Ibn Tayyar

If I don’t know the cause of the crack, does that definitively prove that it is from a miracle 1400 years ago? It is a minor crack in an old building in a part of the world with sandstorms and such. If it is eventually fixed someday, does that mean that the Wahabis win?
This reminds me of a Reddit thread where some random person found an Arabic letter in a bottle. It turns out that the letter was from a woman addressing Imam al-Mahdi. The fact that a random person intercepted this letter caused some people to doubt Shiism, instead of just doubting that practice (or that instance of that practice). We shouldn’t make mountains out of molehills.

Obviously he has not been active in a long time. The book however is something he received some help in from a very reputable scholar that is mentioned in the conclusion. The references also speak for themselves, and anything else is grasping at straws. If you don't care for Zaveri, that is fine, but 4 daughters is also the view of modern scholars of sirah like Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani.
You're welcome to believe this, but (1) the Ka'ba was rebuilt in 605, 683, 693, and 1631 AD, not including periodic repairs. (2) Even if we were to accept the hadith about the crack from the Amali of Shaykh al-Saduq, it says that the back wall of the Ka'ba opened up (not the corner), and it says that the wall closed up, with no mention of a crack that remained. (3) no pre-modern scholar that I know of ever mentioned a miraculous crack, which would be a significant detail to leave out for ~1300 years, considering almost every Muslim visits Mecca (4) if the Saudis were hiding the crack, then they wouldn't be showing it on national television every time the kiswa is changed every year.
Unfortunately, just because many people in Baalbek believe that a daughter of Husayn (عليه السلام) is buried there, it does not mean that it is true. This is what I mean by defending a culture rather than pursuing truth. Not only is there no record of a Khawla, the earliest record of the shrine in the same link you posted is an English painting from 1757. That is over a millennium after the events. I understand that it is usually hard to prove something definitively, but this is almost in the same category as other Masjid Uncle Lore ™.
It should be very easy then to provide ancient sources.

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.

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

On this particular issue and in this book, rijal isn’t even the focus or the methodology used. 

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).

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).

Here is a book on the subject: https://archive.org/details/HowManyDaughtersDidTheProphetHave
I'm not too young and I pray that Allah removes any arrogance from me, but Shiism should ultimately be about pursuing truth rather than simply defending a culture. A lot of energy is spent defending beliefs and practice that are either palpably untrue and harmful, or may just technically be allowed according to a set of arguments. What our forefathers believed has no bearing on our salvation.
Will someone be punished for believing that Sayyida Fatima (عليه السلام) is the only daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s)? Probably not. But does the proliferation of such a belief make us look ahistorical, close-minded, insincere, and perhaps even cult-like? Absolutely.
The same goes for many other issues: (here is your trigger warning) (1) the popular version of Sayyida Zaynab's speech is not necessarily reliable, (2) the popular version of Hadith al-Kisa' is also very recent, (3) the shrines of Khawla, Abu Lu'lu', Shahrbanu, and Mazar Sharif aren't real, (4) we know where Sayyida Fatima's grave is, (5) the third shahada in adhan was popularized in the Safavid period, (6) Things like Nadi `Ali and Khutbatul Bayan are also very late, (7) Common hadiths used like "Love of the nation is from faith (hub al-watan min al-iman)" are probably fabrications, (8) the crack in the Ka'ba is not related to Amir al-Mu'minin (عليه السلام), etc. etc.
People can feel free to believe in all these things, but you'd be practicing a ~300 year old religion. Personally, I want to practice the school of Ahl al-Bayt. Not just things that may technically be harmless, or can technically be done if practiced in exactly the right way. I'm trying to understand what they believed and practiced, and I'd rather not waste my time with obvious forgeries.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is Sermon of Imam Al-Hasan (عليه السلام) from Sunnis that have been authenticated as sahih by Al-Albani. What is interesting is the statement of "A man parted with you, who was unparalleled by all those before him and beyond the reach of those after him." and "Gabriel on his right and Mikael on his left".

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.

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.

Well your mistake is that you probably just read this somewhere at took it as fact. They did use fighter jets to shoot down a couple of drones, but shooting down hundreds of drones, flying at low altitude, at random intervalls is practically impossible for fighter jets. They did eventually shoot down most of the drones with anti air when they reached the airspace, but that was also the intention. One was to create a mess out of the entire defence system, the second was to collect data. USAF also said no one got hurt and Iran did minimal damage at Al Asad, but now we know that half the soldiers got significant brain damage, and the most important parts of the base was in ruins. I wouldn't take what USAF says as facts, as a matter of fact, whatever they say, the opposite is probably true. 

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.

Thanks for clarification brother, sometimes it’s more to type (my thumbs hurt lol) but for teaching young ones, it’s a moral duty upon the rest of us to give them a comprehensive understanding of Deen and not just the Fiqh rulings. 
 
Whenever I reply these topics, I always remember the words of our dear Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) where he says , and Allah says, that He ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was sent to perfect the “Akhlaq” of the people, …… not the Fiqh. 
Ma’salam & Eid Mubarak.  

It is allowed because the awrah for a man and the awrah for a woman is the same, and it is the private parts, and the chest is not a private part - according to most of our scholars.
Most Imamis state: It is wajib for her to cover her rear and private parts in the presence of women and her maharim; to cover other parts as well is better though not wajib, except where there is a fear of sin.
https://www.al-islam.org/five-schools-islamic-law-muhammad-jawad-mughniyya/rules-modesty
Sayyed Al-Sistani (ha) says the same:
مسألة 12: يجوز للرجل النظر إلى ما عدا العورة من مماثله - شيخاً كان المنظور إليه أو شابّاً، حسن الصورة أو قبيحها - ما لم يكن بتلذّذ شهويّ أو مع الريبة - أي خوف الافتتان والوقوع في الحرام - وهكذا الحال في نظر المرأة إلى ما عدا العورة من مماثلها، وأمّا العورة - وهي القُبُل والدُّبُر كما مرّ في أحكام التخلّي - فلا يجوز النظر إليها حتّى بالنسبة إلى المماثل، نعم حرمة النظر إلى عورة الكافر المماثل والصبيّ المميّز تبتني على الاحتياط اللزوميّ.