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

Khadim uz Zahra

Moderators
  • Content Count

    3,919
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Khadim uz Zahra last won the day on April 6 2018

Khadim uz Zahra had the most liked content!

About Khadim uz Zahra

  • Rank
    The Dark One

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://therecurrent.wordpress.com/

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shi'a Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

14,925 profile views
  1. There are, I believe, some Hadith that say that when the Imam reappears, people will see him and say, "Oh, we saw this man before (e.g. during Hajj, which the Imam attends every year). Thus, some of us may have seen him, but not recognised who he is. Though, as far as I know, these narrations don't specify if only the Shi'a will make such a claim, or if any Muslim who attends Hajj might have seen him. I think this is what you're referring to. On the other hand, there are, of course reports of famous scholars and pious people allegedly meeting the Imam. The difference here is that these people would also be aware of who they're meeting so it's a different case than above.
  2. @Propaganda_of_the_Deed It's been 8 years since you joined the site? Damn! Any updates on the evolution of your beliefs since you wrote this thread?
  3. Once again, not true. She didn't take it back. She apologised for the language, but even in her apology, she insisted that she wanted to "reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry." She kept to her principles, which is that lobby groups like AIPAC need to go. Even in her apology, she did condemn AIPAC's influence in American politics so I don't see how she took anything back. She apologised for the language, and how some might have been offended; that's it.
  4. That claim is entirely unfounded. She did not marry her brother or break the law: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/
  5. Well, even if the US would find out, it's not like they'll take Pakistan to task about it publicly. If it did happen, on the public stage, I'd Pakistan would deny it and the US would remain mum while chastising Pakistan privately. And that more or less corroborates with what we've seen on the diplomatic stage so far. Either PAF didn't use one or didn't lose one and are now denying its use. Anything else, and India could reasonably have a case against the US as to why they didn't stop the F-16 from being used. All these diplomatic considerations do also suggest PAF's claims of not using any F-16s is highly plausible. If we know about the trackers, I'm sure the PAF does, too. Unless some generally got too gung-ho, or really wanted to ensure air superiority via their use, they'd stick to other aircraft to avoid all this mess. The Taiwan thing is interesting. Perhaps Pakistan bought them from Taiwan at a later date? Is the IAF that incompetent that they're submitting Taiwanese missiles as proof? How'd they even get pictures of a spent Taiwanese missile? This one is just bizarre. It raises a million questions in my head.
  6. The only 'proof' India has given so far is some kind of missile. If Pakistan used an F-16 in the dogfight, there will obviously be missile cartridges (if any were used). That doesn't mean the jet was also downed. Why would Pakistan then lie about F-16s being used at all if they didn't lose one? Maybe because the US would be furious it used an F-16 without its permission? Either way you look at it, there's maybe some possible evidence an F-16 was used, but none whatsoever that one was downed. In the age of social media, it's also nearly impossible to hide this kinda stuff. If we have people in a village capturing video of Abhinandan, surely there would be video of the Pakistani plane/pilot? These things aren't easy to cover up these days, and Pakistan's army is no NSA. If nothing, the Indian army could release a snippet of the cameras on their own planes just to prove their point. The fact that they're willing to take a massive hit in the media and on the international stage shows that likely have no proof, because I'm sure the Modi government would be quite willing to override concerns about security just to release a few seconds of footage if it would help them save face. That, to me, makes it highly probable that the PAF lost no jets. Either way, this whole thing about my country shot down your plane while yours couldn't do anything to us seems naive and childish to me. It reeks of pride in war. What is relevant, from an analytic standpoint, is that India will continue to suffer from negative PR if there's no real proof provided of a lost bird.
  7. If you go with that logic, why did the all knowing Imams not just correct all of humanity (they are teachers to us all, no?) about all the incorrect scientific theories people have in the 7th century and make 7th century Arabia a nuclear power that could harness the energy of the sun and use advanced AI to automate everything? Surely, the Imams could have done that. Firstly, the Imams are not all-knowing. There are many debates on the matter, but the Imams are generally not aware of ilm al-Ghaib. So, whether or not the Imams even knew everything is debatable. The general consensus is that Allah reveals portions of ilm al-ghaib to the Imams when necessary, which would explain why they could make claims that science could later prove but still not know everything. But leaving that technicality aside, even if the Imam knew Jabir ibn Hayyan was wrong, why should he correct him? The Imam is there for spiritual guidance, not to teach people advanced theories about science that are centuries ahead of their understanding. If we go by this logic, no religion in the world is right because why didn't the Prophets/founders of any of those religions make their nation a nuclear power in the stone age? Your question is incorrect because your basic assumption and expectation of what the Imam should do is incorrect. He's there to foster the spiritual growth of mankind, not our scientific or technological growth. Whether you're living in the Stone Age or the Information Era, his work and message is the same. (As another side note, I also invite you to ponder on how on Earth the Imam, even if he wanted to, could correct people about things centuries ahead of their time. Like, people don't understand that the world is made of atoms and you want him to explain different elements have different kinds of atoms, they combine via hydrogen/covalent and so on bonds? Say he did that, the people in the early 1900s would convert to Shi'ism in droves because of this man revealing the secrets of the atom a thousand years ago. Yet, in 20 years, with the advent of quantum physics and Einstein's theory of relativity, people would start asking why the Imam didn't tell us about that. You can't ask why the Imam didn't reveal the truths of science because what scientists believe is always changing. What if the Imam had revealed, and insisted, upon quantum mechanics in the 7th century. The people in the 1300 years between then and the discovery of quantum mechanics would have called him a lunatic for saying such absurd things because scientists would believe he's wrong. How do you know he hasn't revealed the true nature of existence, and we're just 10 centuries away from understanding those things and making those discoveries? Should he have lied and dumbed things down so us 21st century people could believe him or should he have insisted on the truth and told us what we'll eventually find out is true in another millennia or two? You see how this is simply an infinite sum game and will never really have a definitive answer like the one you're expecting? Your question and your expectation, like I said, is erroneous on its own.)
  8. Well, things have taken a turn recently with Iran due to the recent bombing and, I imagine, other previous incidents that neither side would disclose (e.g. if they successfully stopped terrorosits from crossing the border, I don't imagine they'd be too willing to let it be well known, not if they could help it). Both sides are planning on building a fence along the border. Obviously, this is about more than a single incident.
  9. Video of the captured pilot being interviewed by the Pakistani Army:
  10. You are correct. That was a mistake on my part, lumping ihtiyat wajib and ihtiyat mustahab together.
  11. Religious rulings are of different kinds. Generally speaking (there are alternative ways of doing taqlid but I'll just list the common way of doing it), you have to choose one single marja' who you believe is the most knowledgeable scholar of fiqh, and stick to his rulings entirely. His word is the law. You are not allowed to seek another marja's opinion over your own marja's if there is a difference of opinion on the matter. In this case, that means that it doesn't matter if Ayatollah Khamenaei allows chess. If your marja, Ayatollah Sistani, deems it haram, then it is haram. Period. The only scenario where a muqallid (a person who follows a marja) is allowed to consult the opinion of another marja is if his marja does not issue an explicit fatwa on the matter, and instead issues an ihtiyat ruling. This happens when the scholar is not certain enough about a particular issue to give an explicit fatwa so instead of saying this is haram or halal, he will say that by ihtiyat wajib/mustahab (obligatory/recommended precaution), I consider X action to be haram, for example. At this point, the muqallid has two choices. He can just follow the precautionary edict of his marja and refrain from the act and consider it haram. The second option is that since his marja did not give an explicit ruling, he can then consult whoever he believes is the second most knowledgeable marja and follow their ruling. This does not apply to your situation, however, since Ayatollah Sistani's fatwa on chess is explicit, and not an ihtiyati ruling. For you, chess is haram, period, and it will be haram even if all the other marjas consider it halal.
  12. No, the company's been selling them for years, now. They're like the 'jumbo jet' or air travel. But they seem to not have been very cost effective or profitable for airlines so the company will stop making them.
  13. MOD NOTE: Off-topic posts on this thread have been deleted. The purpose of the thread is to determine who the second most influential scholar in the Shirazi family after Ayatollah Sadiq Shirazi is. It's not a thread about the moral standing of Shirazis, or about their teachings. If you don't have the name of a scholar, then please don't comment. Any further posts turning this into a debate on the Shirazis will be hidden. Either stick to what the OP asked or don't reply.
  14. It's okay for you to travel on the day of her shahadat, if you absolutely can't avoid it. It's not haram to do so anyways. Avoiding big things on these days is simply a sign of respect to the ma'soomeen, but if you can't get out of it, then there's no problem with you travelling. There is definitely no sin in it.
  15. No, the OP is not asking about making marjaiyat a hereditary thing. He's asking about who the next great scholar after Sadiq Shirazi is in the family. That's not a controversial subject, at all. I follow Ayatollah Sistani so I'd be interested in who the next big scholar in the Najafi tradition will be so I can know who I might want to follow when Ayatollah Sistani is no longer among us. People who ascribe to the system of wilayatul faqih have similar questions about who the next Rehbar after Ayatollah Khamenaei would be. Wanting to know who the second most prominent scholar in a given family/scholarly tradition is not equivalent to suggesting marjaiyat is an inheritance, and the OP never suggested it. He follows the Shirazi school of thought so obviously he's interested in knowing who the next greatest scholar after their current most influential scholar will be. It is a question that people should be allowed to ask.
×
×
  • Create New...