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

khuram

Unregistered
  • Posts

    1,374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Switzerland votes on Muslim minaret ban   
    I believe that religion should not take away from the quality of other peoples lives, so if they had loud adhaan every morning for fajr I could understand why the Swiss government would feel compelled to pass a law or allow a vote to forbid that. I don't want anyone's religious beliefs to inconvenience me in that manner, so Muslims should not expect their religious beliefs to be above scrutiny. There should be an obvious benefit to laws.
    But the minaret on the mosque does nothing to take from their quality of life and the only purpose of this law seems to be a barely concealed Islamaphobia in a country with a growing Muslim population. The minarets do not do any harm except remind people in that country that Muslims exist, just like a hijab would, and I see a problem with being so nonchalant about this very obvious attempt at suppression. I can't see anything too ominous about 4 minarets in a country with 400,000 Muslim citizens. This is not being peddled in the name of unity, it is being pushed by Christian groups who are not concerned with making Islam more welcoming and compatible. The intentions are not nearly as benign as we are painting them.
    Edit: The government should stay the hell out of peoples mosques and churches unless they are disturbing the lives of the citizens.. in EVERY instance.
  2. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Switzerland votes on Muslim minaret ban   
    I think the relationship between Muslims and non Muslims in Europe absolutely needs repairing and a lot of this is due to our practices. There is a legitimacy in suggesting that we integrate in the community and not react violently when people practice their rights to freedom of speech, even if it is against Islam. My concern is that these fundamental rights are being voted on by a movement that is funded and supported by ignorance. I can't see this concession not opening the door for other concessions that may not be as benign and are still motivated by the same Islamophobes.
    I understood where you were coming from and I can appreciate your points.. but your response just doesn't cut it for me. If we know this thing is not threatening, if we know it comes from ignorance, if we know it has no place in the law books.. then why are we so passively accepting its legitimacy? The minarets are symbolic of a deeper, profound tension and clash between Islam and Europe.. so where do we draw the lines? We both know that 4 minarets in Switzerland are NOT ruining Swiss culture.. its not like Muslims are trying to integrate them into Sweedish society by putting them on top of court houses and public libraries.. they are on top of mosques like a cross would be on top of a Church. They are sparse and this overreaction has absolutely no place on a ballot.
    As for calling these people "bigots" I really have no choice in the matter. I can't imagine that they were anything but fundamentalist Christian groups who were selling the idea that Muslim minarets were scary and evil, a threat to Swiss culture :huh: . I don't even accept this as a clash of cultures, but rather a clash of religions where one faith is being singled out because they are in the minority right now. This is outright oppressive and I would be furious and am furious when it happens in the Middle East to Christians or other minorities. The difference is that in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia in particular) they don't pretend that they advocate religious freedom and diversity.
    What about when they find my hijab scary or a threat to their culture.. should I remove it? Should I comply because noncompliance won't make the relationship between Muslims and non Muslims any smoother? I just can't follow the logic of that. If my country says it has freedom of religion then I don't care what Christian Islamophobes have to say about a minaret.. it stays because it posses no threat except the one inside their paranoid heads.. and that is not my baggage.
  3. Like
    khuram reacted to kadhim in Switzerland votes on Muslim minaret ban   
    What I am saying is that I do not think most are bigots. Most of the people who voted for this referendum are just people who are either scared of the unknown or put off by certain things that a lot of Muslims believe in or practice which they view as out of tune with their own culture and values. Killing apostates. Stoning adulterers. Amputating thieves. Controlling or disrespecting women. Believing non-Muslims to be unclean. Believing in slavery and concubinage. Killing homosexuals. Giving unequal weight to testimony of men and women, regardless of the knowledge of the woman. Giving unequal value in civil damages for men and women. Giving unequal weight in testimoney and damages between Muslims and non-Muslims. Differing tax systems for Muslims and non-Muslims. Preventing women from being judges, top Islamic scholars, and political leaders. They don't perceive the Muslims in their country as objecting to these practices and beliefs, and so they have a fear that if the Muslim population continues to grow in proportion to the point where they someday become a majority, they will enforce these beliefs and practices on the Europeans. The Europeans find the thought of this intolerable, because, historically, their ancestors believed in and did many of the same things, and the Europeans believe that a move away from those earlier practices was progress, and thus that a move back to those things would be a regress. A lot of us Muslims complain about the European overreactions toward Muslims, and say things like "these Europeans are intolerant towards us; this shows that their claims to be tolerant are empty hypocrisy." But from their perspective, because of some of the beliefs and practices above, it is the Muslims who are intolerant. From their point of view, there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy, because as they see it, tolerance does not mean tolerating intolerance itself.
  4. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Switzerland votes on Muslim minaret ban   
    Sure.. but we can recognize the origins of European paranoia without given this vote a stamp of legitimacy. It contradicts the European Convention on Human Rights, it is pushed forth by religiously intolerant groups, and it has absolutely no legitimacy outside of "well I understand why they don't like us.. lets just do what they say now for the sake of moving forward."
    Also, lets discuss who we are referring to when we say "them." Close minded, intolerant Muslims and close minded, intolerant Christians are warring against each other. The sane people think this is stupid and, more importantly, that it undermines the principles on which countries like Switzerland are built on and champion globally.
    Yeh he may not have used those exact words.. but Macissac is known for his intolerant, close minded views on virtually anything and everything. I can pretty much guess his opinion before any discussion takes place because he exhibits the same pattern of intolerance that is exhibited by Sunni Extremists, Christian extremists, and YES Shia extremists.. they exist too.
    Shiachatter: What is the role of women?
    MacIssac: Haddith tell us that women are incapable, weak, *insert negative adjective here*
    Shiachatter: But wait.. grading of haddith? Um.. context?
    Macissac: Who are you to question my literal interpretation of haddiths?
    Shiachatter: But um.. critical thinking?
    Macissac: be quiet you liberal apologetic, stop trying to change Islam!
    I assure you it is not suppressing religious freedoms because of paranoia. It is not voting on a ban of minarets that was funded and aided by Christian extremists and propagated by posters that single out Muslims as the "dark, evil, others." History is there and we can both accept acts of religious intolerance, but the solution will not be found in even MORE religious intolerance. The beauty of Western governments is that this should not even be an option, which is why I am sure this law will soon be s[Edited Out]ed and called out for the bigoted piece of paranoid trash it really is.
  5. Disagree
    khuram reacted in what is the point in permanent marriage?   
    Because permanent marriage is the real deal, the idea situation in which two individuals have made the critical decision to stay with each other forever. Men can stray with or without mutah so it depends on the man more than the institution. Mutah just helps irresponsible married men deal with their religious hang ups as they go around carelessly fulfilling their sexual desires at the expense of marital stability, trust, and their childrens best interests. They would have done it anyway.
    This question is like asking someone why they would rather be married than be a guys serious longtime girlfriend.. cause girls like being the only one.. FOREVER.
    I have always assumed that in a permanent marriage my husband will
    a.) be so insanely in love with me that he could never contemplate taking another wife
    b.) on the off chance that he even thinks about taking another wife (moment of male weakness) the fear I will have systematically instilled in him will dissuade him from making such a foolish decision
    c.) if both a and b fail, I will personally see to it that he is both broke and miserable
    *crosses fingers for option a*
  6. Disagree
    khuram reacted in what is the point in permanent marriage?   
    ;)
  7. Disagree
    khuram reacted in should she tell her husband?   
    I will repeat myself: It is rarely ever STRANGE men who commit these acts (its rare for the crime to be random). I volunteered at a battered women shelter before and one of the women was raped by her older brother.
    Edit: Please stop talking you sound like a blithering imbecile
  8. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Why Muta when you can do Nikah?   
    Why temporarily fulfill your sexual pleasures without any implications or serious responsibilities with someone you want to have sex with (but perhaps not see again ever after ;) ) when you could just seriously commit yourself forever to a girl :huh: .
    I wonder what could possibly motivate a man to do such a thing.. its mind boggling really.. I just cant put my finger on it..
    Oh yes we are forgetting that critical part about them being irresponsible, lustful, and did I mention lustful? Thought I had..
  9. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Why Muta when you can do Nikah?   
    If a guy wants to do a gazillion mutahs.. have at it.. just make sure you get yourself tested ;) Also, don't expect me to not look down on you, frown, and judge you ^_^
  10. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Why Muta when you can do Nikah?   
    erm.. ok? :unsure:
    Go to sleep.. typing this late is compromising the quality of your posts (yes that actually IS possible)
  11. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Why Muta when you can do Nikah?   
    lol
  12. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Husband is in touch with ex-GF thru internet   
    Sure. Its wrong. He is a jerk. Agreed.. my 11 year old sister could tell you that much and she has no marital experience. Is it audacious to suggest that once we know its wrong we don't seek advice on a forum where the demographic is a bunch of pre teens who are all hyped up on khomenei and energy drinks? Perhaps.. but I refuse to be apologetic for suggesting that we take the advice with a grain of bs. Furthermore.. let me emphasize that there are members on here who almost ALWAYS have something to say that is worth listening to (yourself included) and my comment was not a blanket statement directed at everyone.
    I mean there are deeper issues here, she hacks his freggin account because he changed his password. These are underlying trust issues that they need to work on together and while talk can be really good for a person who is talking to a trusted, intelligent, capable person familiar with all aspects of the situation (a counselor perhaps) it can also mess you up when you are talking to a good percentage of shiachatters. There is good talk that is conducive to thoughtfulness.. and there is the majority of shiachat threads.
    And yes, I do believe that being young and unmarried makes you less able to offer helpful remarks about marriage. That might not sound politically correct but it makes a whole [Edited Out] load of sense to me.
  13. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Husband is in touch with ex-GF thru internet   
    I didn't say everyone else is talking [Edited Out] :huh: A lot of the advice given was perfectly reasonable and rational and a lot of it was ridiculous (we always get a nice mix on shiachat). My point was that this woman and her husband have underlying trust issues (hacking into his email because he changed his password?) that they should explore together. She has every reason to be feel frustrated and hopeless, which probably drove her to post here and seek advice, but the fact of the matter is that we simply cannot help her. I have a feeling there is a lot there that we do not know and your post is indicative of how we like to simplify things and avoid thinking critically about an issue that must be thought about critically.
    I was not talking down to other members, I was pointing out that the demographic on shiachat tends to be single people between the ages of 15-25 who (as Maryaam wisely pointed out) are all too willing to give advice about stuff regardless of whether or not they are qualified to do so.
    I know what I am talking about here.. all I do is chat breeze on this forum ^_^
  14. Disagree
    khuram reacted in smile and laughing is it allowed?   
    Think about your question here for a second. You admit these women are hypocritical and did not present any evidence when they chastised you, and you know what they are saying doesn't make sense given what you know about Islam. We can't control smiling or laughing so why would there be an Islamic obligation for us to refrain from doing so for an entire month? You don't need haddiths or Quran, just some common sense coupled with the belief that Islam isn't out there to make your life miserable :P
    I suggest that next time someone objects you give them a warm smile and tell them you appreciate the advice but they will have to excuse you if you completely disregard it. If they are Iraqi I also suggest you use the word "inchabi" and turn the other cheek.*
    Congrats on the conversion and welcome to a world of spiritual fulfillment, enlightenment, and the occasional crazies/hypocrites.
    *Disclaimer: Please don't use that word on an Iraqi woman unless you know for sure you can physically overpower her
  15. Like
    khuram reacted to Khamanei_Rahbar in THE GREATEST MAJALIS!   
    Mashallah nice avatar, you dont know me so dont comment, am i not allowed to convert from akhbari to usooli? I was misguided gimme a break.....
  16. Like
    khuram reacted to Khamanei_Rahbar in THE GREATEST MAJALIS!   
    dont worry bro akhbaris have no answer they run as soon as u question them, I like the site for majalises.
  17. Disagree
    khuram reacted in THE GREATEST MAJALIS!   
    Thats just a rumor, I don't think they actually are..
    In other news, didn't Kat William just get arrested for a bar fight? I'd love to see video footage of that. Hes so small for a black man.
  18. Like
    khuram reacted to Khamanei_Rahbar in THE GREATEST MAJALIS!   
    :unsure:
  19. Like
    khuram reacted to Rohani in Masturbation   
    (salam)
    your choice brother basim, and as for me i know he is truthful so it don't matter who disagrees or who said what. from what i understand though some marji are more learned then others that would explain the contradiction. but now then each individual should try to decide and learn who it is that is less educated in the field they claim. as to the matter at hand let us put a side the fact of what others say and who this fatwa is from and consider what is said in it, "there is a consensus among jurists that prohibition, is limited to spermatic fluid running" and etc research such matters then we can consider then not right until then to say it is not right just because he is ayatollah fadlallah is like saying isa was bad just because one looks at Christianity's view of him. and no offense brother basim i respect you much. and no offense taking. :)
  20. Like
    khuram reacted to Rohani in Masturbation   
    (salam)
    Grand Ayatollah fadlallah says
    Q: Your belief that woman has no spermatic fluid and consequently her masturbation induces no sperm has brought about great confusion among the public. Could you please explain the details of this ruling together with the consequent ambiguities? And what are the principles and traditions on which your Eminence based your opinion?
    A: What should be made clear is that if woman had a spermatic fluid similar to man's, which runs upon orgasm, then the woman must wash as man does in a similar situation, also, woman's masturbation would be prohibited on the basis of the legal foundation. Where as, if woman has no spermatic fluid, then wash is not a must as unanimously approved by jurists and then woman's masturbation will be permissible because prohibition is restricted to sperm running, so in the absence of spermatic fluid, masturbation is not an issue that is prohibited or allowed. This is exactly similar to the case when a man plays with his penis without consequent sperm-also unanimously approved by jurists-and wash is not a must, because prohibition is not based on lust inducement but on the misplacement of spermatic fluid (as reported in some narrations).
    But even if this assumption (woman has no sperm) proved true, we advise women not to get into this bad habit (masturbation), because its practice leads to negative consequences upon marriage and causes psychological, neural and medical complications that threaten her normal life, social status and future marriage. In this respect, some jurists in their comment on my allowance of woman's masturbation regardless of sperm run, refer to two narrations, the first of which is narrated by Oubeida Ben Zarara, who said: Once, an old neighbor of us had a pretty and expensive bondwoman. That old man couldn't have full sexual intercourse with his bondwoman, who would ask him to put his hand on her labia because that gave her greater pleasure, but he detested that. So, the old man demanded that Zarara ask Imam Jaafar Sadiq (a.s.) about the matter.
    So, Zarara asked the Imam, who said, "There is no harm in using any of his body parts to give her pleasure, but he is not allowed to use anything other than his body".
    The second narration is given by the same narrator, Zarara, and it says: I asked Imam Sadiq (a.s) about men who have many bondwomen, but they can't have full sexual intercourse with them, so they give them pleasure by other means". Then the Imam replied, "There is no harm in using any of his body organs."
    But the two mentioned narrations are clearly prohibiting the use of any outside means to satisfy the wife's sexual desire, though they permit the use of the male's other organs including the hand to satisfy the wife, but there is no mention of whether she can use her own hand or not.
    Q: Since this fatwa doesn't represent a practical necessity, but it leads to corruption and moral dissolution when adopted by women who might be entrapped by moral disadvantages, some ask why aren't precautional fatwas issued in this respect? And why is this fatwa aroused in general?
    A: Those who say so haven't experienced the critical problems undergone by women when they are encountered by urgent situations, which drive them to inquire about the legal ruling that might put an end to these problems.
    We have experienced the depth of these problems through studying the various situations and through receiving questions that seek rulings in cases as when a woman's husband is imprisoned and she is not sure whether he is dead or alive, or when a husband spends a long time in prison in the absence of any legal circumstances that lead to divorce, or when a husband is in a state of absence, where the wife should legally wait for four years to be then divorced by the judge if the husband's guardian doesn't sustain her, or when a husband remains abroad for a long time where reunion is impossible due to financial reasons.

    All these cases turn to be serious sexual problems, which drive the jurist to seriously think of finding solutions. It's natural that women's masturbation sometimes leads to negative consequences, but prohibition or negligence on the part of the jurist also have more negative impacts on the life of woman, especially the married one who has no legal opportunity to solve sexual problems. In short, the mentioned details pressed me to study the subject in a legally responsible way.
    Q: Can't we consider the above-mentioned damage a main cause to prohibiting this habit?
    A: I don't think this habit leads to the damage that necessitates prohibition; Moreover, there is a consensus among jurists that prohibition, is limited to spermatic fluid running. So, if a man plays with his penis not intending to induce sperm and if he could hold himself back before orgasm leads to ejaculation, then he is not a sinner; consequently, he must not wash, and he must not break his fast if he is fasting. This is agreed upon by all jurists because masturbation (as understood by all jurists) means the coming out of sperm.

    http://english.bayyn...rudence/sex.htm
    ----------------
    therefore would it be safe to assume that this is not prohibited, but rather not advised except under certain cases and circumstances. Allah knows best. therefore let no one be confused this clears up any confusion of my earlier post.
    (wasalam)
  21. Like
    khuram reacted to Abu Hadi in Masturbation   
    Why don't you look at his fatwas, rather than looking at secondary sources, who pick very selectively from his writings and put them out of context and some of which may have an agenda other than Amr bil Ma3roof wa nahiy al munkhar. They are publically available on his site www.bayynat.org. Also, he is considered marja3 taqleed by millions of educated muminin and muminat and his status is accepted by both Sayyid Ali Khameni(ha) and Sayyid Sistani(ha).
    If you disagree with him on this ruling, you are free to disagree with him although you have not cited any relevant ayats or hadith that you are using as the basis of your disagreement. Also, you are free to be mukaled to another marjaa, but be careful of posting wild speculation and incorrect assumptions which may cause fitna.
  22. Disagree
    khuram reacted to Moslem-Ibn-Aqeel in Masturbation   
    masturbating is perfectly healthy and perfectly good to help stay away from sin , i know that all shia ulama today forbid this but i agree with some old sunni scholars who allowed it even though i'm imami
    i dont see any problem with it as long as it doesnt become an addiction
    wassalam
  23. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Iran troops 'seize Iraq oil well'   
    Like Dirac said, Sunni Arabs are absolutely loving this because of its timing and the political implications (if they cared about being exploited they would be more vocal about Kuwait forcefully taking oil from Basra) but that doesn't change the fact that it is exploitation and recognizing it as such is necessary. The troubles don't need to be created btw, and the fact that you even said that indicated you are oblivious to political realities on either side of the border.
  24. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Iran troops 'seize Iraq oil well'   
    Lets not get into the business of avatars because yours is an indicator that you (like a lot of members on this forum) can't pull your head out of Iran's backside long enough to think critically or put together a coherent argument that doesn't start and end in groveling oblivion. I don't need your stamp of approval because I don't take you seriously as an intellectual.
  25. Disagree
    khuram reacted in Marriage Website   
    lol, glad you are back btw :wub:
×
×
  • Create New...