Ibn Tayyar

I agree with brother @Jaabir in that the lack of "Shi'a-Centrism" in our geopolitics is to blame for our losses. While I do believe that helping all suffering Muslims is ideal and praiseworthy, we ought to not place the plight of others in a status where they are above or equal to ourselves. 
The news regarding the suffering that our brothers & sisters go through in places like Afghanistan & Pakistan is sickening. It is even worse that they are neglected, hardly ever discussed, and certainly not supported during their struggles.
The Shi'a should always be the priority. 
Those who claim the war in South Lebanon was a victory are simply coping and unable to admit to reality. The attempt to present anything as a victory is a sign of desperation, and a reminiscent of the failing Arab armies during the Arab-Israeli wars of the past.
The Zionists said that their aim was to delink Gaza from Lebanon. Hezbollah said they would fight the Zionists as a support front in order to pressure Israel to submit to a ceasefire. 
Gaza has been destroyed and is still under bombardment. Israel completely destroyed South Lebanon and killed most of Hezbollah's Leaders and Commanders. It is also very likely that alot of Hezbollah's rocket stockpile was either used or destroyed, as is normal in a war against an opponent with air superiority. All Hezbollah achieved was it showed that it has the ability to damage Israeli border towns, and hit Israeli cities with drones and missiles. Something Israel and the world already knew anyway. Visual damage in Israel is relatively minimal - certainly compared to South Lebanon. 
Israel was also able to kill some of Iran's most senior commanders with hardly any damage recieved in retaliation.
What does this tell you? Israel is not deterred. It was not "defeated". It achieved its objective that it announced prior to the pager operation, which was 1) de-link Gaza and South Lebanon/Hezbollah 2) return the Northern Settlers home.
Now, did it achieve ultimate victory, as in "destroying" Hezbollah? No it did not achieve that. But how does this prove that Hezbollah's sacrifices - of thousands of martyrs - was "worth it"? Hezbollah did not achieve any of its stated goals and objectives since it joined the war in support of Gaza. All it did was "survive".
And what happened subsequently - the weakening of Hezbollah and Iran generally, as a result of the Gaza War - is obviously being exploited by Turkey and its rebels to fulfill their ultimate goal in Syria. The Shi'a in Syria will suffer greatly if this offensive remains as hot as it is, in addition to our Holy Shrines being in grave danger.
And if the regime in Damascus does fall and Iran's route to Hezbollah is compromised, then yes, Israel has just achieved a geopolitical victory of the ages. 
The believers should be honest with themselves. Learn from your mistakes and do not paint everything as a victory. Be open about where you have failed.
One thing I wish we learned from our enemies, especially the US, is when they train their troops or simulate wargames, they make it so the enemy is incredibly strong, perhaps much stronger than the enemy really is or stronger than even themselves.
This is why the US Military regularly loses in war game simulations. They try their best not to underestimate their enemy. 
And what happens when the US or the West (including Israel) fail? Instant self-criticism and internal debates. They don't try and sugarcoat their failures. They try and learn from their mistakes. You don't think in Israel there won't be a critical investigation into the failures of their military and intelligence when it came to October 7? There will be for sure. Just as there was following the 2006 War. And after the 1973 War.
Unfortunately in our Shi'i political circles all you see is positivism and talks of how in mere minutes we can wipe our enemies out. Even right now, some are people have convinced themselves that what is happening is in Syria is some sort of 4D master plan.
It is not haram to be critical or to mention how tough your enemy is. It is stupid to belittle the other side and convince yourself your much superior - even if you actually are, let alone if you aren't.
This is not a video game. This is war. 
May Allah grant us patience and foresight. 

Do not tell anyone else and tell your friend to stop talking about people behind their back.
If you do break it, then just repent to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

Do not tell anyone else and tell your friend to stop talking about people behind their back.
If you do break it, then just repent to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

How is it a Wahabbi narrative when Grozny was completed destroyed? How is a Wahabbi narrative when Russia fired inaccurated ballistic missiles and fired artillery shells into Grozny, which no doubt led to civilian casualties? You don't believe there was thousands of Muslims who were injured or killed as they were caught in the crossfire of a brutal assault that left a city in ruins? And do you buy the "NATO narrative" on Bosnia/Serbia? If yes, why? If no, why did many of our Shi'a brothers fight alongside the Bosnians and were rightfully praised for doing so - despite Salafi/Wahabbi presence among the Bosnians, including Al-Qaeda and Saudi funded groups, all the while NATO was destroying Serbian positions from the air?
How can some believers heap praise on Russia and China, whose Governments under Putin and Xi actually placed sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, and joined the US and the West in condemning Iran at UNSC (Resolution 1929) and placed the Iranian Nuclear Program under Chapter 7 of the UN? Some "allies" they are.
How can some believes take Putin as an "ally" despite Putin and Russia's great relationship with Netanyahu and Israel during the 90s and 00s, where they heaped praise on eachother, called eachother "friends" (as Ariel Sharon referred to Putin), while Putin called Israel a "special state" to Russia - these are only some examples of both sides heaping praise on eachother. One only needs to Google the official statements from Israel and Russia after a diplomatic meeting and you will see the most flowery language when describing eachother - with the exception of the recent times (post-Ukraine).
How is the CCP not a killer of Muslims when the CCP was the chief backer of the Burmese Government, whose Security Forces alongside Buddhist extremists carried out massacres on the Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar? (Some called it a genocide).
How is the CCP not an oppressor of the Muslims despite the animosity communism has towards religion? In my previous post, I shared a link from the mouthpiece of the CCP, where their officials openly state that Muslims cannot fast in Ramadan if they are teachers or public servants. State atheism is never an ally.
How can you call them an "ally", when Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said not to take Jews and Christians as "awliyaa"? No one is an ally of a believer but a believer. 
The kafir can be a cooperative of the believer based on the interests of the believer. But he can never be an "ally", even if he gave us 99% of what we wanted.
For example, in Afghanistan, Iran famously assisted the Americans in toppling the Taliban/Al-Qaeda regime. After the fall of the Taliban, many of our Shi'a brothers aligned themselves with the pro-US Afghan Government, as they feared a Taliban resurgence which would oppress the Shi'a, as we see today in Afghanistan. Many Shi'a took a supportive or neutral stance to the US removing Saddam (la). This does not make them allies in the slightest. 
My point is, do not elevate their status. Openly point out their misdeeds and hypocrisy. And never consider them an ally. 

How is it a Wahabbi narrative when Grozny was completed destroyed? How is a Wahabbi narrative when Russia fired inaccurated ballistic missiles and fired artillery shells into Grozny, which no doubt led to civilian casualties? You don't believe there was thousands of Muslims who were injured or killed as they were caught in the crossfire of a brutal assault that left a city in ruins? And do you buy the "NATO narrative" on Bosnia/Serbia? If yes, why? If no, why did many of our Shi'a brothers fight alongside the Bosnians and were rightfully praised for doing so - despite Salafi/Wahabbi presence among the Bosnians, including Al-Qaeda and Saudi funded groups, all the while NATO was destroying Serbian positions from the air?
How can some believers heap praise on Russia and China, whose Governments under Putin and Xi actually placed sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, and joined the US and the West in condemning Iran at UNSC (Resolution 1929) and placed the Iranian Nuclear Program under Chapter 7 of the UN? Some "allies" they are.
How can some believes take Putin as an "ally" despite Putin and Russia's great relationship with Netanyahu and Israel during the 90s and 00s, where they heaped praise on eachother, called eachother "friends" (as Ariel Sharon referred to Putin), while Putin called Israel a "special state" to Russia - these are only some examples of both sides heaping praise on eachother. One only needs to Google the official statements from Israel and Russia after a diplomatic meeting and you will see the most flowery language when describing eachother - with the exception of the recent times (post-Ukraine).
How is the CCP not a killer of Muslims when the CCP was the chief backer of the Burmese Government, whose Security Forces alongside Buddhist extremists carried out massacres on the Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar? (Some called it a genocide).
How is the CCP not an oppressor of the Muslims despite the animosity communism has towards religion? In my previous post, I shared a link from the mouthpiece of the CCP, where their officials openly state that Muslims cannot fast in Ramadan if they are teachers or public servants. State atheism is never an ally.
How can you call them an "ally", when Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said not to take Jews and Christians as "awliyaa"? No one is an ally of a believer but a believer. 
The kafir can be a cooperative of the believer based on the interests of the believer. But he can never be an "ally", even if he gave us 99% of what we wanted.
For example, in Afghanistan, Iran famously assisted the Americans in toppling the Taliban/Al-Qaeda regime. After the fall of the Taliban, many of our Shi'a brothers aligned themselves with the pro-US Afghan Government, as they feared a Taliban resurgence which would oppress the Shi'a, as we see today in Afghanistan. Many Shi'a took a supportive or neutral stance to the US removing Saddam (la). This does not make them allies in the slightest. 
My point is, do not elevate their status. Openly point out their misdeeds and hypocrisy. And never consider them an ally. 

How is it a Wahabbi narrative when Grozny was completed destroyed? How is a Wahabbi narrative when Russia fired inaccurated ballistic missiles and fired artillery shells into Grozny, which no doubt led to civilian casualties? You don't believe there was thousands of Muslims who were injured or killed as they were caught in the crossfire of a brutal assault that left a city in ruins? And do you buy the "NATO narrative" on Bosnia/Serbia? If yes, why? If no, why did many of our Shi'a brothers fight alongside the Bosnians and were rightfully praised for doing so - despite Salafi/Wahabbi presence among the Bosnians, including Al-Qaeda and Saudi funded groups, all the while NATO was destroying Serbian positions from the air?
How can some believers heap praise on Russia and China, whose Governments under Putin and Xi actually placed sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, and joined the US and the West in condemning Iran at UNSC (Resolution 1929) and placed the Iranian Nuclear Program under Chapter 7 of the UN? Some "allies" they are.
How can some believes take Putin as an "ally" despite Putin and Russia's great relationship with Netanyahu and Israel during the 90s and 00s, where they heaped praise on eachother, called eachother "friends" (as Ariel Sharon referred to Putin), while Putin called Israel a "special state" to Russia - these are only some examples of both sides heaping praise on eachother. One only needs to Google the official statements from Israel and Russia after a diplomatic meeting and you will see the most flowery language when describing eachother - with the exception of the recent times (post-Ukraine).
How is the CCP not a killer of Muslims when the CCP was the chief backer of the Burmese Government, whose Security Forces alongside Buddhist extremists carried out massacres on the Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar? (Some called it a genocide).
How is the CCP not an oppressor of the Muslims despite the animosity communism has towards religion? In my previous post, I shared a link from the mouthpiece of the CCP, where their officials openly state that Muslims cannot fast in Ramadan if they are teachers or public servants. State atheism is never an ally.
How can you call them an "ally", when Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said not to take Jews and Christians as "awliyaa"? No one is an ally of a believer but a believer. 
The kafir can be a cooperative of the believer based on the interests of the believer. But he can never be an "ally", even if he gave us 99% of what we wanted.
For example, in Afghanistan, Iran famously assisted the Americans in toppling the Taliban/Al-Qaeda regime. After the fall of the Taliban, many of our Shi'a brothers aligned themselves with the pro-US Afghan Government, as they feared a Taliban resurgence which would oppress the Shi'a, as we see today in Afghanistan. Many Shi'a took a supportive or neutral stance to the US removing Saddam (la). This does not make them allies in the slightest. 
My point is, do not elevate their status. Openly point out their misdeeds and hypocrisy. And never consider them an ally. 

@AbdusSibtayn 
Salam Alaykum brother,
Why should believers put any faith in kafir Muslim-killing oppressors such as Putin and Xi? No matter how much they help you, the kuffar have their own agenda and you should always be suspicious of them. Even if they have the same interests as you, that doesn't mean they share the same conviction as you. There's no reason to get emotional over their lack of support, all that believers require is trust in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and to have faith in Him. 
Assad's Syria nearly fell in 2015 and was in a much worse position before Russia intervened. The Russia of today is much weaker than the Russia of yesterday, embroiled in a costly, long and fairly pointless war with its own neighbour.
China has never been militarily influential globally, the most it has done is engage in limited regional conflict. It is too busy surveilling its own citzens and making sure atheistic communism is shored up at home.
This is the sort of garbage the CCP is focused on, from their own very mouthpiece:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/868638.shtml 
Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said: Believers! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies. They are the allies of each other. And among you he who takes them for allies, shall be regarded as one of them. [5:51]
This does not mean you can't co-operate with them, but no kafir is truly an ally of a believer. 
I have realised that sometimes geopolitics has blinded the believers into considering certain world leaders as "good" for certain stances or positions they have taken. Never forget that sugarcoating, minimising or even supporting the oppressors is dangerous according to our creed. Our narrations are clear that whoever is pleased with the actions of a person, then he shares that deed.
Geopolitics has a place in our religion, but don't let it guide your religion. Let your religion guide your view on geopolitics.
And that's my 2 cents.

@AbdusSibtayn 
Salam Alaykum brother,
Why should believers put any faith in kafir Muslim-killing oppressors such as Putin and Xi? No matter how much they help you, the kuffar have their own agenda and you should always be suspicious of them. Even if they have the same interests as you, that doesn't mean they share the same conviction as you. There's no reason to get emotional over their lack of support, all that believers require is trust in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and to have faith in Him. 
Assad's Syria nearly fell in 2015 and was in a much worse position before Russia intervened. The Russia of today is much weaker than the Russia of yesterday, embroiled in a costly, long and fairly pointless war with its own neighbour.
China has never been militarily influential globally, the most it has done is engage in limited regional conflict. It is too busy surveilling its own citzens and making sure atheistic communism is shored up at home.
This is the sort of garbage the CCP is focused on, from their own very mouthpiece:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/868638.shtml 
Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said: Believers! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies. They are the allies of each other. And among you he who takes them for allies, shall be regarded as one of them. [5:51]
This does not mean you can't co-operate with them, but no kafir is truly an ally of a believer. 
I have realised that sometimes geopolitics has blinded the believers into considering certain world leaders as "good" for certain stances or positions they have taken. Never forget that sugarcoating, minimising or even supporting the oppressors is dangerous according to our creed. Our narrations are clear that whoever is pleased with the actions of a person, then he shares that deed.
Geopolitics has a place in our religion, but don't let it guide your religion. Let your religion guide your view on geopolitics.
And that's my 2 cents.

From a halal and haram point of view, which should be the first way to look at things if you are a Muslim, a segregated classroom and school will always be purer for the heart and soul.
At the very least, ikhtilaat (mixed gender settings) is makruh, and can easily lead to haram. Some jurists may rule it haram altogether in school settings.
I also agree with the other brothers who mentioned that a male student learning from a male teacher is better for his development, and a female student learning from a female teacher is better for her development.
Schools are usually segregated in certain Middle Eastern countries, and so you might see more of a balance in the gender ratio when it comes to pursuing teaching as a  profession, as opposed to the West where there is much more females in teaching than males.

The reason is very simple, preference is to be given to a woman who fulfills her obligations over a woman who is known for sinful behaviour, and not wearing a hijab is a form of sinful behaviour. And this goes for any other sin someone is known for really, such as someone who is known not to pray, fast, doesn't pay religious dues, or known for lying, backbiting, and the rest.
Furthermore this isn't a gender thing at all, you yourself shouldn't marry a man who is known for sinful behaviour, see the following;
381. Man should give importance to the qualities of the woman he would like to marry. He should not marry except a woman who is chaste, honourable, of good lineage, and righteous. She should be a source of help to him in the affairs of this world and the hereafter.
383. The woman and her guardians should give importance to the qualities of the man she chooses to marry. She should not marry except a man who is religious, chaste, of good character, not a drunkard or someone who commits sins and evil deeds.
https://www.al-islam.org/code-practice-muslims-west-sayyid-ali-hussaini-sistani/marriage

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Instead of assuming I have this intention in my brain, why not look at my actual stated words in the same post? I said: "The proliferation of such a belief make[s] us look ahistorical, close-minded, insincere, and perhaps even cult-like". Since we believe in Shi'a Islam, we believe that truth matters, and that truth should be pursued and preserved, and that the consequence of denying the truth is being placed in a hot burning fire. When we start mixing the truth with forgeries, and even elevate those forgeries above some truths, we dilute and misrepresent the whole faith. 
For example, when a sincere outsider who is seeking the truth comes to our community, only to see that we can't even admit an obvious fact, why would they bother investigating our bigger claims? We have no problem pointing out forgeries in Sunni Islam, yet our forgeries are even more recent. Double standards like this turns people away and becomes ammunition for nawasib to say "see?! they don't take the truth seriously".
But regarding the status of Sayyida Fatima (عليه السلام), no, admitting the existence of her sisters does not lower her status. She does not derive her status from being the "only daughter of the Prophet". The Prophet (s) even had sons like Qasim and Ibrahim that we agree on. The status of Sayyida Fatima (عليه السلام) derives from the fact that Allah chose her. She has her own merit, she was the only one under the kisa', she was the only one to inherit from the Prophet, she was the only one with continual descendants, and she was the only one who had Imamate in her line, among many other fada'il. If anything, to say that Fatima (عليه السلام) had sisters makes Fatima (عليه السلام) even greater, because Allah chose her above her own older sisters (and her male siblings too). Actually, denying their existence would deny some of the mathloomiyya of Sayyida Fatima, because it is saying that she did not see her sisters die and live with that. Admitting the existence of Ruqayya bint Rasulullah and Umm Kulthum bint Rasulullah does not raise the status of Uthman, just as the wives of Nuh and Lut did not lower their status. If anything, Uthman going renegade after the Messenger (s) would be an even bigger betrayal, rather than saying that he was never Muslim at all to begin with.
This is why I chose my words very carefully (and this is also why I gave a trigger warning!!!). "The popular version of Hadith al-Kisa" does not mean the event of kisa' in general did not happen. This popular version, in some communities, is recited at every single event (Tuesdays, Thursdays, Ramadan evenings, etc.) and even in weddings and funerals. That means we recite this alleged hadith more than any hadith, any dua, and even most of the Quran. What do we lose by reciting an older, more reliable version of it? It would be shorter and it would show that we are adaptable to the truth.
It reminds me of the verse in the Quran, "So woe to those who write the 'scripture' with their own hands, then say, 'This is from Allah ,' in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn." (2:79)
I understand that for some people, institutionalizing 300-year-old practices is fine, because 300 years is a long time. But time is relative - imagine if, in your lifetime, everyone in 2024 all of a sudden believed that the Prophet (s) was born in Karbala, or that Ali (عليه السلام) was the only son of Abu Talib, or if I wrote a du'a today that is recited in every mosque every Wednesday (for example). Imagine if no one said a word about it. Imagine if people said these beliefs are harmless, fine, good, and even recommended, even if they are false.

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.

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.

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

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.

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