guidance accordingly.  
    This system has a clear hierarchy and remains within the framework of one master, governing text even if within this framework there are differences. 
    Furthermore the key sources remain consistent for all times and places. New challenges and situations will require new research but ultimately the framework remains the same.
    -your model of dynamic fiqh (not yet fully defined) seems to reareange the sequence and add to it.  Essentially it seems to be: Social norms, Quran, hadith. This means that the core texts are no longer governing. Rather, we start with social conventions and then submit the Quran and hadith to the conventions, taking what fits society and redefining or rejecting anything that doesn't.
    Rather than social challenges being filtered through the Quran and hadith for validation,  it is now the Quran and hadith that are now being filtered. A hadith that doesn't validate social norms is rejected. An ayah that doesn't validate the norms is attributed a new meaning or simply relegated to a vague idea which needs to be readapted. 
    Essentially the Quran and hadith don't really have a guiding role in this model at all, rather they are submitted to a retrofit only for the sake of an apparent reconciliation.
    In reality that means that Islam as a religion will finally not really have any other purpose than to be continously reinterpreted and adjusted so that it mirrors changing social norms. Society ultimately decides what is ok and what isn't, and based on the outcome we decide what the Quran and hadith should actually be saying.
    This is why I made the initial claim that dynamic fiqh is finally the absence of fiqh altogether because there isn't really anything to legislate in the 'everything goes' model.  
  7. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Qa'im in Ja`fari School in Sunni Hadiths   
    Salaam `alaykum,
    The book Fiqh al-Aal by Amin ibn Salih Harran al-Hada' is a contemporary Arabic book (1129 pages) that collects Sunni references of the fiqh of Ahl al-Bayt (عليه السلام) and compares them to Shi`i fiqh. Today, I decided to translate just a few of the references. In many narrations, we see how the Imams differed from standard Sunni fiqh positions. It is a strong argument for Twelver Shiism, because it proves that the Shi`a accurately preserved the fiqh of Ahl al-Bayt, using external sources. Therefore, the Shi`a didn't just "make it all up" - the fiqh we attribute to Ahl al-Bayt has strong overlaps with what the Sunnis and Zaydis attributed to the Ahl al-Bayt. Thus, if our narrators, compilers, and scholars were representing the Ahl al-Bayt accurately in fiqh, reason would follow that they could also represent them accurately in other areas (like `aqida).
    I have included links to Sunni books for those who want to check the original references.
    حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا حَفْصٌ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ جَعْفَرًا يَقُولُ: «§مَا لَيْسَ فِيهِ قِشْرٌ مِنَ السَّمَكِ فَإِنَّا نَعَافُهُ وَلَا نَأْكُلُهُ»
    Abu Bakr narrated to us. He said: Hafs narrated to us. He said: I heard Ja`far say: Whatever fish does not have a scale, we leave it and we do not eat it.
    قَالَ ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ: وَأَخْبَرَنِي مَنْ أُصَدِّقُ، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا، قَالَ بِالْكُوفَةِ: " §لَوْلَا مَا سَبَقَ مِنْ رَأْيِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ - أَوْ قَالَ: مِنْ رَأْيِ ابْنِ الْخَطَّابِ - لَأَمَرْتُ بِالْمُتْعَةِ، ثُمَّ مَا زَنَا إِلَّا شَقِيٌّ "
    Ibn Jurayj said: One that I trust informed me that `Ali said in Kufa: Had it not been for the said opinion of `Umar b. al-Khattab – or he said: opinion of Ibn al-Khattab – I would have prescribed mut`a. Then, none would fornicate except a wretched person.
    ولم يرخص في نكاح المتعة إلاّ عمران بن الحصين وعبد الله بن عباس وبعض أصحابه وطائفة من أهل البيت
    None permitted mut`a marriage except `Imran b. al-Hussayn, `Abdullah b. `Abbas and some of his companions, and a group from the Ahl al-Bayt.
    عبد الرزاق ، عن ابن جريج قال : أخبرني عطاء أنه سمع ابن عباس ، يراها الآن حلالا ، وأخبرني أنه كان يقرأ : " فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل فآتوهن أجورهن " .
    `Abd al-Razzaq from Ibn Jurayj. He said: `Ata’ informed me that he heard Ibn `Abbas saw it (mut’a) as halal right now. He informed me that he would recite: “If you do mut’a with one of them for a time period then give them their due dower.” (Quran 4:24)
    قال: وقال ابن عباس فى حرف أبى: إلى أجل مسمى. قال أبو عمر: وقرأها أيضا – هكذا إلى أجل مسمى – على بن حسين، وابنه أبو جعفر محمد بن على، وابنه جعفر بن محمد
    He said: Ibn `Abbas said: In the codex of Ubay: “ila ajalin musamma”.
    Abu `Umar said: `Ali b. Husayn, his son Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. `Ali, and his son Ja`far b. Muhammad would also read it like this: “ila ajalin musamma”.
    وقالت طائفة: النكاح جائز بدون شهود، كذلك قال عبد الله ابن إدريس، وعبد الرحمن بن مهدي، ويزيد بن هارون، وعبيد الله ابن الحسن، وأبو ثور.
    وزوج ابن عمر ولم يحضر النكاح شاهدين، وفعل ذلك الحسن ابن علي
    One group said: marriage is valid without witnesses. That is what `Abdullah b. Idris, `Abdul Rahman b. Mahdi, Yazid b. Harun, `Ubaydullah b. al-Hasan and Abu’l Thawr said.
    Ibn `Umar got married, and two witnesses did not attend the wedding. Al-Hasan b. `Ali did that as well.
    حدثنا ابن وكيع، قال: ثنا أبـي، عن الـحسن بن صالـح، عن غالب، عن أبـي جعفر، أنه قرأ: «وأرْجُلِكُمْ» بـالـخفض.
    Ibn Wakee’ narrated to us. He said: My father narrated to us from Al-Hasan ibn Salih from Abi Ja`far. He recited, “Wa Arjulikum”.
    حدثنا ابن حميد، قال: ثنا هارون، عن عنبسة، عن جابر، عن أبـي جعفر، قال: امسح علـى رأسك وقدميك.
    Ibn Hamid narrated to us. He said: Harun narrated to us from ‘Anbasa from Jabir from Abi Ja`far. He said: Wipe your head and your feet.
    اختلف الناس في مسح الرجلين وفي غسلهما، فنقل الفقال في تفسيره عن ابن عباس وأنس بن مالك وعكرمة والشعبي وأبي جعفر محمد بن علي الباقر: أن الواجب فيهما المسح، وهو مذهب الإمامية من الشيعة.
    The people disagreed over whether the two feet were to be wiped or washed. It is narrated in the Tafsir of Al-Qaffal that Ibn ‘Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, ‘Ikrama, Al-Sha’bi, and Abi Ja’far Muhammad ibn ‘Ali Al-Baqir believed that it was obligatory to wipe them: this is the position of the school of the Imamiyyah from the Shia.
    1996 - حدثنا أبو بكر عن حيان عن سدير عن أبي جعفر قال لا يمسح على النعلين
    Abu Bakr from Hayyan from Sadeer from Abi Ja’far. He said: Do not wipe over the sandals.
    الْمَسْحُ عَلَى الْعِمَامَةِ وَأَنْكَرَتْ طَائِفَةٌ الْمَسْحَ عَلَى الْعِمَامَةِ، وَرُوِيَ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ أَنَّهُ حَسَرَ الْعِمَامَةَ فَمَسَحَ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ
    Wiping over the turban [in wudu]. A group negated wiping over the turban. It has been reported from `Ali that he took off his turban and wiped his head.
    1895 - حدثنا حفص عن الأعمش عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد خير عن علي قال لو كان الدين بالرأى كان باطن القدمين أولى وأحق بالمسح من ظاهرهما ولكني رأيت النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم مسح ظاهرهما
    Hafs narrated to us from al-A`mash from Abi Ishaq from `Abd Khayr from `Ali. He said: Had religion been deduced by opinion (reason), then it would be preferrable and more rightful for the bottom of the two feet to be wiped [in wudu] than the top. However, I saw the Prophet (s) wipe the top.
    العلاء بن المسيب عن الحكم قال: قال سألت محمد بن علي عن المسح؟ فقال إن عليا كان يمسح عندنا. قال: كان علي بينكم وفيكم يقر علمه وأنتم أعلم به.
    Al-`Ala’ b. Al-Musayyib narrated from al-Hakam. He said: I asked Muhammad b. `Ali about wiping. So, he said: Surely, we hold that `Ali would wipe. He said: `Ali was among you, and his knowledge has settled with you, and you are more knowledgeable in it.
    https://books.google.ca/books?id=BzJ0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT124&lpg=PT124&dq=العلاء+بن+المسيب+عن+الحكم+سألت+محمد+بن+علي+عن+المسح؟+فقال+إن+عليا+كان+يمسح+عندنا&source=bl&ots=xC5bNUkvoT&sig=ACfU3U2-ij8-fsC6S143Aahlc_wD8EiTBw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmmIjhj8z4AhVXWs0KHV0eDMwQ6AF6BAgcEAM#v=onepage&q=العلاء بن المسيب عن الحكم سألت محمد بن علي عن المسح؟ فقال إن عليا كان يمسح عندنا&f=false
    ومسح رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على الخفين فأنكر المسح علي بن أبي طالب وعائشة وابن عباس وأبو هريرة وهؤلاء أهل علم بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومسح عمر وسعد وابن عمر وأنس بن مالك وهؤلاء أهل علم به
    As for the Messenger of Allah (s) wiping over his two leather socks (khuffayn): `Ali b. Abi Talib, `A’isha, Ibn `Abbas, and Abu Hurayra rejected wiping, and these are the people of knowledge of the Prophet (s). `Umar, Sa`d, Ibn `Umar, and Anas b. Malik would wipe, and these are the people of knowledge of him.
     عبد الرزاق ، عن جعفر ، عن عطاء بن السائب ، عن عبد الله بن حبيب أن عليا كان يقنت في صلاة الغداة قبل الركوع ، وفي الوتر قبل الركوع " قال : وأخبرني عوف أن عليا كان يقنت قبل الركوع .
    `Abd al-Razzaq from Ja`far from `Ata’ b. al-Sa’ib from `Abdullah b. Habib: `Ali would perform the qunut before the ruku` in the Fajr and witr prayer.
    And `Awf informed me that `Ali would perform the qunut before the ruku`.
    2914 - عَنْ عَلِيٍّ أَنَّهُ كَانَ إِذَا قَالَ سَمِعَ اللَّهُ لِمَنْ حَمِدَهُ قَالَ: §اللَّهُمَّ رَبَّنَا لَكَ الْحَمْدُ كَثِيرًا، ثُمَّ يَسْجُدُ لِأُعْطِيَهُ كَذَا قَالَ: اللَّهُمَّ رَبَّنَا لَكَ الْحَمْدُ، اللَّهُمَّ بِحَوْلَكَ وَقُوَّتِكَ أَقُومُ وَأَقْعُدُ "
    When `Ali would say, “sami` Allahu liman hamidah”, he would say, “Allahumma rabbana lakal hamdu katheera”. Then, he would prostrate … [then] he said: “Allahumma rabbana lakal hamd. Allahumma bi hawlaka wa quwwataka aqum wa aq`ud.”
    حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو خَالِدٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ مَرْزُبَانَ، قَالَ: صَلَّيْتُ خَلْفَ ابْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى، فَسَلَّمَ وَاحِدَةً ثُمَّ قَالَ: «§صَلَّيْتُ خَلْفَ عَلِيٍّ، فَسَلَّمَ وَاحِدَةً»
    Abu Khalid narrated to us from Sa`id b. Marzuban. He said: I prayed behind Ibn Abi Layla, and he did one taslim. Then, he said: I prayed behind `Ali and he did one taslim.
    عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ عُمَارَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْأَصْبَهَانِيِّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ عَلِيًّا يَقُولُ: «§مَنْ قَرَأَ خَلْفَ الْإِمَامِ فَقَدْ أَخْطَأَ الْفِطْرَةَ»
    From Al-Hasan b. `Umara from `Abd al-Rahman b. al-Isfahani from `Abdullah b. Abi Layla. He said: I heard `Ali say: He who recites [the Quran] behind the imam has deviated from the fitra.
    - حدثنا أبو حميد أحمد بن محمد بن حامد العدل بالطابران ، ثنا تميم بن محمد ، ثنا أبو مصعب الزهري ، حدثني محمد بن إسماعيل بن أبي فديك ، أخبرني سليمان بن داود ، عن جعفر بن محمد ، عن أبيه ، عن علي بن الحسين ، عن أبيه ، أن [ ص: 712 ] فاطمة بنت النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ، كانت " تزور قبر عمها حمزة كل جمعة فتصلي وتبكي عنده
    Abu Humayd Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hamid ... Tamim b. Muhammad narrated to us. Abu Mus`ab al-Zuhri narrated to us. Muhammad b. Isma`il b. Abi Fadik narrated to me. Sulayman b. Dawud narrated to me from Ja`far b. Muhammad from his father from `Ali b. al-Husayn from his father that Fatima the daughter of the Prophet (s) would visit the grave of her uncle Hamza every Friday and pray and weep there.
    عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال : وأخبرني جعفر بن محمد عن أبيه أن عليا كان يتحرى ليلة القدر ، ليلة تسع عشرة ، وإحدى وعشرين ، وثلاث وعشرين
    `Abd al-Razzaq from Ibn Jurayj. He said: Ja`far b. Muhammad narrated to me from his father that `Ali would seek Laylatul Qadr on the eve of the 19th, 21st, and 23rd.
    حدثنا أبو بكر قال أنا حاتم بن إسماعيل عن جعفر عن أبيه ومسلم بن أبي مريم أن علي بن حسين كان يؤذن فإذا بلغ حي على الفلاح قال حي على خير العمل ويقول هو الأذان الأول .
    Abu Bakr narrated to us. He said: Hatim ibn Isma’il narrated to us from Ja’far from his father and Muslim ibn Abi Maryam that ‘Ali ibn Al-Husayn used to make the adhan. When he reached “haya ‘alal falah”, he would say, “haya ‘alal khayr al-‘amal”. He would say, “this is the original adhan.”
    قال أحمد بن خالد الذهلي الأمير : صليت خلف علي الرضى بنيسابور ، فجهر ببسم الله الرحمن الرحيم في كل سورة .
    Ahmad b. Khalid al-Dhahli al-Amir said: I prayed behind `Ali al-Rida in Nishapur, and he recited “bismillahir rahmanir Raheem” out loud in every surah.
    وفي جلسة الاستراحة: حديث عن علي بن أبي طالب -رضي الله عنه- قال: إذا رفع أحدكم رأسه من السجدة الثانية فليلزق أليتيه بالأرض، ولا يفعل كما تفعل الإبل؛ فإني سمعت رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- يقول: " ذلك توقير الصلاة ".
    Regarding the brief sitting [after the second prostration]: A hadith from `Ali b. Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه). He said: If one of you raises his head from the second prostration, then he should remain seated rather than doing what the camels do, for surely, I heard the Messenger of Allah (s) say, “That is reverence for prayer.”
    وروي عن ابن عمر ، أنه كان يصلي على الخمرة ويسجد على الأرض . ونحوه عن علي بن الحسين .
    وقال النخعي في السجود على الحصير : الأرض أحب إلي .
    It is narrated from Ibn `Umar that he would pray on a handkerchief and prostrate on the earth – from `Ali b. al-Husayn.
    Al-Nakha`i said regarding prostration on mats: The earth is preferrable to me.
    أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ , عَنْ قَتَادَةَ , «أَنَّ عَلِيًّا كَانَ §يَقْطَعُ الْيَدَ مِنَ الْأَصَابِعِ , وَالرِّجْلَ مِنْ نِصْفِ الْكَفِّ»
    `Abd al-Razzaq informed us from Mu`ammar from Qatada: `Ali would sever the hand from its fingers; a man from half of his hand.
  8. Like
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Najis or not? Blood from a wound   
    If something was originally impure and it is unknown whether it became pure, the thing remains impure. There might be an exception to this ruling in your particular case that I am not aware of, but this ruling is the general ruling regarding originally najis things.
    So, according to the general ruling regarding originally najis things:
    When blood comes out from a cut, it is najis. When it transforms into a scab, it becomes pure. Until you are sure that the blood has completely transformed into a scab (such that the common people would say so) the blood remains impure.
    If a part of the blood turned into a scab but you are unsure whether all the blood has transformed into a scab, then, based on my knowledge regarding this, the area around the scab is najis until proven otherwise or until it is washed in such a way that if there was blood it would be removed and the area purified.
    Questions I have sent to leader.ir:
    In terms of fiqh, what is a scab? Salamun `alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

    What people consider as blood is najis and what they consider as scab is pure.

    With prayers for your success Is the blood that comes out and dries around a cut (as part of the healing process) impure? Does the blood need to be scratched off or removed? Salamun `alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

    If it is dried blood, it is najis.

    With prayers for your success  
  9. Like
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Corrupted mind   
    Allah says in the quran: Whoever does a good deed - it is for himself; and whoever does evil - it is against the self. Then to your Lord you will be returned. [45:15]
    So whenever you have sinned, you have sinned against yourself. Shirk is no exception to this.
  10. My Prayers
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from Hassan01 in Corrupted mind   
    Let these thoughts pop up in your head. So what? You're not held accountable for them and you are giving yourself difficulty unnecessarily which can lead to resenting Islam. After a while of ignoring them they will go away by themselves. By giving attention to them, you are doing what the shaytan wants you to do.
    I have told you at least two times before that shirk is forgivable, and I showed you the tafsir and ruling of the maraji'. To keep on thinking that you might not be forgiven is totally unacceptable after that, especially when Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has said:
    Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful." [39:53]
    If you aren't just being overly obsessive and doubtful but rather you have a genuine psychological issue, then you should get it treated if possible.
  11. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Mahdavist in How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)   
    Alhamdulillah, Idrissa Gueye refused to wear the rainbow on his football shirt even if it meant not playing the match. Clear example of how this ideology is being imposed on people and an excellent instance of how to stand up to it
  12. Like
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in How to remove najasat   
    Q 291: Do the clothes washed in a fully automatic domestic washing machine become pure or not? The mode of functioning of this machine is as follows: Initially when the clothes are washed in it with detergent, some water and foam of the detergent spreads on the glass door of the machine and the rubber surrounding it. After this, the used water is drawn while the foam of the detergent remains on the glass door and the rubber surrounding it. And, at later stages, the machine washes the clothes thrice with qalīl water and then the used water is driven out. Please explain whether the clothes washed in this manner are pure or not?
    A: As far as purifying clothes in a washing machine is concerned, if, after removal of the inherently najis material, the clothes are washed once with water connected to kurr, they are purified. The same ruling applies if you use qalīl water provided that the inner part of machine is pure before putting clothes inside the machine, clothes are washed twice with qalīl water and the used water is drained to the normal extent after each washing.
    Rules on Purity, Rules of Najis Substances, https://www.leader.ir/en/book/32/Practical-Laws-of-Islam
  13. Like
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Muttanjis   
    The ruling depends on the marja'.
    According to Al-Sayyid Al-Sistani, first mutanajjis liquids make other things second mutanajjis, second mutanajjis liquids make other things third mutanajjis, and third mutanajjis liquids do not make anything else impure.
    According to Al-Sayyid Khamenei, first mutanajjis liquids make other things first mutanajjis, second mutanajjis liquids make other things second mutanajjis, and third mutanajjis liquids (which are impure upon obligatory precaution) make other things third mutanajjis upon obligatory precaution.
  14. Like
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Tahara from Blood   
    If you are confident that blood has touched your shirt, then it is impure. If you are not confident whether or not there is blood in the mucus, then the shirt remains pure and it is not obligatory to investigate.
    I forgot to mention that if the mucus is very runny such that it is similar to water in consistency, then when the blood comes out with it, the impurity spreads to all the mucus.
    Ruling 123. Whenever syrup, oil, or a similar thing is of a consistency such that when some quantity of it is removed, it does not leave an empty space [due to the space refilling], then even if one part of it becomes impure, the entire quantity becomes impure. However, if it is such that when a part of it is removed it leaves an empty space – even if afterwards it becomes filled – then only the part that the impurity touches is impure. Therefore, if [in the latter scenario] mouse droppings fall into it, only the part that the droppings touch is impure and the rest is pure.
  15. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Mahdavist in How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)   
    I wouldn't say we are torturing anyone, simply because we haven't made the rule. The rule was established by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) 14 centuries ago. The line of reasoning here is quite unusual because it suggests that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has been torturing a group of people and it is now on us to take corrective actions. I think you can see how problematic this logic is, even if it isn't what you intended.
    The onus of proof is usually on the one who makes the claim, not the one who questions it. Either way I won't challenge this further, at this point since I don't see it as something critical.
    Globally maybe not, locally you still have regions that are going through similar challenges to the one's you described previously. 
    If your point is that couples can now raise children who are not their own, or only partially their own, then this leads us to a new topic about the islamic family structure and all the rules associated to it. We can probably keep that on hold for now.
    This is the same point as the first one. We are not imposing anything, rather as Muslimeen we submit to the command of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Does this involve hardships? Yes it certainly can. Are we forcing the religion on anyone? I would say we shouldn't, each individual can decide whether they want to submit to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or not and whether they can tolerate the hardships or not. What we certainly cannot do is to replace divine commands with our own preferred rules. This defeats the entire concept of submitting to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and is fundamentally problematic in every possible way.
    Certainly we need to continuously study and evaluate our texts in the context of continuously evolving societies and developments. The objective however is to do this within the framework of the shariah. If we rewrite our own shariah altogether then we haven't done the exercise at all and are in fact no different to the previous communities of monotheists who replaced Allah's revelation and command by their own commands. 
    The first we can pretty much take as a fact, which is that homosexual acts are forbidden in Islam. 
    The second is essentially your attempt to interpret the reasoning for the prohibition. I admire that you have taken the time and effort for this exercise, but the point still remains that regardless why we think Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) might have made a certain rule we cannot go ahead and remove it without a command permitting us to do so. 
    As you mentioned before, it isn't particularly creative or innovative. It is essentially the solution that always existed, potentially with some modern developments. The key difference is that it needs to become more accessible so that people know this option exists. The reality is that there are muslimeen attracted to the same gender who want to continue practicing Islam, and I believe we should try and help them to do this within the framework of the shariah rather than to shame them, abuse them or shun them. The same goes for many other contemporary challenges. 
    The discussion has been interesting brother and I think such discussions are very much required and even overdue today. We can of course continue, either in this thread or future discussions, but to avoid getting stuck in a spiral I would like to summarize some key points, and it could be that we may end up agreeing to disagree on some of them.
    1. I believe we are not authorized to legalize what Allah has prohibited nor to prohibit what Allah has legalized. What we, or more specifically our fuqaha, can do is to evaluate where new challenges fit within the established framework.
    2. I believe homosexual acts are clearly forbidden in Islam, based on Qur'an, hadith and ijma, in a categorical manner with no exceptions.
    3. I believe that someone with homosexual desires can continue to practice Islam in a sustainable manner, albeit with challenges, as long as they are not acting on these desires.
    4. I believe that as a community we should help and support our brothers and sisters who want to continue practicing their religion despite various challenges, including homosexuality. In fact we are all in this category since we all face our own challenges, some more difficult than others.
    5. I am against the shaming and abuse of individuals who have homosexual desires. I believe this goes against religious etiquette and teachings.
    6. I am also against the promotion of haram and this includes the promotion of a gay lifestyle (eg LGBT)
  16. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Mahdavist in How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)   
    Wa alaikum as salam brother @kadhim. I thank you too for a respectful and engaging discussion. We are discussing genuine social and religious challenges here, and I believe Muslim communities have mishandled them for a long time. Therefore the need for the discussion is essential, hopefully at levels much higher than that of an average layman like myself, and a diversity of opinions is simply an opportunity to reflect and investigate further. 
    I will jump firstly to your last point. I apologize for the inappropriate wording of the question. It was indeed meant to be rhetorical, but I accept that it was disrespectful and there were better ways of trying to explain myself.
    What I had understood from your previous post is that the prohibition of homosexual acts was established in our texts (agreed) but that at the time it wasn't known that people can only be attracted to their own gender.
    This is why I responded with the hypothetical question, but it was not correctly and respectfully phrased so I apologize again. 
    My question therefore would be, since the act has been prohibited without terms, conditions or exceptions and since Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in His wisdom subscribes rules for us that will stand the test of time, is it not flawed to assume that it was never intended to include a category of homosexuals in this prohibition? 
    Essentially your position that a category of people who only feel attracted to their own gender are exempt from this prohibition is lacking naqli (Qur'an/hadith) evidence. For such a strong claim, surely you would require a strong justification?  
    I understand your argument to be that the situation of this category of muslims is unsustainable and that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) must have therefore provided a solution. I think the observation is a good one but I would question it's premise before concluding that the answer is an exception to a clearly stated prohibition.
    Harsh as it sounds, I would question if the situation really is impossible or rather is it very difficult. I believe this is also the argument of brother @Abu Hadi. Is companionship completely impossible or can we imagine a scenario where males and females in this situation support one another through it, knowing that they will possibly never be physically attracted but that they understand each other and through medical means can even start a family together. Without going into details one can even imagine that they may be able to partly fulfill certain physical needs in unconventional manners. I think this model would fit much better in the islamic framework rather than to give the green light to same sex muslim relationships.
    Moving onto the rest of the post:
    Leaving aside my view on our texts which I believe clearly and without exception prohibit what you have proposed, I question if it is even sustainable. Who decides whether a person is exclusively gay? What happens if over time they find women attractive as well? What about the male who thought they weren't exclusively gay but then realize this after marrying a woman. 
    Marriage is a building element of society, what you are proposing here sounds highly destructive. In attempting to solve a problem it appears that ten new ones will be created.
    If I understand correctly, the argument of Abdellatif and Jahangir is that t'atuna can mean to come forcefully, although in general it simply means to come (indeed most mufassireen seem to have understood the general meaning). There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this theory that the Qur'an is referring to forcefulness. 
    Rather when one continues to read the ayah, one would have to conclude that forcefully approaching women would have been the accepted alternative (clearly this is problematic)
    Also this idea that these men desired both women and men is seems to be in opposition to what is mentioned in surah Hud, verses 78-79, where the people of Lot claim that they don't desire his daughters.
    All in all, it seems that the authors selected a stance and tried to retrofit it into a reinterpretation of a Qur'anic verse but were unable to back it up with textual evidence and also unable to align this theory with the Quranic narrative of the people of Lot.
    I can't see how it is aligning at all with hadith. If anything I would comment here that among all the topics that are debated and reevaluated in our religion, the alignment of Qur'an, hadith, cross generational ijma and ijma among different schools of thought on the categorical prohibition of homosexual acts is robust to a point where many other topics are not. 
  17. Like
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Fasting Question   
    If you have no water to perform ghusl with, then it is obligatory to perform tayammum before fajr. If you did not do so, then the fasts are invalid and it is obligatory to repeat them.
    Ruling 1592. In the event that someone who is junub on a night of the month of Ramadan does not perform ghusl until the time remaining to ṣubḥ prayers becomes short, he must perform tayammum and keep the fast and his fast is valid.
    As for whether or not kaffarah is obligatory, I am not sure. If you were able to learn the ruling by reading the Islamic Laws book of Al-Sayyid Al-Sistani but you did not, then most likely kaffarah for each invalid fast would be obligatory due to negligence. You can read about the rulings of kaffarah of Al-Sayyid Al-Sistani here:
  18. Thanks
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Tahara from Blood   
    That's only if the tap water is connected to kurr water. If the water is put in the hands and the hands move away from the tap, it becomes qalil water because the water in the hands becomes disconnected from the kurr water.
    If the blood came out within your nose and it did not come out of the nose, then this blood does not make your nose and mucus najis. And if something such as water touches the blood inside the nose, the water does not become najis according to Al-Sayyid Al-Sistani as long as the water did not come out of the nose with the blood. According to many other scholars however, the water does become najis upon contact with the blood within the nose.
    If the mucus came out of the nose then only the part that contains the blood is impure, the rest of the mucus is pure. It is also not obligatory to investigate if there is impurity or not in the first place. If you are not confident that there is any blood, then assume that there is no blood.
    Furthermore, if the blood became a scab or something similar to skin, then it is pure.
    Ruling 215. Similarly, the inner parts of a human body – like the inside of the mouth, nose, and ears – become impure by coming into contact with an external impurity, but by removing the impurity they become pure. As for internal impurity – such as blood that comes out from in between the teeth – this does not cause the inner parts of the body to become impure. Similarly, if an external object inside the body comes into contact with internal impurity, it does not make the object impure. Therefore, if dentures come into contact with blood that comes out from in between the teeth, it is not necessary to wash the dentures; but if the dentures come into contact with impure food, it is necessary to wash them.
    You should use a small container, like a cup, to wash the face. If there is no intrinsic impurity and najis liquids on the face, then it is sufficient, according to Al-Sayyid Al-Sistani, to pour the water until it reaches all najis areas and wait until the najis used water flows off the face.
    The face becomes pure but whatever the najis used water touches becomes najis if the water was first or second mutanajjis according to Al-Sayyid Al-Sistani.
    Ruling 25. If qalīl water is poured onto an impure object in order to remove an intrinsic impurity from it and the qalīl water separates from the impure object, and if the impure object is from among those things that do not become pure by washing once(1),16 then in such a case, the qalīl water [that has separated from it] is impure. Similarly, if after removing the intrinsic impurity, qalīl water is poured onto an impure object in order to purify it and the qalīl water separates from it, then based on obligatory precaution it is impure.
    Ruling 168. If an area of the body or clothing is washed with qalīl water, both the impure area and the area around it where water usually reaches during washing become pure. Therefore, it is not necessary to wash those adjoining areas separately. The same applies if a pure object is placed by the side of an impure object and water is poured over both of them. For example, in order to wash one impure finger with water, if water is poured on all the fingers and impure water as well as pure water reaches all of them, then by the impure finger becoming pure, all the fingers become pure.
  19. Like
    Muhammad A-H got a reaction from Irfani313 in Fasting Question   
    If you have no water to perform ghusl with, then it is obligatory to perform tayammum before fajr. If you did not do so, then the fasts are invalid and it is obligatory to repeat them.
    Ruling 1592. In the event that someone who is junub on a night of the month of Ramadan does not perform ghusl until the time remaining to ṣubḥ prayers becomes short, he must perform tayammum and keep the fast and his fast is valid.
    As for whether or not kaffarah is obligatory, I am not sure. If you were able to learn the ruling by reading the Islamic Laws book of Al-Sayyid Al-Sistani but you did not, then most likely kaffarah for each invalid fast would be obligatory due to negligence. You can read about the rulings of kaffarah of Al-Sayyid Al-Sistani here:
  20. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Abu Hadi in How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)   
    I want you to examine this idea of 'Safe space' further. To me, it seems like the idea of people creating a fantasy world that doesn't exist, then blaming other people if it doesn't happen. 
    Human beings, from the time of Adam and Eve, till today, have never had 'safe spaces' in an absolute sense. You stand up for what you believe in, whether that is LGBTQ or Islam or Trumpism or something else entirely, then you accept the consequences for that stance. If you believe in something strong enough, you are willing to accept the consequences. But to say 'I want to say this and noone is allowed to criticize or disagree with me' is either totalitarianism or some kind of made up fantasy talk that doesn't exist in reality, it only exists in the minds of those people who want 'safe spaces'. 
    I can't speak for everyone on earth, because I know there are some groups that think it is perfectly ok to carry out acts of violence, but for those who follow Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) it is very clear that you cannot treat anyone, whether they are gay, bi , queer, trans, etc, unjustly and you cannot discriminate against them in a way that is unjust. That is 100% crystal clear in our fiqh, and since you are knowledgeable about Islam you know that it is 100% clear. So alot of the argument you are brining un are not applicable in this context. 
    Sayyid Sistani clearly says in his book(s), that Muslims living in the West need to follow the laws of their country. That includes Anti discrimination laws. So if someone violates those laws, they are actually also violating Sharia law too. The only laws you are not obliged to follow are the laws that contradict Islam directly. So, for example, if Marie Le Pen gets her way in France and actually bans women from wearing hijab in public spaces, the sisters don't need to follow that law, and are not allowed to follow that law (that is one example). But wherever there is not a direct contradiction, you are obligated to follow the law of the country where you live
    Anti discrimination laws do not contradict Islam. If you are a small business owner and you choose to hire a gay employee, you cannot fire them without just cause, you cannot penalize them by paying them less or in some other way because they are gay. You cannot retaliate against them in any way because they are gay. You only have the choice to hire them or not. If you choose to hire them, you must abide by the law. There is no contradiction. 
    Having said all this, we still have the right to bring up the fact that the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all have parts of their respective books that clearly condemn homosexuality and consider it to be a major sin. Just because there are some Christian organizations and some Jewish organizations, and Auzubillah, even some so called "Muslim" organizations that choose to ignore this very clear fact doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and as long as I am alive and breathing I will continue to bring it up. I have that right. Noone can take it away from me. 
    I will also bring up the fact that the 'right to be gay' is not a civil right. Gay activists in the 1960 and 70 glommed on to the Civil Rights movement in order to lend their movement some credibility. It has nothing to do with Civil Rights. A black person was born black, they had no choice in that, so no-one has the right to discriminate against them because of something they had no choice in. Someone doing a sexual act with someone of the same gender / sex is a behavior, and it is a choice someone makes. Yes, there may be certain factors which led them to make that choice, but if you look at any behavior which is haram, like gambling, drinking alcohol, adultry, etc, all these things had factors or influences which were a reality to that person before they committed the act. That doesn't excuse the act. 
    The last thing I wanted to say is that is seem very odd to me that there are certain members here who take much effort and time and energy to stand up for LGBTQ people when there are followers of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) who are innocent who are being slaughtered all over the world. Almost every week now, you hear of a bomb being put in a masjid in Afghanistan or Pakistan or other places and followers of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) being murdered by terrorists while they are doing salat in a masjid. To me, if we want to spend our time and energy standing up for someone, we should spend that time and energy standing up for them and the others should be way, way down on the list. 
    Where is the 'safe space' for followers of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). Apparently nowhere and apparently noone really cares. 
  21. Completely Agree
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Mahdavist in How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)   
    I think that your observations of how the topic of homosexuality has been mishandled and misunderstood among muslim communities, have pushed you to try and defend anything and everything associated to it.
    Without a doubt muslims need to educate themselves on the topic and realize that desires cannot be 'exorcized', that you cannot force a sexual orientation on a person and that bullying (or worse) anyone having such feelings will not help them in any way or form. Furthermore, we are not commanded to hate or insult someone for their feelings. Certainly there is a need for education on these topics.
    At the same time as muslims there are rules and principles in place that are divine and therefore not ours to play around with, rearrange or make political negotiations with. 
    Just because society today has decided that abortion and same sex marriage, for instance, are basic rights, it does not require us to revise our stance.
    We reserve the right to consider same sex relationships as abnorma and sinful. We reserve the right to consider abortion as murder. 
    Shifting the goalposts due to social pressure implies that we never believed in our teachings to begin with. 
    If society decides tomorrow that incest is acceptable, as long as it is between consenting adults, are we again going to silence ourselves just so that we are aligned with the dominant trends of society?
  22. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Mahdavist in How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)   
    @kadhim @SoRoUsH
    If I read you correctly, the LGBT movement for you is essentially a means of protecting people from persecution.
    I don't think this is the case, rather discrimination laws were already in place to protect all people regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation religion. 
    I see it as the active promotion of alternative lifestyles and the redefinition of the traditional family structure. The consequences are not restricted to same sex couples alone, rather they impact children now that same sex couples are allowed to marry and adopt.
    It is enough as a muslim to disassociate from such a movement when it promotes haram (same sex relationships) , but it becomes a duty as a human being, and not just a muslim human being, when children's lives become impacted as well. 
    The topic of homosexuality, how it should be approached and how it should be understood is important. However I feel like your concerns on that topic have prematurely pushed you into a defensive position on LGBT. Although there are interfaces I think both should be viewed separately.
    To me as a muslim and as a citizen of a country with freedom of speech and thought, I believe it is essential that I can and should disassociate myself from this movement for the reasons mentioned above. 
    A society in which LGBT cannot be questioned or countered, and where there is only one accepted position, can no longer be called a free society. 
  23. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to Mahdavist in How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)   
    I think this discussion is going to end up becoming circular.
    @kadhim  as others have pointed out, there is a difference between an individual who happens to be attracted to the same gender, and the modern day ideology that is LGBT. The former has committed no sin as long as they don't act on their desires, while the latter is the active promotion of something that the Qur'an refers to as fahshah, which is often translated as lewdness
    @SoRoUsH I don't agree that LGBT is fighting for 'all the rights' and even if this was your argument then recall that the Qur'an instructs us not to mix truth with falsehood.
    Just because certain political parties hand us a few incentives does not mean that we should change our stance on principles that are already clearly addressed by our religion. 
  24. Like
    Muhammad A-H reacted to guest 2025 in How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)   
    I had to log back in just to stand up to this attack on truth.
    Why do you ˹men˺ lust after fellow men, leaving the wives that your Lord has created for you? In fact, you are a transgressing people.
    And Lot, when he said to his people, ‘What! Do you commit an outrage none in the world ever committed before you?!
    How disgraceful. May you be raised under the flag that you defend. And please watch your manners, the both of you. You are on a Shia forum.
    To those who fear Allah, here is a sign from your Lord, to serve as a reminder that He is king, not the liberals. The city of Lot has been found according to secular sources.
  25. Completely Agree
    Muhammad A-H reacted to VoidVortex in How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)   
    I think we are conflating two things here. One is gay people and one is the lgbtq movement. There shouldn't be hateful rhetoric against gay people. But the lgbtq movement is a satanic movement, there's no doubt about it; it is one of the perversions that has entered society, and is causing all sorts of issues. But notice how I separate gays as individuals and the movement itself. Of course gays have mental health struggles, we as a community should support their fight against their desires. Of course the movement and its ideologies can be dismantled very easily through rational argument. I agree that harassing gays or lesbians is not correct, but pointing out the issue and criticising the movement is very important. 
  • Create New...