Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by -Rejector-

  1. I'm pretty sure trashing a flag of فساد isn't a sin. One time I found a pride flag sticker on the ground, ripped it up and flushed it down the toilet. Good experience actually. I sent a question to the website of Imam Khamenei (حفظه الله) for clarification. I should get the answer tomorrow; when I do I'll post it here inshallah. For the time being, ma3salemeh.
  2. Iranian parliament approves bill for Iran's accession to SCO https://english.news.cn/20221128/6facc3948e734f1fb2dd75cf787083f5/c.html
  3. It all depends on our action and belief. We need the balance of wilayat ahlulbayt (A) and 7asanaat. إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ جَزَاؤُهُمْ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ جَنَّاتُ عَدْنٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ۖ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ رَبَّهُ Indeed those who have faith and do righteous deeds—it is they who are the best of creatures. Their reward, near their Lord, is the Gardens of Eden, with streams running in them, to remain in them forever. Allah is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. That is for those who fear their Lord. [Surah al-Bayyinah 98:7-8]
  4. Yk Sayed Mahdi Modarresi in one of his lectures says that Richard Dawkins used this argument as well. The Sayed said that when Dawkins was asked if there's any evidence for this, he said no, but he has faith that one day the evidence would come out. Mashallah. The Christians are so dumb for having 'blind faith', yet you yourself have blind faith in this stupid theory. Logik.
  5. Netanyahu to agree to ‘soft annexation’ of West Bank: Israeli media
  6. lol just realised i said "israel" instead of "ukraine" Anyway, I don't know. It seems like Medvedev is more aggressive than Putin. Doesn't matter though, because even if Russia is being more lenient with Israel than they should be, their relationship is still clearly deteriorating. (As Russia becomes more distant from the rest of the West, they will inevitable become more distant from Israel). If another war were to start in the Middle-East (Israel vs Iran, Syria vs Israel, etc.), Russia would surely be against Israel. Even if you look at it from the point of view that Russia is just trying to derive benefit for itself, it would still be in its interests to weaken Israel. This is because Israel is just a puppet of the US, and all its existence does is benefit the US. Russia obviously doesn't want its enemy to get stronger via. Israel. So with tensions potentially rising in Syria, and perhaps Iran, Russia - Israel relations are ultimately coming to an end. Obviously Russia was maintaining relations with Israel in the hope that there could be some mutual benefit. I think this benefit is peace in Syria. However, because of the war in Ukraine as well as rising tensions in Syria, there's no more benefit to be derived out of this relationship. Russia was just being diplomatic. However, when it does this, there are people criticising it for working with the evil Israel. But when Russia stop diplomacy by, for example, cutting off gas to a country, they get criticised by others for "weaponizing" their gas. Russia can't please anyone by having relations with Israel. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
  7. Moscow explains its Ukraine objectives to UN https://www.rt.com/news/567073-security-council-ukraine-proxy-war/
  8. Ukrainian mayor fined for using Russian language https://www.rt.com/russia/567137-ukraine-mayor-fined-russian-language/
  9. ^ Peterson: "The fate of the world depends on the decisions of the people of Israel." I mean... he's not entirely wrong. We do see the Jews controlling the media and they have all the power in the world....
  10. This is far from my area of expertise, but I'll give my two cents worth. This hadith is in al-Kafi. (Source: Kitab al-Kafi, Vol. 5 -> Excellence of Marriage with a Religious Spouse and the Detestability of Marriage for the Sake of Wealth, H. #3) If you are pleased with the religion of a potential spouse, then you should marry her. However, obviously there has to be attraction and mutual love between the couple. The holy Quran states, وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُمْ مَوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً And of His signs is that He created for you mates from your own selves that you may take comfort in them, and He ordained affection and mercy between you. [30:21] If you aren't attracted to the potential spouse, then marriage isn't advisable. However, the religion of the potential spouse is the most important factor. These are just my thoughts, I don't know if they're correct. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all.
  11. Ukraine's War Crimes: Execution of Russian POWs https://www.rt.com/russia/566970-russian-embassy-execution-footage/
  12. Zelensky pleads with Ukrainians to preserve energy as power system crippled
  13. European Parliament passes resolution recognizing Russia as ‘state sponsor of terrorism’ https://tass.com/world/1540895 https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/11/23/693265/EU-Russia-parliament-Ukraine-terrorism
  14. State Duma passes bill banning LGBT, pedophilia propaganda https://tass.com/politics/1541001
  15. Walaikom assalam Our Imams (A) including Imam al-Sadeq (عليه السلام) have used this argument to prove the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Imam al-Sadeq (عليه السلام) reportedly says in one of his debates with an atheist: The Imam points out the fact that the sun, moon, and earth are orbiting/spinning perfectly, and they are forced (by gravity) to stay in their orbits. Gravity is one universal law which does not change. Who put this law in place? Allah did. The Imam (عليه السلام) further elaborates and says that the atheist belief is that the sun and moon move by chance, and gravity was created by chance. However, if chance could "create" gravity, why can't chance destroy it? How can chance even create something in the first place? Then the Imam goes on to mention the atmosphere and the solid earth. The earth itself is a miracle. The cycle of its rock is but one example of this. And the atmosphere is also perfect. It has just the right amount of oxygen for us to breathe, but not enough to be flammable. The Imam (عليه السلام) mentions how the atmosphere doesn't fall on the earth. If the atmosphere was a bit thicker or thinner, life on this planet wouldn't be possible. Then he (عليه السلام) says the earth doesn't collapse in on itself because of its gravity. The charge of the earth's atoms repel other atoms so that they cannot get any closer, meaning the earth cannot become any more dense than it already is. The Imam then uses reasoning, and he tells the atheist that the only possible explanation for all of these perfect laws is Allah's management. Now, I have heard some claim that because the processes of all of these phenomena happened over an extremely long period of time, it didn't need a Creator. It could have happened by chance. But everything was already there for these processes to happened, wasn't it? The simple answer to this flawed claim is that without a Manager, laws are impossible. Remember when we were in the first years of school, and when the teacher would leave the room, all the students would misbehave? It's like that. If a Manager didn't exist, it would be impossible for all of these perfect laws to exist on their own. That's not to mention the fact that these laws had a beginning. The universe had a beginning. Before that beginning, there were no laws, and then after the beginning, there were laws. How does this work? The laws created themselves, or did a Creator create them? Obviously there was a Creator and Manager who established the laws of the universe and keeps them in place, through His infinite power and majesty. I'm gonna finish off with one of my favourite aayaat. أَفِي اللَّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ Is there any doubt about Allah, the originator of the heavens and the earth?! [14:10]
  16. This can't be true... Any happen to have any info about this?
  17. Russia urging all parties to refrain from destabilizing steps in Syria — Kremlin I'm not too sure what's going on right now with Turkiye planning an operation in Syria and Iraq. Anyone following the story?
  18. It's not like the Russians stopped using force at all. They were still fighting elsewhere in the country (i.e. in the Donbass regions). They were still occupying a massive part of Ukraine. Just look how, when the Russians offer negotiations, Zelensky comes out and says that he won't negotiate until Russia withdraws from Ukraine AND Crimea as well. He wants the Russians to just give up the Donbass as well as Crimea, which always was and currently is theirs. Besides, it's not like the Russians desperately needed to negotiate. The negotiations were for the benefit of the Ukrainians; so that they could prevent their country from being destroyed. Russia was under no stress to sign a deal; it was all for Ukraine's benefit. However, they didn't take the chance (and they continue to refuse to do so) and prefer to be destroyed by the Russians. This is only true if Ukraine still has military capabilities. But because the Russians are demilitarising Ukraine, there's no need for regime change. It's not like the Ukrainians (a) have any weapons themselves or (b) have any remaining partners who still have weapons to send to them. So once Ukraine's military is destroyed, that's it; there's no more threat to Russia/the ethnic Russians in Donbass. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia does incur regime change in Ukraine. I think it's highly unlikely, because like I explained, after demilitarisation there's no need to do so, but it's still a possibility. Hungary and Turkiye aren't concerned about Russia. Hungary doesn't want to fall into the same trap as Spain and Germany where they'll need to ban people from using heaters, and Turkiye is just, as usual, looking out for their own interests. With Finland and Sweden, I don't think Russia has much concern in this regard. Russia launched its special military operation because the Ukrainians were planning an operation in the Donbass, not because Putin just woke up one morning and invaded a nation on a whim. Here's more information about this planned offensive: Imam Khamenei (Q) also pointed this out during his meeting with Putin: Back to the point, Russia was never concerned about Finland or Sweden. Until and unless one of them begins to be hostile to Russia, Russia won't act against them. Besides, the "war against NATO" thing is a metaphor. Russia isn't literally taking on all of NATO in a war, but it is taking a stand against its values (i.e. imperialism and barbarism). What Russia does about Finland and Sweden will depend on what those countries do against Russia. If they decide to host nuclear weapons or something, I don't think it would end well for them. Also see: The Finland and Sweden situation will depend on Finland and Sweden. Russia's mobilised troops are still coming into Ukraine; Ukraine's weapons are running out; and the winter is also approaching. Time is on the Russians' side; it's not a matter of 'if' they win, it's a matter of 'when'.
  • Create New...