Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Jondab_Azdi

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    3,310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from dingdong. in We want peace but with dignity!   
    This was posted by Marvi Memon [Member National Assembly, Pakistan] on her blog.

    Let there be no confusion that we condemn terrorism in all its forms and support joint resolution signed by political leadership regarding Mumbai blasts. Let there also be no confusion that India has launched a diplomatic offensive on Pakistan at the international level. In view of this Pakistan should also launch a diplomatic offensive rather than a defensive on India and provide the world with details of India’s efforts to destabilize the region and Indian human rights excesses. It is because of the government’s appeasement of Indian aggression of last 8 months that India is today in a position to launch this attack on Pakistan. Had the government followed dignified foreign policy as demanded by us the opposition today we would not be in the middle of a national security crisis.
    US support for India is obvious. President elect Obama’s statement that India will be in its rights to attack Pakistan in retaliation of militants hiding in Pakistan is not a pro Pak stance. Nor is Rice’s order that absolute cooperation needs to be given by Pak to India or that we should follow the evidence and act on it. We already know that and our government will do that as responsible state. Madeline Albright has called Pakistan an international migraine. Condy Rice is blessing us with a 5 hour visit only for what arm twisting bully purpose? US media is also singing same tune as Indian media and is naming LT as the organization behind attack without proof. US intelligence had warned India of attacks from the sea in October and despite this there was a systemic failure of entire Indian security apparatus as is noted by the Indian navy. The way to handle such joint US-Indian offensive is not by exposing the President to an Indian talkshow host grilling our president (bad move by his media team) or by expressing delayed gratitude to Hillary for receiving Mohtarma at White House. Nor is it by having loose statements of Interior Ministry saying Lashkar Jhangvi exists in Karachi meaning we know about it and we cant control it, thus giving excuse to Indians to identify Karachi as attack originator. Nor is it by giving away first nuclear strike usage? Instead it requires demanding from India answers on how it has increased regional instability on following occasions. Infact the regional security organizations and international community need to resolve following outstanding issues in the region:

    Why has India increased military presence in Afghanistan? Why has India started work on Ladakkh airbase? Why did India invite foreign military chiefs to Siachen which is disputed territory? Why is India trying to change IHK demography by transferring land illegally to Hindu Shrine Board? Why is India continuing to block Pakistan’s water and making illegal structures against Indus water Treaty? Why are Indian organizations doing anti Christian and Muslim genocide activities and Indian government allowing such organizations to exist? Why is India building military might in region, impacting regional balance? Why is India encircling Pakistan and China at the behest of US? Why is India deploying nuke warheads near Srinagar? Why are Indian human rights excesses in IHK including unmarked graves issues going unchecked? Why is India deploying extra 5 battalions in IHK? Why is India imposing economic blockade in IHK and no international community coming to Kashmiri help? Why are Kashmiri leaders killed and no action taken against perpetrators? Why is India blaming Pakistan for LOC violations which it creates itself? Why is India getting away with accusing Pak of all blasts in India including Mumbai with no evidence? Why is India and US media attacking our state institutions like ISI and putting threats of attack on our territory linked to alleged terror camps getting away with it? Why is India building bases/ consulates around Pak in neighbouring Iran and Afghanistan with no real need other than encirclement? Why does India get away postponing composite dialogue process every time tempers get raised over blasts? Why is India not being taken to task over its 100 homegrown separatist organizations which are result of Indian policies of marginalization? Why is India maintaining 700,000 troops in IHK who have killed over 90,000 Kashmiris? Why does India keep presenting same old list of wanted men without realizing Pak has already given response on them? Why does the Indian High Commissioner meet Nawaz Sharif minus other important opposition leaders?
    We have to strengthen government’s hands by insisting on India’s accountability through diplomatic offensive and through regional security organizations like Shanghai cooperation organization and others. If we want peace in the region then the mentality in Indian youth that we are one big nation that got split in 1947 and should get back together needs to end. We are proud of fact that we are independent nation and we intend staying independent. They should stop dreaming of larger India. We have to insist that national security advisors of both countries head joint probe. That is best suggestion given by my leadership and we need to make India agree to it. If it doesn’t it is not being transparent. We are patriots who will not take India’s bullying. We are the new leadership of Pakistan. We want all outstanding issues resolved with India including core issue of Kashmir without which regional stability is not realistic. We want peace but with dignity.
    _______
  2. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from dingdong. in äÇãæÓ ÑÓÇáÊ   
    ^Dr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain
  3. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from dingdong. in äÇãæÓ ÑÓÇáÊ   
  4. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Laraib in Sects of Islam   
    Not sahih a/c to Syed Fadhlallah. . .



    س: قال الرسول الأعظم(ص): "ستفترق أمتي على ثلاث وسبعين فرقةً، كلّها في النار إلا واحدة". ما مدى صحّة هذا الحديث؟
    ج: لقد بحث بعض المحقّقين عن سند هذا الحديث، فوصل إلى نتيجة أنه حديث غير صحيح، لأنّ الأمّة افترقت إلى أكثر من ثلاث وسبعين فرقة، ولو فرضنا أننا أردنا أن نحصي الشيعة، وهكذا السنة وغيرهم، فإنّ فرقهم ربما تكون أكثر من ذلك.

    http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/books/nadwas/fikrQ2_591.htm
    For shia versions see: http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-hadis/behar28/a1.html
    w/s
  5. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from dingdong. in Sects of Islam   
    From his reply it seems that a/c to him all versions are unauthentic.
    w/s
  6. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from dingdong. in Marriage with a girl with the following.......   
    æÚä Úáí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã ¡ Úä ÃÈíå ¡ Úä ÇÈä ÃÈí ÚãíÑ ¡ Úä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Èä ÇáÍÌøÇÌ ¡ Úä ÚÈíÏ Èä ÒÑÇÑÉ ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) Ü Ýí ÍÏíË ÇáßÈÇÆÑ Ü ÞÇá : Åäø ÊÇÑß ÇáÕáÇÉ ßÇÝÑ ¡ íÚäí ãä ÛíÑ ÚáøÉ
    http://www.alkadhum.org/other/mktba/hadith/wasael-04/v03.html
    w/s
  7. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from dingdong. in Motives for fabricating hadiths   
    ^The narration is originally from al-Ihtijaj of al-Tabarsi. It's daif b/c of mursal sanad.
    åÐå ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÃíÖÇð ÛíÑ ÕÍíÍÉ ÓäÏÇð Ýåí ãÑÓáÉ
    http://www.ansarweb.net/artman2/publish/107/article_1651.php
    w/s
  8. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Motives for fabricating hadiths   
    ^The narration is originally from al-Ihtijaj of al-Tabarsi. It's daif b/c of mursal sanad.
    åÐå ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÃíÖÇð ÛíÑ ÕÍíÍÉ ÓäÏÇð Ýåí ãÑÓáÉ
    http://www.ansarweb.net/artman2/publish/107/article_1651.php
    w/s
  9. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from iraqi_shia in Shia Kalima   
    This narration mentioned by Allama Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar Vol. 37 is originally from al-Amali attributed to Shaykh Saduq (ar).


    ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí ãÇÌíáæíå ÑÖ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì ÇáÚØÇÑ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ Óåá Èä ÒíÇÏ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáæáíÏ ÞÇá ÓãÚÊ íæäÓ Èä íÚÞæÈ íÞæá Úä ÓäÇä Èä ØÑíÝ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáÕÇÏÞ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÞÇá ÞÇá ÃäÇ Ãæá Ãåá ÈíÊ äæå Çááå ÈÃÓãÇÆäÇ Åäå áãÇ ÎáÞ Çááå ÇáÓãÇæÇÊ æÇáÃÑÖ ÃãÑ ãäÇÏíÇ ÝäÇÏì ÃÔåÏ Ãä áÇ Åáå ÅáÇ Çááå ËáÇËÇ ÃÔåÏ Ãä ãÍãÏÇ ÑÓæá Çááå ËáÇËÇ ÃÔåÏ Ãä ÚáíÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä ÍÞÇ ËáÇËÇ.

    The narration is weak b/c of majhool and daif narrators in the sanad.



    ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí ãÇÌíáæíå ÇáÞãí : ãÌåæá
    Óåá Èä ÒíÇÏ ÃÈæ ÓÚíÏ ÇáÇÏãí ÇáÑÇÒí ßÇä ÖÚíÝÇ Ýí ÇáÍÏíË¡ ÛíÑ ãÚÊãÏ Ýíå.
    ÓäÇä Èä ØÑíÝ : ãÌåæá


    w/s
  10. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from malangs_ARE_DEVIATED in Sects of Islam   
    From his reply it seems that a/c to him all versions are unauthentic.
    w/s
  11. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from malangs_ARE_DEVIATED in Marriage with a girl with the following.......   
    From authentic ahadith in al-Kafi.
    w/s
  12. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from malangs_ARE_DEVIATED in Marriage with a girl with the following.......   
    æÚä Úáí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã ¡ Úä ÃÈíå ¡ Úä ÇÈä ÃÈí ÚãíÑ ¡ Úä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Èä ÇáÍÌøÇÌ ¡ Úä ÚÈíÏ Èä ÒÑÇÑÉ ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) Ü Ýí ÍÏíË ÇáßÈÇÆÑ Ü ÞÇá : Åäø ÊÇÑß ÇáÕáÇÉ ßÇÝÑ ¡ íÚäí ãä ÛíÑ ÚáøÉ
    http://www.alkadhum.org/other/mktba/hadith/wasael-04/v03.html
    w/s
  13. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from malangs_ARE_DEVIATED in یÀ ˜یÓی ãÍÈÊ Àÿ   
    ÓäÇ ÊªÇ Àã äÿ áææŸ Óÿ ۔۔۔۔۔
    ãÍÈÊ یÒ ÇیÓی Àÿ ۔۔۔
    ªÇۓ ª äÀیŸ Ó˜Êی ۔۔۔
    یÀ Âä˜ªæŸ ãیŸ ã˜Êی Àÿ ۔۔
    ۔ یÀ ÀÑæŸ Ñ Ïã˜Êی Àÿ ۔۔۔
    ÏáæŸ Ê˜ ˜æ ÑáÇÊی Àÿ ۔۔۔۔
    ãÑ
    ÇÑ یÀ ÓÈ Ó Àÿ ۔۔۔
    Êæ ªÑ ÀãیŸ Çäÿ ÑÈ
    Óÿ ȪáÇ ˜یÓی ãÍÈÊ Àÿ
    äÀ Âä˜ªæŸ Óÿ ̪á˜Êی Àÿ
    äÇ ÀÑæŸ Ñ Ïã˜Êی Àÿ ۔۔
    äÇ áÀÌæŸ ãیŸ ÓáÊی Àÿ
    äÇ ÏáæŸ ˜æ ÂÒãÇÊی Àÿ
    äÇ ÑÇÊæŸ ˜æ ÑáÇÊی Àÿ
    یÀ ˜یÓی ãÍÈÊ Àÿ ۔۔۔



  14. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Musheer   
    'Musheer' by Habib Jalib








  15. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    ^If you have read the paper 'THE AKHBARI/USULI DISPUTE IN LATE SAFAWID IRAN', it also shows that this usul has been used by Usulis and not Akhbaris. . .

    The mujtahids maintain the basic state in [legal] questions is permissibility. [This is] based on the statement of the Imam, on Him be peace, " Everything is unrestricted until prohibition comes down concerning it ", and on the basis of the universality of the Almighty's statement "He made for you all that is on the earth" (Qur'an, 2:29).
    The Akhbaris hesitate on this. Rather, according to them where something does not have a text permitting it there is no means to permitting or forbidding it. Rather it is in the category of uncertainty. [Legal] issues are of three [sorts]: [that] wherein lawfulness is clear, [that] wherein prohibition is clear, and between that [categorization there are] uncertainties.
    And this is what they(Akhbaris) says about third category i.e. uncertainity. . .
    [The third comprises] uncertainties between these.32 Whoever follows a course based on uncertainties is doing what is forbidden. He will perish because he has no knowledge. Caution is obligatory with regard to every issue on which there is no text transmitted on Their authority, on Them be peace.

    w/s
  16. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    Can you name some Akhbari scholars who believed in this usul? AFAIK, majority of Akhbari scholars didn't believe in this. See post no. 13 for the arguments of Shaykh Yusuf Bahrani.
    And this is what Shaykh Hurr al-Amili says:


    ÃÞæá: åÐÇ íÍÊãá æÌæåÇ. ÃÍÏåÇ - ÇáÍãá Úáì ÇáÊÞíÉ¡ ÝÇä ÇáÚÇãÉ íÞæáæä ÈÍÌíÉ ÇáÃÕá¡ ÝíÖÚÝ Úä ãÞÇæãÉ ãÇ ÓÈÞ¡ ãÖÇÝÇ Åáì ßæäå ÎÈÑÇ æÇÍÏÇ áÇ íÚÇÑÖ ÇáãÊæÇÊÑ. æËÇäíåÇ - ÇáÍãá Úáì ÇáÎØÇÈ ÇáÔÑÚí ÎÇÕÉ¡ ÈãÚäì Ãä ßá ÔÆ ãä ÇáÎØÇÈÇÊ ÇáÔÑÚíÉ íÊÚíä Íãáå Úáì ÇØáÇÞå æÚãæãå¡ ÍÊì íÑÏ Ýíå äåí íÎÕ ÈÚÖ ÇáÃÝÑÇÏ¡ æíÎÑÌå ãä ÇáÇØáÇÞ¡ ãËÇáå: Þæáåã (Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã): ßá ãÇÁ ØÇåÑ ÍÊì ÊÚáã Ãäå ÞÐÑ¡ ÝÃäå ãÍãæá Úáì ÅØáÇÞå¡ ÝáãÇ æÑÏ Çáäåí Úä ÇÓÊÚãÇá ßá æÇÍÏ ãä ÇáÇäÇÁíä ÅÐÇ äÌÓ ÃÍÏåãÇ æÇÔÊÈåÇ¡ ÊÚíä ÊÞííÏå ÈÛíÑ åÐå ÇáÕæÑÉ¡ æáÐáß ÇÓÊÏá Èå ÇáÕÏæÞ Úáì ÌæÇÒ ÇáÞäæÊ ÈÇáÝÇÑÓíÉ¡ áÃä ÇáÇæÇãÑ ÈÇáÞäæÊ ãØáÞÉ ÚÇãå¡ æáã íÑÏ äåí Úä ÇáÞäæÊ ÈÇáÝÇÑÓíÉ íÎÑÌå ãä ÅØáÇÞåÇ. æËÇáËåÇ - ÇáÊÎÕíÕ ÈãÇ áíÓ ãä äÝÓ ÇáÃÍßÇã ÇáÔÑÚíÉ¡ æÅä ßÇä ãä ãæÖæÚÇÊåÇ æãÊÚáÞÇÊåÇ¡ ßãÇ ÅÐÇ Ôß Ýí ÌæÇÆÒ ÇáÙÇáã ÃäåÇ ãÛÕæÈÉ Ãã áÇ. æÑÇÈÚÇ - Ãä Çáäåí íÔãá Çáäåí ÇáÚÇã æÇáÎÇÕ¡ æÇáäåí ÇáÚÇã ÈáÛäÇ æåæ Çáäåí Úä ÇÑÊßÇÈ ÇáÔÈåÇÊ Ýí äÝÓ ÇáÇÍßÇã¡ æÇáÇãÑ ÈÇáÊæÞÝ æÇáÇÍÊíÇØ ÝíåÇ æÝí ßá ãÇ áÇ äÕ Ýíå. æÎÇãÓåÇ - Ãä íßæä ãÎÕæÕÇ ÈãÇ ÞÈá ßãÇá ÇáÔÑíÚÉ æÊãÇãåÇ¡ ÝÃãÇ ÈÚÏ Ðáß Ýáã íÈÞ ÔÆ Úáì Íßã ÇáÈÑÇÁÉ ÇáÃÕíáÉ. æÓÇÏÓåÇ - Ãä íßæä ãÎÕæÕÇ Èãä áã ÊÈáÛå ÃÍÇÏíË Çáäåí Úä ÇÑÊßÇÈ ÇáÔÈåÇÊ æÇáÃãÑ ÈÇáÇÍÊíÇØ áãÇ ãÑ (1)¡ æáÇÓÊÍÇáÉ ÊßáíÝ ÇáÛÇÝá ÚÞáÇ æäÞáÇ.
    æÓÇÈÚåÇ - Ãä íßæä ãÎÕæÕÇ ÈãÇ áÇ íÍÊãá ÇáÊÍÑíã¡ Èá ÚáãÊ ÇÈÇÍÊå æÍÕá ÇáÔß Ýí æÌæÈå¡ Ýåæ ãØáÞ ÍÊì íÑÏ Ýíå äåí Úä ÊÑßå¡ áÃä ÇáãÓÊÝÇÏ ãä ÇáÃÍÇÏíË åäÇ ÚÏã æÌæÈ ÇáÇÍÊíÇØ ÈãÌÑÏ ÇÍÊãÇá ÇáæÌæÈ æÅä ßÇä ÑÇÌÍÇ¡ ÍíË áÇ íÍÊãá ÇáÊÍÑíã. æËÇãäåÇ - Ãä íßæä ãÎÕæÕÇ ÈÇáÃÔíÇÁ ÇáãåãÉ ÇáÊí ÊÚã ÈåÇ ÇáÈáæì æíÚáã Ãäå áæ ßÇä ÝíåÇ Íßã ãÎÇáÝ ááÃÕá áäÞá¡ ßãÇ íÝåã ãä Þæá Úáí (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã): íÇ Èäí Ãäå áæ ßÇä Åáå ÂÎÑ áÃÊÊß ÑÓáå¡ æáÑÃíÊ ÂËÇÑ ããáßÊå¡ æÞÏ ÕÑÍ ÈäÍæ Ðáß ÇáãÍÞÞ Ýí ÇáãÚÊÈÑ æÛíÑå.

    w/s
  17. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    The argument of Shaykh Yusuf Bahrani on this usul. . .

  18. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    Not sure if it's relevant here but there's a verse (2:286) . . .

    Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability; for it is (the benefit of) what it has earned, and upon it (the evil of) what it has wrought; "Our Lord! do not punish us if we forget or do a mistake; Our Lord! do not lay on us a burden as Thou didst lay on those before us; Our Lord! do not im­pose upon us that which we have not the strength to bear; and pardon us and forgive us and have mercy on us; Thou art our Guardian, so help us against the unbelieving people" (286).

    A very good tafsir of this verse by Allama Tabatabai > http://www.almizan.org/Tafseer/Volume4/Baqarah72.asp
    w/s
  19. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    ßá ÔÆ ãØáÞ ÍÊì íÑÏ Ýíå äåí
    Rough translation:
    Everything is unrestricted unless there's prohibition.
    The word for unrestricted is (ãØáÞ).
    w/s
  20. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    1) I'm looking for an authentic hadith which proves this usul: 'Everything is permissible unless prohibition comes down concerning it.'
    I've found few hadiths, but they are mursal.
    ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓíä ÞÇá: ÞÇá ÇáÕÇÏÞ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã): ßá ÔÆ ãØáÞ ÍÊì íÑÏ Ýíå äåí
    Ref: Wasail Shia, v. 27, pg. 173-4 http://yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/10/no1065.html
    Úä ÇáÕÇÏÞ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã Ãäå ÞÇá: " ßá ÔÆ ãØáÞ ÍÊì íÑÏ Ýíå äåí
    Ref: al-Faqih v. 1 http://yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0991.html
    2) From 'The Nature of the Akhbārī/Uṣūlī Dispute in Late Ṣafawid Iran. 'Abdallāh al-Samāhijī's "Munyat al-Mumārisīn':
    The Akhbaris hesitate on this. Rather, according to them where something does not have a text permitting it there is no means to permitting or forbidding it. Rather it is in the category of uncertainty. [Legal] issues are of three [sorts]: [that] wherein lawfulness is clear, [that] wherein prohibition is clear, and between that [categorization there are] uncertainties.
    Anyone knows the reasons why Akhbaris don't believe in this usul? How do they interpret the hadiths I mentioned above.
    w/s
  21. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from malangs_ARE_DEVIATED in We want peace but with dignity!   
    This was posted by Marvi Memon [Member National Assembly, Pakistan] on her blog.

    Let there be no confusion that we condemn terrorism in all its forms and support joint resolution signed by political leadership regarding Mumbai blasts. Let there also be no confusion that India has launched a diplomatic offensive on Pakistan at the international level. In view of this Pakistan should also launch a diplomatic offensive rather than a defensive on India and provide the world with details of India’s efforts to destabilize the region and Indian human rights excesses. It is because of the government’s appeasement of Indian aggression of last 8 months that India is today in a position to launch this attack on Pakistan. Had the government followed dignified foreign policy as demanded by us the opposition today we would not be in the middle of a national security crisis.
    US support for India is obvious. President elect Obama’s statement that India will be in its rights to attack Pakistan in retaliation of militants hiding in Pakistan is not a pro Pak stance. Nor is Rice’s order that absolute cooperation needs to be given by Pak to India or that we should follow the evidence and act on it. We already know that and our government will do that as responsible state. Madeline Albright has called Pakistan an international migraine. Condy Rice is blessing us with a 5 hour visit only for what arm twisting bully purpose? US media is also singing same tune as Indian media and is naming LT as the organization behind attack without proof. US intelligence had warned India of attacks from the sea in October and despite this there was a systemic failure of entire Indian security apparatus as is noted by the Indian navy. The way to handle such joint US-Indian offensive is not by exposing the President to an Indian talkshow host grilling our president (bad move by his media team) or by expressing delayed gratitude to Hillary for receiving Mohtarma at White House. Nor is it by having loose statements of Interior Ministry saying Lashkar Jhangvi exists in Karachi meaning we know about it and we cant control it, thus giving excuse to Indians to identify Karachi as attack originator. Nor is it by giving away first nuclear strike usage? Instead it requires demanding from India answers on how it has increased regional instability on following occasions. Infact the regional security organizations and international community need to resolve following outstanding issues in the region:

    Why has India increased military presence in Afghanistan? Why has India started work on Ladakkh airbase? Why did India invite foreign military chiefs to Siachen which is disputed territory? Why is India trying to change IHK demography by transferring land illegally to Hindu Shrine Board? Why is India continuing to block Pakistan’s water and making illegal structures against Indus water Treaty? Why are Indian organizations doing anti Christian and Muslim genocide activities and Indian government allowing such organizations to exist? Why is India building military might in region, impacting regional balance? Why is India encircling Pakistan and China at the behest of US? Why is India deploying nuke warheads near Srinagar? Why are Indian human rights excesses in IHK including unmarked graves issues going unchecked? Why is India deploying extra 5 battalions in IHK? Why is India imposing economic blockade in IHK and no international community coming to Kashmiri help? Why are Kashmiri leaders killed and no action taken against perpetrators? Why is India blaming Pakistan for LOC violations which it creates itself? Why is India getting away with accusing Pak of all blasts in India including Mumbai with no evidence? Why is India and US media attacking our state institutions like ISI and putting threats of attack on our territory linked to alleged terror camps getting away with it? Why is India building bases/ consulates around Pak in neighbouring Iran and Afghanistan with no real need other than encirclement? Why does India get away postponing composite dialogue process every time tempers get raised over blasts? Why is India not being taken to task over its 100 homegrown separatist organizations which are result of Indian policies of marginalization? Why is India maintaining 700,000 troops in IHK who have killed over 90,000 Kashmiris? Why does India keep presenting same old list of wanted men without realizing Pak has already given response on them? Why does the Indian High Commissioner meet Nawaz Sharif minus other important opposition leaders?
    We have to strengthen government’s hands by insisting on India’s accountability through diplomatic offensive and through regional security organizations like Shanghai cooperation organization and others. If we want peace in the region then the mentality in Indian youth that we are one big nation that got split in 1947 and should get back together needs to end. We are proud of fact that we are independent nation and we intend staying independent. They should stop dreaming of larger India. We have to insist that national security advisors of both countries head joint probe. That is best suggestion given by my leadership and we need to make India agree to it. If it doesn’t it is not being transparent. We are patriots who will not take India’s bullying. We are the new leadership of Pakistan. We want all outstanding issues resolved with India including core issue of Kashmir without which regional stability is not realistic. We want peace but with dignity.
    _______
  22. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from dingdong. in Sects of Islam   
    Not sahih a/c to Syed Fadhlallah. . .



    س: قال الرسول الأعظم(ص): "ستفترق أمتي على ثلاث وسبعين فرقةً، كلّها في النار إلا واحدة". ما مدى صحّة هذا الحديث؟
    ج: لقد بحث بعض المحقّقين عن سند هذا الحديث، فوصل إلى نتيجة أنه حديث غير صحيح، لأنّ الأمّة افترقت إلى أكثر من ثلاث وسبعين فرقة، ولو فرضنا أننا أردنا أن نحصي الشيعة، وهكذا السنة وغيرهم، فإنّ فرقهم ربما تكون أكثر من ذلك.

    http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/books/nadwas/fikrQ2_591.htm
    For shia versions see: http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-hadis/behar28/a1.html
    w/s
  23. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi reacted to kadhim in [Resolved]SHIACHAT REP POINTS   
    Sharing a banana? That sounds a little ... funny.
    I'd share a Guinness 0.1%? Does Guinness make such a thing? Probably not, eh?
  24. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi reacted to Marbles in [Resolved]SHIACHAT REP POINTS   
    Macisaac, please read the coloured highlighted part again and see what you have said. You are actually claiming that anyone who registers their disagreement with your and your group's take on Shia Islam, its religious texts, matters of jurisprudence etc, even if it is done in a civilised way, is, in fact, insulting the religion as well as those who follow it. This is a classic line macisaac. This explains a lot. It is extremely hard for you to show respectful consideration to points of view different from yours, and when you do get those, you dub them as insults against the religion while totally forgetting the fact that people you accuse also follow the same religion, namely Shia Islam, to the best of their ability. I find it very sad...
    I wouldn't be saying the following to you, not at least publicly, but there won't come a better time. Let's talk about a few personal things with the hope of making it non-personal once and for all. So count this as a brotherly advice not an attack.
    I can't speak for others but show me a single instance on this forum where I have resorted to name calling or insulted you or said anything personal to you. A single instance would do. On the other hand, I can point out to numerous posts where you made it personal just because people [i as well as others] disagreed with you. You should be working to make sure that the rules of the forum against such behaviour are followed. But instead, and I'm very sorry to say that, not only you are guilty of this behaviour but you overlook if that comes from people who subscribe to the same framework you operate from. I have been voicing my concerns on the quality and fairness of moderation for over a year now. It has gotten worse. It has gotten to the point that it wouldn't surprise me if I (if I may say so without sounding like a boaster), a senior member for 8 years with 10K+ posts, log on one morning and find myself chucked out of SC.
    Oh as for the reputation system, do you really think the reason I [and kadhim et al] accumulated red points is because some members took the time to read our posts, found them to be unislamic and therefore registered their criticisms with negatives? The answer is no and you know that very well. For the purpose of illustration, I was -55 last night. Someone got it down to -6 and now I'm bordering -100. This is enough to indicate what is happening behind the scene. This board has provided some immature people with a handy tool. And the reason I have protested about rep is because, at present, it is being used unfairly. Otherwise, to be honest with you, it means less than a zilch to me.
    You are totally wrong in your assumption that I was implicitly hitting at you when I suspected a certain member(s) misusing the rep. Although it was suggested to me that you could be behind this but I dismissed the suggestion. First because mods/admins can't rate. Second, I sincerely don't think that you would, as you put it, sell your integrity for something as trivial as rep system. I have a strong idea who these brats are but for now they can have fun.
  25. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from lotfilms in Prophet (saw) and Sahv   
    I think he is Ali b. Hasan b. Rabat . . .


    15347 ÇáÑÈÇØí :
    Ñæì Úä ÓÚíÏ ÇáÇÚÑÌ ¡ æÑæì Úäå ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍÈæÈ ¡ ÇáÝÞíå : ÇáÌÒÁ 1 ¡ ÈÇÈ ÃÍßÇã ÇáÓåæ Ýí ÇáÕáÇÉ ¡ ÇáÍÏíË 1031 .
    æÑæì Úä ÃÈí ÇáÕÈÇÍ ãæáì Âá ÓÇã ¡ æÑæì Úäå ÇÈä ãÍÈæÈ .
    ÇáßÇÝí : ÇáÌÒÁ 5 ¡ ÈÇÈ ÇáäæÇÏÑ ãä ßÊÇÈ ÇáãÚíÔÉ ¡ ÇáÍÏíË 13 .
    æåÐå ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÑæÇåÇ ÇáÔíÎ ÈÇÓäÇÏå ¡ Úä ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍÈæÈ ¡ Úäå ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÇáÕÈÇÍ ãæáì ÈÓÇã .
    ÇáÊåÐíÈ : ÇáÌÒÁ 6 ¡ ÈÇÈ ÇáãßÇÓÈ ¡ ÇáÍÏíË 1126 .
    ÃÞæá : ÇáÙÇåÑ Ãäå Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÑÈÇØ ÇáãÊÞÏã ÊÑÌãÊå ¡ ÝÅä ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍÈæÈ ÞÏ Ñæì ßÊÇÈ Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÑÈÇØ ¡ ßãÇ ÊÞÏã .


    w/s
×
×
  • Create New...