Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Abu Hadi

Moderators
  • Posts

    7,529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

Everything posted by Abu Hadi

  1. I agree with the above except for one part. You do have an earthly body, it is just 'earthly body 2.0' meaning you don't age, don't get sick, don't need to use the bathroom, don't get tired, depressed, stressed out, etc. Also if you have disability or defect in your earthly body that will be removed and you will have that body, but without the defects or disability. Those who wear glasses now won't need glasses to see clearly, those who are hard of hearing will be able to hear crystal clear without a hearing aid, etc. It will be an earthly body though, made out of flesh, bones, blood, hair, teeth, etc. You won't have a non material or 'spiritualized' body. You will have that, but in the barzakh (intermediate world). On the day of Resurrection, your physical body will be 'put back together' atom by atom and molecule by molecule, but in the 2.0 form (if you are bound for paradise). The authentic hadith are very clear about these points. The hadith are also clear about the fact that there will be hour al ain in paradise(and this is in the Quran also, many times) , but are not as clear about the exact details. Those people who say 'You guys believe that you will be able to 'have' 72 virgins all at once, or as my British friends say 'all in one go' are probably not familiar with our hadith. I am not saying that this is not a possibility, but it is not alluded to in that much detail as to be able to know one way or the other. What we know is that the mumineen (and also the muminaat) will have many servants or companions that are beautiful, virgins, in the sense that they have been created specifically for the pleasure of this mumin or mumina and they have no exposure to any other human beings. The mumin / a will get intense pleasure from this companionship which will be mutual and they will have more than one of these relationships. That part we know. Now some extrapolate that into 'sexual intercourse with multiple partners' but that is not what the hadiths say exactly. This is their interpretation of the hadith based on their own thinking about what gives them pleasure or 'intense pleasure' here on earth. Paradise is not like earth in many ways, so this intense pleasure may be something else, or it might not be, we don't know, well we know generally, but not the specific details. From what I have read, and what I have been told, just looking at one of these hour al ayn from a distance without physically touching them or hearing them will be many orders of magnitude better and more pleasurable than any type of pleasure anyone has experienced on earth. They have been created from out deepest most intimate thoughts, emotions, and desires, and not for anyone else. Basically, there is nothing that any of us have experienced yet in our existence to compare that to. So now imagine more intimate interactions with this being, whether than involves what it involves here on earth or not. It doesn't really matter, we cannot imagine it, given our current knowledge and experience. It's like an ant trying to talk about the height of Mt. Everest when the tallest thing they've ever seen is a tree or a shrub. It is useful to talk about, if it motivates some people to be better muslims and more faithful, but beyond that it's not very productive to talk about, since we have not way to really conceive exactly what it is. The other aspect is that all these negative emotions we experience on earth like jealousy, suspicion, fear of abandonment, etc, don't exist in Paradise. All these emotions are 'cleaned' from the soul before one enters Paradise. So even if two people are husband and wife, mumin and muminat, and they see each other in Paradise being served by different individuals, those things that go thru their mind on earth (as a result of their human nature here on earth as well as various negative experiences that happened to them) won't go thru their mind there, after their heart is purified.
  2. Marrying him is definitely halal, and marriage is encouraged in general. The syed / non syed thing is cultural and actually doesn't matter that much. But you need to ask yourself two questions. 1) How much trouble can you handle from your parents. This is a question about you, not your parents. You know yourself, and you know your parents. Will you be able to handle to family repercussions of this decision. If you're a strong person, in general (not physically strong, I mean mentally tough) you should be able to handle it. 2) Do you think they will eventually accept your marriage ? This is a guess, but you could probably make a better guess than anyone, since you know them well. Also, you have observed their past behaviour with similar issues when someone in their family did something they did not agree with, but was not a bad thing, but just that they did not like it. This will give you an idea. I would say if you can handle the trouble, maintain good aklaq with them, and you think they will eventually come around and accept your marriage, then you should get married to this guy. Finding a guy who follows the religion, is Shia, and is someone you get along with and want to marry is not something you will come across every day. Maybe not for years, maybe not ever again. So if you have this opportunity, you should try your best to make it happen. If you know you are not strong enough to handle the trouble and you may do something hasty and wrong, like do some abusive behaviour toward your parents or cut of the relationship with them, due to your anger, then I would say don't do it, as this may put your akhira in danger, and there is nothing in this world that is worth giving up your akhira for or putting it in danger for. The reason the syed / non syed thing is not a big deal is for the following reason. The fact that someone is a descendant of one of the Imams((عليه السلام)) is not in itself a guarantee of anything. It is not a guarantee they are a good person, not a guarantee they will make a good husband, etc. Who their great, great, great, great.... grandfather was doesn't tell you anything about a person. What tells you is their own actions, and to a certain extent who their immediate family is (mother, father, brothers, sisters). If their immediate family are good people and they have good aklaq and deen, then you will probably have a good marriage, whether or not they are syed. If their immediate family are not good people and / or they do not have good aklaq and their deen is not good, you will probably have a bad marriage and end up divorced in a few years, or end up suffering a life of misery and abuse, regardless of who their ancestors (many generations ago) were. It is possible for a man who comes from a family with bad deen and aklaq to be good, but it is rare, so if this is the case, you should make sure before you get married that this is the case, as much as you can.
  3. Salam Alekum, brothers and sisters As some of you know, I am involved with a local charity in Michigan, Share International https://sharefunds.org/ We will be having a fund raising dinner to help those affected by the recent floods in Pakistan. Here is the info. Tickets are $40. I hope those who live in the area can attend. I will be there with my wife, InShahAllah
  4. Quick Response of comments on previous pages. 1) Hijab is wajib. All marjaa' who have been generally recognized as such agree on this point. 2) Women must cover their hair and their body, not just their private parts, in public and around men who are not their close relatives. This is the meaning of hijab as it applies to women. Here is a conclusive proof of this in a short video. Sorry brothers and sisters who have seen this before, I have reposted it more than 20 times now. It's less than 5 minutes in length. https://www.al-islam.org/media/does-quran-command-us-wear-hijab BTW, this video used to be on youtube. Now apparently it is banned from youtube (in the US at least) and you cannot find it using google. Only found it through a link from al-islam.org. Hmmm. interesting. 3) The question is not whether hijab is wajib (it is), the question is how should it be enforced in society. There are several perspectives on this, some of which have been presented in this thread. Reasonable people can have opinions abou this, and there is not just one answer, HOWEVER, If you live in Iran, you are required to follow the laws of Iran, even if you don't agree with their way of enforcing hijab. This should be obvious to most people. If you live in the US, you must pay taxes, even if you disagree with how the money is used, etc. You must follow the laws of the country where you live, so long as those laws don't directly contradict the Sharia. You can petition the government to change those laws, and you can protest, peacefully without destroying or damaging the lives and property of others. You can also vote for political candidates who share your opinions on this. You cannot go outside the law by attacking police officers, attacking medical personnel, destroying property, looting shops, etc. This is called living in a civil society. I thought this was well understood at this point in human history. 4) There has been no real, concrete evidence presented so far that this lady was actually beaten by the police and this lead to her death. I am still waiting for it, and I am willing to look at it if someone happens to post something.
  5. Sayyid Hassan Qazwini gave a good khutba for Juma regarding this subject. I will summarize it here This lady (1 lady) died under mysterious circumstances, which have not been proven to be an actual human rights violation. In fact (and this is my own interjection here), there have been several pieces of evidence here that have been posted showing that, in fact, she was not beaten before her death. Meanwhile... Thousands of children in Yemen are starving to death because of daily Saudi Imposed war and bombardment. This is well documented, there is no doubt about it. It is happening every day. Gaza has been under siege and blockage by the Israeli government for more than 8 years now, resulting in thousands of real, documents civilian deaths. This is real, well documented and happening every day. Palestine is under occupation by Israel, as is the West Bank. The third Holiest site in Islam is occupied by kuffar and they are expanding their occupation into Muslim lands on a daily basis, expelling Muslims from their homes, and murdering others in cold blood. Again, this is documents, thoroughly, and happening on a daily basis. Shia Masjids are being blown up (with people inside of them) in Afghanistan and Pakistan on an almost weekly basis. This is well document, and most of the time filmed by the takfiri terrorist groups So instead of thinking about those real, well documented, and daily occurrences where Muslim are being starved to death, expelled from their homes, blown to pieces, murdered, raped, and having their lands and property taken away from them by the kuffar or munafikeen, and seeing if we can help in any way.... Oh. Let's just focus all our time and attention on this thing that might have happened to this one lady. Yeah...that sounds like a good plan. It makes me think. Are most Muslims even concerned about the affairs of their fellow Muslims, or are they just more interested in following the latest social media trend ? ?? If we are this foolish, I guess we deserve what we get.
  6. I'll just say you have quite an imagination. Your claims go beyond even what the Mossad / CIA / Neocons say. Good luck with all that. Toodles.
  7. Let's imaging for a second that all the evidence shown so far is fake and made up by the 'regime' and that she really was beaten to death by a policeman. If you look at, at least my posts, I say that this is a possibility and that it could happen, although there is no evidence that it 'DID' happen (two totally different things). So what is the solution then ? Start rioting and looting and killing police officers ? Would that bring justice for this lady or would that bring her (theoretical) killer to justice ? Also, another problem is that most of these young people who are doing the rioting have no memory of living under the neo colonialist puppet regime of the Shah. I guarantee you that if the riots are successful and the IRI falls, who will take over will be another neo colonialist puppet regime who will be worse than the Shah. If betting wasn't haram, I would bet all my wealth that this would be the result. If they think the IRI 'regime' is brutal because (possibly) one lady was beaten, would they like to replace it with a regime (the Shah) who mowed down thousands of unarmed people in the street with machine guns, under the orders of their puppet masters in Washington in 1977 and 1978? Is that what the people of Iran really want ? I think the people who are rioting need to ask themselves this question.
  8. You mean like a kaffan ? Isn't that how Muslims are usually buried ?
  9. I think this is a misrepresentation of what he said. Let me tell you the way I understood his statement. Sayyid Sistani(may Allah give him long life) is not the political leader of Iraq. Iraq is not an Islamic government, in that the teaching of Islam are not the basis for the Iraqi constitution and system. It is a secular system with some Islamic 'flavor', like most countries in the ME. Sayyid Sistani is the most popular and accepted leader in Iraq, by far. He could become the head of the government if he wanted that. He doesn't want that, for the reasons stated previously. It would be a conflict of interest for him to be the leader of a secular government. Also, Iraq is not like Iran. There is a large Sunni community, as well as a large Christian community in Iraq. They would not accept a government that is based on Islam AND teaching of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). Christians would have a problem with the 'Islam' part, and Sunnis would have a problem with the 'Ahl Al Bayt' part. So a government similar to Iran would not work in Iraq at the present time. This is something most people acknowledge. Lebanon is a similar situation. Hezb and Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah(may Allah give him long life) are respectively the most powerful military force and the most popular leader in Lebanon, by far. They could take over the country in a few weeks if they wanted to. At the same time, Lebanon is similar to Iraq in that although the Shia may be the largest group in terms of population, there are other groups in the country, such as the Christians, Sunnis (aligned with MBS), and Druze who also have large populations and also have militias and leadership. So Hezb and Sayyid Hassan have limited their role in Lebanon to a defense force and a spiritual leadership, and not a political leadership by their own choice. Lebanon is in a sad situation now due to lack of real and sincere political leadership and as a consequence of enormous and systematic corruption at the high levels of the political structure, but that is a different topic. The situation in Lebanon is extremely complex and delicate and to fully explain it would probably take a 1000 page book. The government of Iran is based on the idea of a Wilayat Al Faqih (Leadership of the Jurist), which means (in the interpretation of Imam Khomeni((رضي الله عنه)), Khameni(h.a), and others that there is one leader of the country who has the final say in all matters. This doesn't mean he knows everything that is going on (he is a human being at the end of the day), or that he approves of everything, since he doesn't know about everything. He approves the general policy and structures, and is the head of the government administration. There is noone higher than him in Iran that people can go to to 'bypass' his decision, if he makes a decision on some issue. That is the meaning of Wilayat Al Faqih in Iran. Not 'everything' that is done by the 'Morality Police' is done with his knowledge and his blessing. The brother never said that. It is possible that this officer acted unilaterally, outside the policies that are set by Imam Khameni. This is just logical, and this is a possibility in every country and happens in every country periodically. If it is not a policy of the government, it will still happen, but rarely. That is why there is an ongoing investigation, to determine if this is what happened. We don't know yet. To automatically jump to the conclusion that A) this is what happened and B) that this was sanctioned by Imam Khameni himself is really not logical and there is no basis in evidence for this.
  10. Any rule or law without an enforcement mechanism is a dead rule or dead law. Noone will follow it. As for the Hijab, the main enforcement mechanism is Iman and Taqwa. The muminat will always wear hijab, not because of the law of the country, but because they know wearing the hijab pleases Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), their Creator. All the great Muslim women of history, like Maryam((عليه السلام)), Zainab((عليه السلام)), and most importantly Fatima Zahra((عليه السلام)), who is the archetype of a Muslim women wore proper hijab and never compromised that. They don't need the government to tell them. Here in the West, in the US there are many sisters who wear hijab, properly, despite the fact that it is not only not required by the government, but it is actively discouraged by the government and sometimes makes them a target for evil people. They wear it anyway, May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) continue to bless them, all of them. At the same time, in a country like Iran, which is a large country with many millions of women and men of many different levels of faith and morals, and some even non muslims, there needs to be some 'outside' enforcement mechanism in order to ensure that the morality of the society doesn't degrade over time and become corrupted, like it has become in many places in the world, and like it has become in even some 'Muslim' countries where Muslims are in the majority and yet you don't see Islam being practiced in the society, or it is practiced very rarely. What exactly that standard is, and how it is enforced is up to the people of Iran to decide, not us outsiders. It seems to me they have decided, and most of the people in Iran support the current enforcement mechanisms regarding this. There are some that are unhappy and wish for it to change, and they have the right to their opinion. They can petition their government and they can demonstrate, non violently, as some of them are doing. They have that right as human beings and citizens of the society. At the same time, they don't have the right to call for 'the downfall of the regime' and to cooperate with those who are the enemies of the Iranian people, and / or to do violence which negatively effects all the Iranian people.
  11. The hijab is part of the religion, so I don't think it's inappropriate for a country that bases it's government on the religion of Islam to enforce it. Btw, there are also laws for men regarding hijab. They are different for men but they are still there and still enforced. How they are enforced in Iran is something I don't have much experience with since I've never been to Iran. I've heard different things about it but most of what I've heard leads me to believe that they are not enforced by physical force, ie women aren't beaten up on the street for not wearing hijab. It's more of a civil matter. If they were being beaten up in the streets that would be wrong and uncivilized and I would be against that manner of enforcement Every country has laws and every country enforced those laws otherwise the laws are meaningless. In certain parts of the US if u spit on the street you are fined hundreds of dollars. I don't see anyone saying we want to overthrow the govt because we want to spit on the street.
  12. I agree with you on this point. Also, I spent the weekend talking to some Iranian brothers and sister who live in this area, as well as some other brothers who spent years living in Iran. I needed to ask them some questions about this case, as yes I had questions, and yes I (and other sincere brothers and sisters who are here) take this seriously as there was a death and blood cannot be washed away by words. None of these people live in Iran any longer, in fact they live in the US. So they are not 'scared' of being beaten or harassed by the morality police. All of them said the same thing. This is pure Western propaganda, and another attempt by the West to stir up trouble in Iran. Yes, something happened to this lady which is unfortunate and sad, but to automatically, in a knee jerk reaction tie this to the government without any evidence shown is surprising to me. To take the Western Propaganda machine 'At it's word with no evidence' , given it's past track record in Iran is surprising to me. It's especially surprising for those who call themselves 'Shia Muslims' and followers of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) to do this. There is only one government on earth that is trying to put into practice the teaching of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), on a National Level, and that is Iran. Noone ever said this effort was without any mistakes, but the mistakes have been minimal and the successes have been many, as far a I can tell. So because of that, we have an obligation to support them. We should give them the benefit of the doubt and not give their enemies this benefit. I realize that there are sincere brothers and sisters in Iran, and outside Iran that want to put pressure on the govt to make needed reforms in some areas (and there are definitely areas in Iran which need to be improved). Taking the side of the Western Imperialists and helping them thru buying into their propaganda, and acting based on that is not the way to get what you want. You will alienate your friends (your brothers and sisters in Islam) and your enemies will drop you 'like a hot potato' as soon as they get what they want from you. There are better ways to go about this. We can have a discussion about that if you wish.
  13. There are way too many examples of how this system doesn't work, or it works only for the rich and powerful (Bill Gates has still never been questioned seriously about his close relationship with convicted sex trafficker Jeffry Epstein). Maybe that is by design, or just a coincidence ? Anyway, most people in the US know that the system doesn't work for poor people, and especially poor people of color. Case in point. Yesterday, Adnan Sayyid was released from prison after 20 years. He was falsely accused of murder, and convicted. After more than 10 years, and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by his family, and also outside organizations, like the 'Serial' podcast, he finally got his conviction overturned. At the same time, this isn't a cause for celebration as there are still probably hundreds of thousands of people who were falsely accused that are still in prison. They have one thing in common, they are all poor. In the US, if you are poor you could spend months or years in jail for a traffic ticket. If you are rich you can get away with murder. If you are poor, you will be falsely accused, and most of the time there is nothing you can do about it. This is the system of injustice we live under. Want to come to America ? I would think twice about it if I were you. I would say to the American government, don't hold yourself up as a model of 'Democracy' and 'Freedom' while these sorts of thing are going on, everyday. https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/nonsense-md-ci-cr-adnan-syed-hearing-to-vacate-conviction-20220919-ynxvlcuqpbch5h6h2xl5xleh7q-story.html There are few organizations in the US that work to bring these cases to light, because you can't make money doing it. The Serial podcast is one of those exceptions.
  14. They were given no notice at all. Also, this 'questionaire' went out to all students, even the freshman. Some of them are 12 or 13 years old.
  15. I can tell you that's true from personal experience. At different points in my life, I've lived in upper middle class suburbs, middle class suburbs, and I've lived in the inner city, what they call here the 'ghetto' or the 'hood'. As long as you are in an area where you and your family feel safe, there isn't much difference. I've lived in a 3,500 sq.ft house, a 1500 sq.ft house, and an 850 sq.ft house. There isn't much difference. After a while, you find that whatever house you are in, you're life is pretty much the same. You get up, go to work, come home, have dinner, maybe go somewhere fun on the weekend, see friends, friends visit, maybe once a year you go on vacation. The only difference with the bigger house in the 'desirable' suburb is that you have a bigger mortgage, so you have to work harder just to pay your minimum payments. Who wins from that ? The people who own the banks and the finance companies. Not us. Same with cars. I've driven trucks, old Toyotas,SUVs, Mercedes. I even got a chance to drive a Ferarri for a few weeks. My friend let me drive it while he was out of town. It was fun for a few days. After that, it was just that I was spending more on gas than I did before. Driving the Ferarri was fun, but it's not worth sell your soul to get it. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gives some people a variety of experiences because that's what they need in order to have a firm Iman. Some have firm Iman without those experiences. In the end, it's the same. Having taqwa, strong Iman, a good relationship with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and good relationships with your family is what brings happiness. There is no material thing that does that. I wish, at least Musims, would realize that. I think the only difference between having the 'basics' and having 'luxury items' is what other people think about you, not what you think of yourself, or how you feel most of the time. You know who you are, most other people don't. So when you destroy your marriage, or destroy your relationships to get those things, you are doing it for other people, not for yourself. You are selling the expensive thing for cheap, and making the cheap thing (i.e. public opinion) expensive. They will just look at what you have and judge you based on that. This includes Muslims, unfortunately. We should stop doing that to each other, I think the world would be alot better place. BTW, my wife and I were watching this show (it's an Arabic show on Netflix) called 'Newton's Cradle'. It was a good show about this couple who had a bee farm in Egypt near the Nile river. The wife wanted to get a tourist visa to the US, while she was pregnant, and hide her pregnancy from the US Government so she could deliver her baby in the US and get US Citizenship (it's not that easy or simple, btw, for those who don't already know, but that was the premise of the show). My wife was born and raised in Lebanon, so she bought into the main premise of the show more. When I was watching it (being born and raised in the US), the whole time I was thinking 'What a foolish idea. If you had a bee farm, you were making your own honey, selling it. You had your own successful business and a nice house near the Nile river, Why would you want to come to the US and live as a poor immigrant ? '. That was my thoughts on it, which were different from my wife. They dreamed of coming to the US, while many people in the US dream of living like they did in Egypt. Ironic.
  16. Most people should just stop and think for a second when they read articles like this. A police officer is a person. A person, any person, whether they are Muslims or non Muslim have seen women, who they are not related to, without hijab many times in their life. The only difference between say, Iran, and other countries like the US or Australia, is that in Iran, most women are wearing hijab in public, to a greater or lesser extent. Maybe not proper hijab, but they are at least covering most of their body whereas in other countries it is unusual to see women covering most of their body. So there are very few men, on earth, even in Iran, that have managed to go for decades of their life without seeing any non related women wearing little or no clothing. So we can't assume this policeman is one of those cases. So for a policeman to fly into a murderous rage because of seeing something that he has probably seen many, many times in his life is something that is extremely unlikely, logically. So, logically, we shouldn't assume the most unlikely scenario (although it is possible), we should assume the more likely scenarios, UNLESS THERE IS SOLID EVIDENCE that the most unlikely scenario actually happened. This is just strait logic, it has nothing to do with religion, per se. It is like the saying they tell doctors here in medical school. If you hear the clicking of hooves, think horse not moose (unless you live in Northern Canada, then maybe think Moose). The most common scenario is most of the time the right one. For example, if someone comes to a doctor and says 'I am overweight, I need help to loose weight', the first thing the doctor will do is put them on a low calorie diet. They are most likely overweight because they are eating too much. They could also have some kind of a metabolic issue, a parasite in their stomach, etc, but these are unlikely compared to the former. There are two scenarios here that are the most likely based on logic. First, is that this whole thing is made up. The women may have died, and also been in police custody, but there is no connection between the two, and she died of natural causes. This is very sad, especially because she was so young, and may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) help her family get thru this trying time, but this happens every single day, everywhere in the world. There is nothing unusual about it. The fact that she was in police custody a short while before she died is merely coincidence. Second, that something did happen to her in police custody that might have contributed to her death, but it had nothing to do with the police. She got in a fight with another inmate, took an overdose of drugs, had a panic attack, had a psychological meltdown, fell down stairs by accident, etc. This is less common but it does happen alot (at least in the US it does). Just because two events happen close to each other, in terms of sequence, does not mean that one caused the other. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. That is one of the most basic rules of logic. If you want to say that correlation equals causation, you have to prove that with evidence. The scenario, that a policeman saw her without hijab and immediately flew into a fit of murderous rage, is the least likely scenario. Again and again, I have seen no solid evidence for this. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the Iranian govt to do a thorough and objective investigation, considering there was a death. I don't consider aljezera.net, CNN, BBC, etc, solid evidence without corroboration by objective third party sources. In other words, I don't take them 'at their word' because they have shown many times in the past that they like to play 'fast and loose' with the facts when it suits their preferred narrative, i.e. the the govt of Iran is a despotic and barbaric regime.
  17. There are many recent studies that show that divorce is increasing amoung Muslims in Western Countries as well as majority Muslim countries. From my research into the topic, I think there are two main reasons for this. 1) Increase of anti-family habits. This is for both men and women, but mostly for men. What I mean by 'anti-family' habits are those things which are haram, and specifically those things which have the tendency to tear apart and break down the family structure over time (which is one of the main reasons why they are haram). The family and the marriage are like living beings. They become healthy and strong when the individual members of the family act in certain ways, and they become weak and eventually die when the members of the family act in other ways. The 'anti family' habits are the habits which people in the family do which are toxic to the living beings. There are many of these, I don't have time to go thru all of them, but I will post the most important reason now. Love of the dunya, which is completely out of control. In most families, this is the main problem. When a husband and wife get married, they both have an idea in their mind about what the marriage is going to be like, and this idea is mostly driven by out of control materialism. The expectation for the man is that he is going to find a spectacular job that he loves, which pays him well, and then he will become rich, houses, cars, vacations in exotic locations, fancy cloths, etc. This is also the wife's expectation, and she is most likely already picking out the decorations for the 3rd living room in her second vacation house. When this scenario doesn't happen, and it rarely happens, that is usually when the marriage problems start. It's 4 to 5 years after the wedding day, and the husband and wife both realize that they are not posting as much on Instagram, and the likes on their posts are becoming less. The wife starts to blame the husband, and the husband starts to blame the wife. Fights become more frequent, 'good times' become fewer. Then they both start thinking 'how do I get out of this'. Then a few years later you find out the couple has divorced. The 'rizik' that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) provides is what you need to live and to be healthy. Food, clothing, shelter. Rizik is not a 10 bedroom mansion or vacations in the Bahamas or Italy. This is because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is trying to demonstrate that material things (beyond the basic needs) do not bring happiness, real happiness. What brings happiness is getting closer to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) by following the religion, helping other, spending time in contemplation, strengthening relationship with family despite the differences you have, etc. That is not to say that you can't go out and buy a nice outfit, or go on a vacation, if you can afford it, etc. You can do those things, they are not haram, but when those things become a goal, and you feel that if you don't do them, then your life will not be complete, that is the problem. When you make material things as your goal, you throw yourself into a bottomless pit, because this notion of being complete thru material things has no end. You will then start to judge yourself and other based on what they have rather than who they are. It happens so gradually, you will not even realize it is happening. It is not the things, but the attachment to those things that is the problem. We live in a world driven by the cult of consumerism. This has reached every place on earth at this point. People are judged and assigned a value based on the amount of money and 'things' they have , what job or position they have, what passports they have, rather than based on what actions they do that are constructive, and not destructive for society. As Muslims, we should completely reject this cult, and we should return to worshiping Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and not join partners with Him. This will solve 90% of the marriage problems, and also most other problems we are having. On the Day of Judgement (Youm Al Qiyamat) when the truth of things is revealed, most people, especially people in this time will be in utter shock and disbelief. Most of the people that they though were nothing and worthless will end up being the 'Awliaya' of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and will be in the highest levels of Paradise. Most of the people that are looked up to now, because of their looks, fame, money, position, will be in hellfire, and people will be stepping on them on that day as people step on ants today and don't realize it. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) protect us on that day.
  18. What this is part of is an active campaign by the LGBT(whatever) front to normalize their 'lifestyle' amoung the people they call the 'holdouts'. In other words, religious Christians and Muslims. They have already succeeded with every other community. At the same time, since religious Christians and Muslims represent a significant percentage of the population of Western countries (estimates are the combine total is between 20 to 30%), they know that they can't succeed without normalizing their lifestyle amoung this populations. In fact, just this last week there was a 'questionnaire' sent out to students at Dearborn High School (in Dearborn) that was from the principle and was asking the students about their sexual preference (whether they liked having sex with boys,girls, boys and girls, etc). Dearborn High is about 80% Muslim. Many of those students are below the age of consent (which is 16 in Michigan), so why is the school asking them about their sexual preferences ? What is the point of even bringing up this topic ? The point was to shove this lifestyle and its terminology down the throats of Muslims, by force, because most children will not ignore a message from the school principle. This was denounced from the minbar this week by Sayyid Hassan Qazwini, and this is one of the main purposes of Friday Prayers, to keep the Muslims informed about these sort of deviant actions that are taking place and giving people an opportunity to stand together as a community against them. Many will say that 'who cares, they are not forcing our kids to become gay'. Not yet, but if we just sit by passively while this stuff goes on right in front of our eyes, who knows what will happen. I fully agree that we should take a firm stand as a community against any attempt by this group to brainwash our kids.
  19. Saudi police beating up random women for uncovering a small part of their leg, that I saw with my own eyes on more than one occasion. So I would tend to believe that. The thing that happened in Iran, if you actually read my post I say that I don't know if it happened or not, but I'm not going to take a source like the one you used in your original post at face value, since they have a long history of putting up false, anti Iran propaganda. If a white supremacist website posted something about black people, would you take it at face value ? None of us were there, none of us saw what happened to this lady. The only way we will ever know what happened is with solid, credible evidence. I don't care where the evidence comes from. None of the evidence I have seen so far is solid or credible. I read the BBC article. All they said is that 'some people said they saw the women getting beat up by the police'. First, 'some people say' alot of things. Quoting a third party source with no way to verify who those people are or if they even said that is not considered credible evidence. In a US, that would be considered 'hearsay' and not admissible as evidence. Also, they gave no specific details, 'how many times she was hit, where they hit her, etc'. Something that could be corroborated and verified by objective third parties. I do hold Iran to the same standard. If what was reported actually happened, the person who did this should be fired, arrested, and tried for murder. I said that already and I think most people said that. What is in dispute here is not what should happen to the person, if they did this, I think we all agree on that. What is in dispute is whether it actually happened or not, and if it did, how it happened. Even if she was arrested, maybe pushed or shoved (again, I don't know if that happened or not), that wouldn't kill her, unless she had some sort of underlying medical condition that made her vunerable. If the officer didn't know about that, etc. So there should be an investigation.
  20. Divorce is becoming more prevalent in almost every country on earth, not just Pakistan. Why divorce is becoming more common, IMHO, has nothing to do with Pakistani culture. There are several reason for it, and this deserves it's own thread.
  21. It disappeared like many other stories about Iran for the same reason. Outlets like BBC, CBS (in the US), CNN, etc, have very few sources in Iran like they do in other countries. The ones they do have are mostly 'Western' obsessed sycophants who will tell them anything they want to hear, and they want to hear anti IRI things because they are told to get those from their editors. These 'sources' will make up stories and report them as facts. Then, when something comes out from an Iranian source or another source that is less biased completely disproving the made up story and showing it as false, then the stories will disappear. The purpose has already been accomplished, to show the government of Iran as a barbaric regime. The Western consumers of this media rarely, if ever, look at the follow up story that disproves the original story, because this is not reported in the West. Most people never look past the end of their own nose. That is the main problem. In the old days, when people actually had a printed copy of the original story, the new outlet had to issue a retraction, because people had evidence that the original story existed. Now with digital media, they can simply delete the original story from their server, and noone, or at least most people, will have no evidence that it ever actually existed. News outlets, in general, are playing much more 'fast and loose' with the facts in the digital era vs. the former era of printed newspapers. In the old days, if something was widely reported (by many news outlets), it meant that it was probably true and had been verified by objective facts. Today, just because something is widely reported, doesn't necessarily mean it's true, because the story can simply be 'deleted' from these sources, and then it's gone. That was much harder to do with print media.
  22. Obviously if she was struck in this way, whoever did this should be dismissed from their post and punished to the fullest extent of the law. It is hard to know what actually happened, since the source you quoted , alarabiya.net, is owned by Saudi Prince Abdulaziz bin Fahd, a notorious anti-Iran propagandist. Look it up. Google 'alarabiya.net who owns'. You can see for yourself. So I will take this report with ten grains of salt. At the same time, if it really happened then the above applies. We first need to find out what are the actual facts of the case before we rush to judgement. I'm sure there is an official investigation going on right now. What is way more than 'ironic' about this particular source is that when I was at Hajj in 2016, I saw with my own eyes, women in Saudi being beaten for showing their lower legs. This was in the Holy City of Mecca btw. These 'morality police' in Saudi are well known for being very brutal. So it's kind of a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I guess when this happens in Iran, then it's a horrific crime and crime against humanity but when the exact same thing happens in Saudi, it's just police enforcing the law. It is wrong in either case, btw, if it actually happened. There is nothing in Islam which allows a muslim (whether they are police or not) to attack, physically, another muslim (or non muslim) because of their clothing, or lack of it. There are other ways this is dealt with. BTW, I know many brothers and sister who live and have lived in Iran. They said violation of the hijab rule will get you a ticket, like a traffic ticket in this US, which is a civil, not criminal case, and you can go to the local govt office and pay a fine. So this is not how the hijab rule is enforced in Iran, based on many credible accounts I have heard. At the same time, what is interesting is how the story has so much traction (it is now being reported by many other sources including BBC, CBS, etc) when similar things happen every single day in the US, mostly to poor people who are African American or other ethnicities. Very, very seldom makes international news. Maybe because a hijab isn't involved. Maybe it's just because it's some young kid standing on the corner waiting for the bus and a police drives by and thinks the boy gave him the finger and beats him senseless. But no hijab involved, no anti Iran angle to it, so it doesn't get reported. Hmmm, weird.
  23. Try to get a copy of Tafsir Al Mizan. I think some have been translated into English https://almizan.org/
  24. We can only say about the 'Thaat', i.e. the being of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) what He(s.w.a) has told us, thru authentic narrations from Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). There is a simple reason for this, and I will use an analogy here. Say for example, you are a billionaire and you recently took a trip to the International Space Station (ISS). You want to discuss this trip with a fish you have in your aquarium. Would anyone do that ? Probably not. A fish has no idea what it means to live outside of water, since they have never been outside of water, much less what it is like to go into space. They don't know what space is, they don't even know what the land is. They only know their fish tank, getting food, and maybe fighting with other fish in the tank. So if they had thoughts about what the Space station is, having no similar experiences, those thoughts would most likely be wrong. Then the premises and theories they made based on those wrong thoughts would also be wrong. When you compare a fish in a fish tank to us, this is a better comparison, since we are both limited, finite creations of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) with a brain, spinal cord, body, etc, but trying to extrapolate from our limited experiences about a being which is unlimited, infinite, lives outside of time and space, etc, etc, is useless. We have no mental tools to do that. That is why we say that we know only about the being of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) what we are told in authentic traditions. If you are not familiar with those traditions, then I suggest not even discussing this subject, except in a very general way, for example using simple logical analysis like I did in my post.
  25. I would say that the question itself seems vague, if there is a question in there. It seems you are trying to respond to or falsify a statement. We need to be very careful when discussing the 'being' of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) since this is something that our limited minds cannot fully comprehend. We know Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) by the signs the point to Him(s.w.a), as Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) says. We know Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) because of the miraculous nature of the world around us and how it is interconnected and fully functional without the need for human invention or intervention. How it is vast, and the beauty of it. These are sign that point to its Creator, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). We know that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does not change and evolve, only because He(s.w.a) has told us that thru the authentic traditions of the Imams((عليه السلام)). We do not know that thru experience or our own observations. For the person to say 'For the Creator to remain static would seem to be more of a limitation' is pure speculation on their part, and it's very difficult to argue with speculative statements. The person has no way of knowing whether it is a limitation or not. When we use the words 'growth', 'change' or 'evolution' we are using them in relation to the physical, limited world, i.e. what we know. None of these terms apply to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for the simple fact that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is already perfect, why would He(s.w.a) need to evolve or change. Any evolution or change of a perfect being would mean that this being went from being perfect to being less than perfect. That is all I can say, after that we reach a point where our intellects cannot comprehend, so it's better to stop there.
×
×
  • Create New...