avjar7

So, why can I still post? Please deactivate all these features, if possible.

It's been a good run. But, it's become clear I have nothing in common with anyone on this website and don't want to be a part of it anymore. Thank you ^^

The most well known version of this narration is about drinking alcohol, not about haram food. This is the closest I could find: ÃØÈ ßÓÈß ÊÓÊÌÇÈ ÏÚæÊß¡ ÝÇä ÇáÑÌá íÑÝÚ ÇááÞãÉ Åáì Ýíå ÍÑÇãÇ ÝãÇ ÊÓÊÌÇÈ áå ÃÑÈÚíä íæãÇ "...If a man eats a morsel of food that is haram, his supplications will not be answered for forty days." (Makaram al-Akhlaq, no isnad)

There are subtitles...you should move it to another forum. It's good to see. JazakAllah khair for posting.

Bravo, Qa'im. Good questions and info. Have thought about much of the same.

This was in the news recently...the flags that the astronauts placed on the moon have been photographed by a satellite: http://news.discovery.com/space/flags-on-the-moon-still-standing-120731.html There's also photos of the lunar landers: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

Haha.

I wanted to make this thread to explore the jilbab -- the article of clothing for women mentioned in the Qur'an: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 33:59 Shia sources do not seem to have a lot of information about what this piece of clothing is, or what it entails. However, it is different from the hijab, and is worn in addition to it. Only sourced replies, please. Would be interested in seeing if anyone will dig up things I have not found. Will post my own thoughts later.

Let's not kid ourselves, mut'ah was designed solely as a means for sexual pleasure, and Shia teachings envision it and commend it in no other terms. For those who truly believe in the practice -- and who are not thwarted by social circumstances -- mut'ah engenders the objectification of women, and turns every woman into a prospective "candidate for mut'ah," which diminishes the true worth and integrity of women, and the genuine connection that can be possible between sexes. We also have to face up to the fact that among the small portion of Muslim women who do consent to mut'ah, usually they justify it by thinking that it will "lead to permanent marriage in the future," and that it will serve as a means to get to know someone on a deeper level. While most of the time both parties know that it won't, nor was mut'ah envisioned this way. Therefore, there are very few people who psychologically relate to mut'ah in the way that it is truly conceived in the religious teachings themselves. On top of that, we have those people who do mut'ah with Christian women, and try to spin it in some altruistic terms, all the while knowing that Christianity does not sanction any notion of temporary marriage, or sexual union outside of lifelong marriage. Therefore, aiding and abetting in the woman going against her own religion's teachings. Not encouraging them for the better in any way, making true, genuine human connection impossible. Theory sounds fine. Practice is totally different.

Yes, it's normal. Mut'ah feels like you are cheating God. That you are complicit in some strange theological system where God rewards you for having sex. Anyone who feels otherwise probably has some issues with the health of their conscience. Just telling the truth.

When I first began to explore Shia Islam as a non-Muslim, the entire concept of self-flagellation was mind boggling to me. How a religion could literally be defined in the modern day, and the majority of its adherents relate to it in a way, that is not prescribed by the religion itself. It took a lot of curiosity and desire to explore Shia Islam to ignore what a strange dynamic this is. Thinking back on it, I literally couldn't fathom how something that has no explicit basis in religion came to be such an accepted part of it. Without deep intellectual desire to study Shia Islam, I would have definitely called it a day because of this. You cannot expect normal people to have an interest in Shia Islam if they are confronted with this. This is at best. And, I never related this to Imam Hussein, even when first exposed to it, it simply didn't seem to have anything to do with it. It just came across as an cultish practice--which it is.

It's not just "one person's words." Very basically: Someone took their knowledge, or spent a lot of time and effort to learn two languages; put in the time and energy to create those lessons; invested money to make a book or audio lessons; and then set up a mechanism to sell it; along with any other miscellaneous fees involved with a business. And it is expected that they will be compensated for their intellectual and monetary effort, and the service they provide, when the product is purchased... All of which you then bypass by obtaining it for free--no different than if you were to steal it out of the store. It is like any good being sold--the end product is vastly different and improved from the original components that went into it through someone's creativity, time, money, and effort--that is what business and trade is (which is certainly talked about in religion). And they need to be compensated for it. You are stealing if you download it. And why would a religious person use such language? Have some respect.

I did some Googling...this is the person, quite a prominent figure in 20th century Middle Eastern history: http://en.wikipedia....Sharif_of_Mecca He is also featured on the 1 dinar Jordanian bill. As for the original letter and text, it is here. I think you're misconstruing what is being said. As for him being a Shia, or his words having any special value for "tolerance," that doesn't seem to be the case. It's not a fatwa either. Rather, he says they are "people of dhimmah." Non-Muslim "people of the book" who pay an annual tax (jizyah) and abide by certain rules within the Islamic state, and must peacefully co-exist with Muslims. Your excitement is a bit misplaced, if you research the topic itself. Although, the specifics of this incident and his relation to them might have been based on political expediency, rather than Islamic law.

æÓÃáÊå Úä ÇáÛäÇÁ¡ ÃíÕáÍ Ýí ÇáÝØÑ æÇáÃÖÍì æÇáÝÑÍ íßæä¿ ÞÇá: " áÇ ÈÃÓ ãÇ áã íÒãÑ Èå Imam al-Kadhim (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) was asked about singing, is it permissible on Eid al-Fitr, Eid al-Adha, and in times of joy? He said, "There is no problem if it is not accompanied by musical instruments (lit. the flute)." (Masail `Ali ibn Ja`far) The two Eids are exceptions to the general rule in which singing and celebration are allowed. Therefore, the perception of `Ali ibn Ja`far to ask this question, and the response, indicate the permissibility of celebrating Eid. Not that it even needs to be said.

As for this, no where did Yassir al-Habib state that these were his opinions. He said, "The narrations..." All religious reports he cited are from Shia books, authenticity aside.