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

ShiaWoman

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thank you for the clarification, I had misunderstood because of not seeing that quote. Thank you for your kind apology, most humbly accepted. As for my other comments, I completely stand by them. I had indeed asked to speak to him personally, and he refused. He was in fact VERY arrogant when addressed by those who had been offended by his lecture. I must state that at NO time have the topics been refuted. These topics DO need to be spoken about, and nobody has disputed that the issues exist and need to be addressed. The issue was with his choice of TIME and PLACE. These issues can be discussed at any time of the year, but he chose to speak about them during the first 12 nights of Muharram, which are solely for the purpose of MOURNING the Shohada-Karbala through Masaib and mourning rituals and recitations. He had also not taken into consideration the fact that there were FOUR GENERATIONS of mixed gender sitting in front of him. And lastly, he had chosen to deliver his lectures on these very valid topics from the Mimbar, which is completely inappropriate. He should have simply sat on a chair or stood at a podium, at any other time than these 12 Holy Nights. His arrogance was evident when he answered back very rudely to the older brothers who were addressing him regarding his lectures. He did not even have the decency to sit up straight and look in their direction, and had his hand on his bowed head throughout the discussion. He refused to accept that he had done anything wrong, and was being encouraged by those who felt the same way. It became a slanging match that completely detracted from the actual problem, which is a real shame. I don't think I'm being harsh, and I have nothing against him personally at all. I would say the same about my own son if he was behaving in the same manner. It's because I care that it bothers me. I have IMMENSE respect for our speakers, so this is another assumption on your part. But if something is not right, it needs to be raised. And that's what I am doing. Again, this is a PUBLIC forum, and he is welcome to join it at any time.
  2. A crush...?! Astaghfirullah! I am old enough to be his mother! What kind of shameless comment was that..?! It is only because of my age that I have commented on this CHILD being inappropriate and arrogant, which I have a right and a duty to do as an elder. Perhaps a lesson in Akhlaaq should be given to him and all others who think and behave like him. Gheebah (backbiting) is a sin when it is done behind someone's back, which this isn't. Kindly refrain from making assumptions about people you don't know. Jazakallah
  3. (wasalam) With all due respect, this is a public forum and he can see it for himself. -_-
  4. Ummm.... it's a phonetic spelling of the word anyway. Is this all you noticed about my post..? :donno:
  5. Why don't you ask your fathers/uncles this question, rather than asking each other...? You have a right on them, and they have a duty to teach you! It's like learning about kissing from someone in a school playground on here sometimes smh.
  6. Mashallah he is truly an amazing speaker... may Allah swt Bless him with a long, happy, healthy, prosperous life, and reward him in abundance for enlightening us spiritually and intellectually, Ameen
  7. How true. And these "juniors" have no respect for the Mimbar. He is egoistic. He has no regard for the sanctity of the Mimbar. The issues he speaks on are valid, but inappropriate from the Mimbar. He should learn the proper Tehzeeb of speaking from the example of Imam Ali (AS)'s inequitable manner, rather than Ammar Nakshawani's, imho. I agree.
  8. According to Sayyid Sistani (HA): General Rules 195. Leather products are impure (najis) and salãt in them is not permissible, if we know that they have been made from the hide of an animal not slaughtered according to Islamic laws. Such products are considered pure and salat in them is permissible, if there is a probability that they were made from skin of an animal that is essentially halãl and was slaughtered according to Islamic laws. Salãt is not permissible in leather products made from skin of predatory animals like lion, leopard, tiger, fox, and jackal. Similarly, based on obligatory precaution, salat is not permissible in leather products made from non-predatory animals whose meat is forbidden to us like monkeys and elephants even though their hide could be considered tãhir if they certainly were (or there is a probability that they were) killed according to Islamic laws. In all these cases of probability, wearing a belt and things like that made from leather is allowed [in salãt], provided that they are not big enough as to conceal the private parts. If there exists no probability that it was slaughtered according to Islamic laws, and, on the contrary, we are sure that it comes from skin of an animal that was not slaughtered according to Islamic laws, then it is najis and salãt in it is not permissible. [With no such probability,] even the use of belt and other things (that cannot conceal the sexual organs in salãt) is not permissible on the basis of obligatory precaution. It would be the same law if the probability was very low that sensible people ignore it (for example, 2%). The permissibility of the leather of these animals can be achieved by two methods: The first method is that they be slaughtered just as a sheep is slaughtered with all conditions observed. The second method is that they are hunted by using a gun. In the latter case, the hunter must be a Muslim; he must invoke Allãh’s name while pulling the trigger; he must shoot with the purpose of hunting, and get to the place where the animal fell after it has died or when there was not enough time to slaughter it. 197. Leather products made in non-Muslim countries from hides of snakes and crocodiles and displayed in non-Muslims markets are considered pure (tãhir); and it is permissible to buy, sell, and use them in things that require purity. 198. Leather products made in Muslim countries and displayed in non-Muslim markets are considered pure (tãhir) and it is permissible to use them in salãt. 199. Leather products made in non-Muslim countries whose nature and ritual puritycannot be determined, uncertain whether they are from natural or are permissible to use in salãt. 200. Shoes made from leather of an animal not slaughtered according to Islamic laws do not make the feet najis except through wetness that transfers the impurity. So, if the foot sweats and the socks become soaked with the sweat, yet the latter does not reach the impure leather, it will not make the feet or the socks impure. 201. It is permissible to say salãt with a leather cap or a leather belt manufactured in non-Muslim countries and bought in non-Muslim markets if there is a probability that these leather products were made from hide of animals that are essentially halãl and were slaughtered according to Islamic laws. This has been mentioned in the third rule of this section. (See the question-answer section below.) 202. Men are not allowed to wear gold regardless of whether it is a [normal] ring, a wedding ring, a wris[Edited Out]ch, or other things in salãt as well as outside it. It is permissible for them to wear gold-plated items, provided that gold is only considered as a coating and nothing more. 203. It is permissible for men to wear what is known as white gold. 204.Women are allowed to wear gold at all times, even in salãt. 205. Men are not allowed to wear pure and natural silk, neither in salãt nor outside salãt, except in special circumstances that have been explained in the books of Islamic jurisprudence. 206. Women are allowed to wear silk at all times even in salãt. 207. Men are allowed to wear ‘doubtful’ silk fabrics and clothes whose origin doubtful, i.e. whether they are made from natural silk or synthetic one. In this case, even salãt in them is permissible. (See the question-answer section below.) Similarly, it is permissible for them to wear natural silk that has been blended with other material like cotton, wool, nylon, etc. to the extent that the blended fabric is no longer considered pure silk. This law also applies, if there is uncertainty about the extent of blending [of pure silk and other material]. In such cases, it is also permissible to say salãt in it. 208. Based on obligatory precaution, men are not allowed to dress up in women’s clothes. 209. Based on obligatory precaution, Muslims are not allowed to dress up in clothes that are specifically known as the dress of non-Muslims. That last one's a doozy, huh? Doctor's don't dress as clowns, they dress as doctors at work and casually off-duty. Like others have said on this thread, if you are going to preach from the Mimbar, then there is a dress code for it, a sense of decorum. Off the Mimbar, the man can wear what what he wants, as long as he is doing it according to the rules, which aren't just for the mosques. The same goes for everywhere, whether you like it or not. Tough tomatoes if you don't.
  9. This the Shrine of Sakina binte Imam Ali (as), not Sakina binte Imam Hussain (as), apparently. Still a great tragedy. The Ahlul Bayt (as) are STILL being oppressed by the descendants of Abu Sufyan (LA) :no:
  10. WELL SAID!!!!! :) This "Zolfigar" guy has been getting on my nerves with his trolling on youtube, and every other place where Shias gather, it seems! You took the words out my mouth! KUDOS!!!
  11. You need to read my post again. Ahlul Bayt (as) are the Pure and Holy Household of the Prophet (SAWW). Therefore, Their faces cannot be depicted. H. Maryam (SA)'s face is shown because She (SA) is not Ahlul Bayt (as). Her pure and holy status is undoubtable, but definitely NOT above the Ahlul Bayt (as), actually. This is not a term of disrespect, but a simple fact, as verified by Hadith Al-Kisaa and the Holy Qur'an (33:33). As for the "horrible" pictures (interesting choice of words), perhaps you need to learn a bit more about ARTISTIC IMPRESSION. There is a vast difference between a 2D painting and a 3D human being. Paintings are allowed, but human depictions, showing faces, are not. If the faces are concealed, then there is no problem. Not approving is a personal issue. Check with your esteemed Marja for references regarding portrayal and images of Holy Personalities, as I have done. Thanks. Salaam. It is SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE to show this movie in the same way as an everyday Bollywood movie, or "300 style", Astaghfirtullah! The event of Karbala is not a basis for an action movie! When we have been given clear instructions by H. Zainab (SA) and the A'imma (as) about how to propagate the message of Karbala through lamentation gatherings, ie, majaalis and maatam/latmiyyah, as well as processions/juloos, then there is no way popcorn-munching is going to be accepted during the remembrance of the Greatest Tragedy in history! It is preposterous and downright abhorrent to even think about allowing such a grave travesty and disrespect to the Holy Martyrs (as). "Today's generation" can take a running jump if they don't understand. Nobody is that oblivious.
  12. The letters of protest are based on the assumption that this will be like a commercial Bollywood movie, whereas Kader Khan has specifically stated that that is not the aim of the film-makers, with the exception of Mahaakshay Chakraborty, who is, unfortunately, promoting it like a Bollywood movie. Another argument given by the people who are protesting is that actors will be playing the roles. Ummm... obviously. Who else would be in a film...? Every movie is shot using actors. Even the Islamic movies and serials that are made in Iran have actors playing the roles, not Ahmed the grocer! MY concern with this is who these actors are and whether their faces will be shown, which would be a grave travesty. According to Sy. Sistani, the actors who take on the roles of Holy Personalities should be of good character, God-conscious, and aware of the history of such an event, so a 'regular' bollywood 'star' would be completely out of the question, given their roles in other movies, and their 'lifestyles' offscreen... I think a private preview should be shown to some prominent Ulema in order to ascertain whether the film is suitable for general release or not. I also think that the protests need to be aimed at Mahaakshay Chakraborty rather than the police and the film-makers themselves. He seems to be the one most interested in making a buck out of it. H. Suleman (as) and H. Yusuf (as) are NOT Ahlul Bayt (as). It is only essential to conceal the faces of actors playing the roles of Rasoolillah (SAWW) ad the Ahlul Bayt (as), not other Holy Personalities, because of their higher status in the eyes of Allah swt. If this movie shows the face of the actor playing Imam Hussain (as), there WILL be riots, guaranteed! The "face thing" is very important too, in this case. We cannot treat any aspect of the portrayal of the event of Karbala as a work of fiction. Not at all. That's why this film needs to be spot on in terms of respect and decorum if it is going to be shown.
  13. http://shiasisters.net/articles_submissions/eid-e-zehra.html
  14. Better late than never... It's never too late to share knowledge. My mother taught me this when I was three years old too, and I only just saw this thread and was about to post it ;)
  15. Cannot believe the amount of DISRESPECT being shown to the Shabih of a Holy Prophet! Where are your parents?? THEY are the ones you should be addressing your issues to, not each other! Oh but wait, what would they know, right? How can you call the Shabih of a Holy Figure "ugly"?? What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you need to emulate the Jaahils?? Do you think it's 'modern' to be rude?? Guess what, it ain't. Try respect and Akhlaaq, and you might just learn something. Ammar Nakshawani et al have a LOT to answer for. DISGUSTING behaviour.
×
×
  • Create New...