Ibn Tayyar

It is clear that the meaning is that the Imam (عليه السلام) will bring about the purified version of Islam, which his grandfather (saww) initially brought forth. This Islam will be purified from innovations and incorrect rulings and practices. It is an Islam which will present the true ahkaam not the ahkaam of ijtihad, which may be correct or incorrect. And most importantly this Islam will actually correct the beliefs of the people which are mostly astray. The people will fight because they wish to maintain their innovative ways and beliefs, and this is why the Imam (عليه السلام) will fight them. The hadiths are clear that the halal and haram of Muhammad (saww) is till the end of time. And that everything is in the Qur'an and Sunnah. But what may be different is some hadiths mention the Imam (عليه السلام) may judge people by the baatin (not requiring witnesses), and obviously with the presence of the Imam (عليه السلام) certain actions become wajib like praying on Eid or Jumu'ah behind him. Some narrations mention he will fight those who don't give zakat to him. This is not a new religion, as he is not a Messenger. This is simply a revival of the religion of Islam.

There is a discussion to be had whether the words in 18:80 are the direct speech of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or His creation - such as Al-Khidr (عليه السلام) - because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does not "fear" per se. So it may be true that the plural "We" does not always refer to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) alone, but the context of the Verse should help us understand who is the speaker.

One of the most interesting things I find in modern history was the ability of states in WW1 and WW2 to mobilize their societies for war. What the US and USSR both did in WW2 was nothing short of marvelous, and the same to a certain degree with regards to Germany, Japan, Britain and others. I'm not sure if modern countries are capable of that given the profit motive in international relations and the complexity of supply chains, where you have adversaries purchase material and product from eachother which is crucial to their own capabilities, designed with the intention of destroying eachother. I believe this thread sheds a good light on this, regardless of who wins or loses in Ukraine.

edit

Okay, I understand what you are saying now. Thank you brother.

I'm not sure what you are saying brother, are you saying the evidence is conclusive or inconclusive?

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you brother. What is quoted in there should be enough for this topic.

That isn't true and that is a weak and late opinion. الشيخ المفيد قدس سره في أجوبة المسائل العكبرية (المسألة الخمسين) ، ص 120 في جواب سؤال حول زينب ورقية ، هل هما ابنتا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أو ربيبتاه ، فأجاب قدس سره بقوله : والجواب أن زينب ورقية كانتا ابنتي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ، والمخالف لذلك شاذ بخلافه This is just one example and this is from Al-Mufid (rah), and here he states that the Prophet (saww) had four daughters and whoever says otherwise, such as that they were adopted, is espousing a shadh opinion. It is up to you what you wish to believe, but this is the view of many of our scholars, and the view of the Ambassador of the Imam (عليه السلام) as narrated by Al-Ghayba by Al-Tusi (rah).

Because she is his greatest daughter, and her preference over this others is explained in this tradition which was authentically narrated from the ambassador of the Imam of our time (عليه السلام). And one of the theologians asked him (i.e. Shaykh al-Hasan b. Ruh رضي الله عنه) – and he is known by Tirk al-Harawi(?) – so he said to him: How many daughters did the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم have? So he said: Four. He said: So which of them is preferred? So he said: Fatima. So he said: And why did she become preferred while she was the youngest of them in age and the one from them to spend the least amount of time in the company of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم?! He said: For having two special traits, which Allah characterized her by, favouring her and conferring her honour and respect. One of them is that she inherited from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, and none other than her inherited from his children; and the other is that Allah maintained the progeny of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم from her and it did not remain from other than her. And He did not qualify her with that except due to the virtue of sincerity which He had distinguished of her intention. al-Harawi said: And I have not seen a person speak and answer regarding this subject by [anything] better nor more concise [to the point] than his answer. (Tusi’s Ghayba) (sahih) (صحيح) Like I said, the opinion that the Prophet (saww) had multiple daughters was mentioned by Al-Mufid (rah), Al-Tusi (rah), Al-Murtadha (rah), and modern scholars aswell. And the words of the Ambassador of the Imam (عليه السلام) should be enough.

Sorry this is what I meant. That the Prophet having multiple daughters is a "Sunni" belief. This is nonsense. Shi'i scholars from the beginning have mentioned him having multiple daughters.

That the Prophet (saww) only had one daughter is not a "Shi'i" belief, it is a belief of many, if not most, of our Shi'i scholarship based on strong proof, the strongest being that we have an authentic chain to the ambassador of Imam Al-Mahdi (عليه السلام) claiming such. A commonly held Shi'i belief is not that which is commonly chanted in the pulpits, you need to look at the books of our scholars to know what they actually said or didn't say.

You probably know more than me so I won't argue your point. But here is some footage of aircraft engagements vis-a-vis drones and cruise missiles: The US Military hasn't released footage but this is what they claimed: (take it with a grain of salt as you said)

The way Israel and its allies countered the drone swarm threat was by using fighter jets to knock them out, reserving actual anti-missile defenses to engage with incoming missile threats. We now have videos of Israeli F15s/35s destroying Iranian drones and cruise missiles. Arrow 2/3 are designed mainly for medium and intermediate range ballistic missile threats, and they are very capable systems at that. David's Sling and Patriot systems are mostly used in Israel to defend against short range ballistic missiles threats, cruise missiles and certain drone threats. Iron Dome is designed to deal with rockets but has some anti cruise missile and anti drone capability. Israel also has other capable naval air defense systems that they probably employed against Yemeni and perhaps Iraqi threats. The way we will know the truth of the scale of damage is when high defenition satellite imagery is revealed, but it is clear that Iranian ballistic missiles did hit strategic targets. What we can conclude is that Iran has the capability of penetrating probably the most dense and layered air defense system in the world, and did that with days in advance of Israel and its allies knowing of a coming attack, with the US and other Western countries and regional Governments like Jordan readying up to assist Israel in identifying and intercepting threats. It is said the USAF was engaging the bulk of the drones before they made it close to Israel. It is fair to point out that systems Israel deploys are incredibly expensive, especially in comparison to the threats Iran employs. The systems the US Navy employed are even more expensive. So on the assymetric front, Iran is a clear winner. In a total war scenario, this sort of engagement would probably be much different, as it would be harder to engage with thousands of ballistic missiles, drones, and other aerial threats from Iran and its allies. The capability of the US in saving Israel would also be very limited in such a scenario, but Israel is also capable of retaliatory strikes of its own - but it remains to be seen (hopefully this never happens) whether Israel can actually sustain an aerial campaign against Iran knowing the difficulty of distance and also Iran having capable air defenses of its own. Israel probably concedes that in any total war scenario with Iran, the USAF has to do the bulk of the work, and it is clear Biden is uninterested in a war against Iran, knowing how much damage that would do to both regional US bases and to the regional/global economy as a whole. Overall, I think Iran established deterrence in terms of making it clear that attacking Iranian commanders is a clear redline, while Israel can claim to its people that it has dealt with the bulk of the threat last night, and therefore call it a day. It depends on how war-hungry Netanyahu is really, as this might be his opportunity to orchestrate a plan to drag the US into a war on his behalf. This is my personal and humble asssessment of what transpired, and I'm no expert on geopolitics or military matters, so I seek forgiveness for any mistakes.

I would also add that if one's parents are not happy with the way their child dresses around them i.e it causes them to be distressed because they determined it is inappropriate, then it would be haram to dress like that - it would fall under the haram disobedience of one's own parents. So there are secondary factors to consider in such a scenario. Like the brother @Irfani313 said, Islamic Fiqh is more than often just a baseline of halal and haram, but Akhlaq has a wider scope in many aspects. The fatwa I brought forth is just simply the boundaries of halal and haram, and if that is what the O.P is seeking than the fatwa has answered that.

I don't disagree. I'm simply answering the question legalistically. Morally, I am in agreement with you 100%.