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


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KnowledgeIslam

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. Assalamo alykum, my brother. In Ghusl, does one have to wipe every part of his body? For example in wudhu every relevant body part is wiped with water. So in the shower do I have to run water over me then pass my hand over it? Should I wipe it? And in the shower, when washing my head, how do I know my scalp is completely wet? Also, when washing your head in the shower, water obviously splashes and trickles down onto the rest of your body, which you are supposed to only do AFTER the head. Does water falling on your body during head-washing make your ghusl wrong, since water gets on the body before you are done with the head? What about water that is previously on your body before starting ghusl? What is the normal time ghusl is done in? It takes me 20-30 min. Please reply quickly, and many thanks.
  2. Brother that doesn't look like Ayatullah Sistani and a quick google search " ayatollah sistani doing qama" does not show this picture. Ayatullah Sistani's nose is shaped differently. That is a deniable fact. It is undeniable that most did permit in the past, before even Ayatullah Khomeini's time (and during). Now, you will find the fatwas are different. The maraja of our time have done their research and they made their fatwa according to their knowledge of Fiqh and Fiqhi issues. In this day and age, most of them are against blood letting due to negative impact and bad views, as they have stated in fatwas. Good luck in your research, Jazakallah.
  3. Brother, did you not read my earlier post? The Vali-e-Faqih, Naib e Imam, Maraja-e-alam, Imam Khamenei among other maraja have stated this act defames Islam. Is that not enough for you? THEY have said zanjeer zani with blades defames Islam. They did not say slaughtering an animal defames Islam (and that is disputable). Is that not enough for you?
  4. Thank you for proving your ignorance publicly. Do you people out there see what these ignorant people are like? I am not an aalim, otherwise I would have made you speechless even quicker than this. As for a marja, you would have become speechless just by meeting one. People start crying when they see maraja. I have never called you crazy or malang. Only ignorant. You can still be guided brother, InshaAllah.
  5. Do you even know what "azadari" means? I doubt you know the real meaning as revealed in hadees. Aren't babies too young for the practice of qama? Why are they forced to do it? One with more ma'arifat always has more love of Allah (SWT) and Imam Hussain (as). Your disregard for wajibaat is blatantly ignorant. Give me authentic hadees on their infallibility. If you love Imam Hussain, alos give his fazail and state the events before the battle of Kerbala so we can see how much you really know. Also I've grown up with people doing Zanjeer with blades in that Indo-Pak you were talking about. Thankfully I was guided and came to know the reality.
  6. Brilliant. You just display your ignorance like a advertisement. You think you know more then the marajaeen? I have already talked about Ayatullah Khorasani and I did watch the video. Nowhere does he say blades, he only says zanjeer (which in farsi refers to the chains only). I assume you don't speak Farsi. And anyway, Waheed Khorasani did not make a fatwa in the video. Also thanks for disregarding most of my post. Good luck without a marja. Without jurispudence, taqleed in your Fiqh, all ibaadat goes to waste. You think you know more than them? Even Imam Mehdi Aakhir-us-Zaman (AJFK) made statements about fuqaha. Of course you probably didn't know that.
  7. (bismillah) (salam) Those in support of zanjeer zani with blades and qamazani, as seen in this topic, are simply ignorant. I want you to throw out ALL THE FATAWAS. Now pick up the Naib-e-Imam's fatwa. Naib-e-Imam, representative of the Imam, Imam Khamenei. As Logical Islam has posted, he expressly, without a doubt, forbids it, in all conditions, publicly or privately in this day and age (refer to Imam Khamenei's last question and answer part). Ayatullah Sistani shares a similar view. These are two most learned marajaeen of our time. Ayatullah Waheed Khorasani references jurists that have passed away, and notice that he does not mention qama. Why? Because he was talking about Zanjeer zani with chains only, not blades. Whether that leads to bleeding or not, it is not zanjeer with blades, and not nearly as harmful nor permanently damaging. power and Kaniz E Zehra, alos Hot hot, please post who your marja-e-taqleed is, who you do taqleed to. As for those who ask for evidence regarding the negative view on blood letting, I am astounded by your ignorance. I am dumbfounded by the sheer magnitude of ignorance. Please brothers try to learn more about Islam by picking up some books by Shaheed Muttahiri, Allama Tabatabai, Allama Ibraheem Ameeni, and other books. Read hadees books and their tafsir. Don't you think that when these great, eminent, knowledgeable, learned, alim, spiritual, marja say that it has a negative impact they are right? You think they are wrong? You think they are lying to you? You think they haven't studied the matter in detail before releasing it to the world? Are you that ignorant to disregard their statements? It sounds so dumb when you ask for a survey and published evidence. Have you any intellect? Have you any Ma'arifat? Was their a worldwide survey conducted to prove that Hitler was a bad person? Give me a survey on it, otherwise he is a good person, right? Nope. Use your aql, please. In the time of the Masoomeen (as) , it was people like you, doubters like you, that the zaalimeen had the himmat and jurrat, the boldness and daring to oppose the Imams. Don't be like the people of Kufa who abandoned Imam Hussain (as) . They must of been saying at that time "Yazeed is bad? Ibn Ziyad is bad? Supporting Imam Hussain (as) is a good thing? Following the zaalimeen is bad? I need a published survey on that if you want me to believe it." Wasn't the Imam's word enough? Wasn't it enough that he said everything? But no, people still didn't follow him. Same thing is happening with fatwas today. And another thing. If this blood letting was so great, so emotional, so spiritual, and such a great way to express love for Imam Hussain, why don't maraja's do it? They love Imam Hussain more than us, they have more knowledge of him, and they have greater ma'arifat. So why don't they do it? They should do it the most, technically. They might be aged, but they still love Imam Hussain, so blood-letting should not be a problem(you know people do qama to babies, right?). Instead you only see them doing chest beating, in other words seena zani. Even maraja who supposedly "support" blood-letting today don't do it. And you only see commoners doing it. Especially jaahil, ignorant people. They can shed blood for Imam Hussain, but they can't shed a tear? They can't keep a beard for him? They can't read wajib prayers for him? If they spend hours doing blood-letting, they can't spend 15 minutes for Salat-ul-Layl, which Bibi Zainab (as) prayed in mourning for Imam Hussain? They don't read Namaz-e-Shab? There are a bunch of ibadat that you can do for Imam Hussain to show your love, and this is stuff actually done by the masoomeen (as) . Instead, you do blood-letting, which is an act never done by any Imam. Please use your common sense and the aql Allah (SWT) has given insaan. Allah (SWT) knows best. (wasalam)
  8. I think you missed a few people-Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) , Imam Ali (as) , and the rest of the Imams (as) , and Bibi Fatima (as) . These people also never committed sin and also performed miracles. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had a great miracle, which is one you can see even today by picking up the Qur'an. These people have amazing character. Like the brother said, try reading the Nahj-ul-Balagha. If you aren't into reading that much. just look at some of the stories surrounding these people. Don't forget we Muslims also believe Jesus was a prophet and sinless. And yet we don't believe he was Divine. (look at my list of reasons why in my first post). Thank you.
  9. It's fun and unique to play, and easier than tennis. The rackets and the shuttlecocks are light and easy to use. The game is actually very fun once you know how to play and don't flail around with your racket trying to hit the shuttlecock (like I do). :lol:
  10. (bismillah) (salam) I myself did not know of that error. Brother, have you seen that one person who listed 101 contradictions in the Bible? You can do a quick Google search to see. I wouldn't read all of them, though-it takes some time. By the way, your signature thing has an interesting quote. Can you explain it?
  11. Sorry, brother. Clarification incoming. :D What I meant was that as Shia, translations of the Qur'an by Sunnis are actually not acceptable. There are some discrepancies, so only those translations approved by Shias are acceptable. The foremost of all is the Tafsir Al-Mizan (it has English translations in it), because it was written by Allamah Tabatabai himself. There are other translations I think that are acceptable, but I am unaware of them. I said the Mizan is the only one because it is the most reliable.
  12. (bismillah) Beautiful quote, brother (although incomplete). ;) My friend CLynn, the Qur'an does not have errors. Show the errors. Even though people claim these so-called "errors" are actually errors, they are not (I can show you why if you show me where you saw the error). On the other hand, there are astonishing amounts of errors and contradictions in the Bible. There are scientific errors, then there are tens of contradictions. There are contradictions upon contradictions. If you wish, I can show you these as well. ^_^ :lol: ;) The brothers have answered the other questions. Good day to you.
  13. Apologies and greetings everyone. I was off ShiaChat for a while. Qaim is having a good discussion here, and I have yet to catch up to the arguments everyone has made (there have been some LONG posts). While I work on that and building my arguments, I also have other non-ShiaChat work to take care of-that is why I am late at posting and checking ShiaChat. Anyway, like I said, I still need to read through the pages of posts you fellows have made, and I will get back to you on that. In the meantime, as a parting comment, I would just like to say again, even with all of placid's quotes, the Holy Spirit, as such in Christianity, IS NOT PRESENT IN THE QUR'AN. This capitalizing stuff and so on and so forth has almost no meaning. We all know the original Arabic has no capital letters. The translation of the Qur'an in English is not the Qur'an itself, but obviously you don't know Arabic, so you must resort to the translation, like many. Now this isn't bad, but it leads to misunderstandings such as this issue. Now setting capitalization to the side, some may argue the meaning is also the same (the Holy Spirit according to Christian theology). Placid, have you read the Tafsir Al-Mizan by the late Allamah Muhammad Hussain Tabatabai? All these Hilali-Khan, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, none of it is acceptable. Tafsir ibn Kathir? Forget it. :D :!!!: Let me remind you this is SHIAchat. Shia-chat. Shia. Not Sunni. ;) The only translation and tafsir that is acceptable is Tafsir Al-Mizan. It is very deep and high-level. My point is, let us set aside all these translations, and look to the correct one. Then it will be clear what is going on. After you look at the tafsir of any of the quotes you have referenced, you can see that none of them refer to the Holy Spirit (as such in Christianity). Of course, it could be the Ruh-ul-Quddus, which is just the Angel Jibreel (Gabriel). Your study of the religious text is a good undertaking and admirable. Let me remind you Placid, although I greatly admire your study of the Qur'an, your opinion is nothing compared to the Tafsir Al-Mizan, which was created through years and years of study on the Arabic Qur'an, not the translation. Your opinions are firstly, just that, your opinion. Secondly, it is based on the limited translations. Only through YEARS of study have learned scholars begin to understand the meanings and the meanings behind the meanings AND the meanings behind the meanings behind the meanings of the Qur'an. Once again, it is not bad to study the translation. The thing is that you have to rely on the tafsir (especially the Tafsir Al-Mizan) for the correct meanings. You cannot just form your own opinions on what the Qur'an means, because here is an extremely learned scholar that has studied the Qur'an for years in Arabic that is telling you the meaning. If you have heart problems, you can't rely on personal treatment. If you go to the best heart specialist there is, he will give you the reliable treatment. The Tafsir Al-Mizan is available online in English (albeit partly). The correct Qur'an translations are there as well. Take a look using Google. This is what you should have studied, if you haven't studied this. BY NO MEANS DO I MEAN ANY OFFENSE TO YOU WITH ANYTHING I HAVE SAID. Sometimes I offend people without me knowing. :blink: :huh: :donno: So I'll be reading the pages of text that have been filling up this thread. Good day to you.
  14. This is my second post in response to your post(s). Humans making clones is a whole lot different than an intagible being, God Almighty, who is All-Powerful, creating himself as a seperate entity. If he did, he would not be God anymore because he would not be All-Powerful, since another entity has the same power as him. You yourself admitted God CREATED Himself as a seperate entity by denying he cannot. Which means, according to your faith, Jesus and/or the Holy Ghost were actually created. Do you understand the implications of this? "Why would you say God can not do a thing if He desires to do it?" If God could do anything He desires to, can He put someone where He is not, or put him outside His domain? I agree with you, we can never, EVER understand God completely or know Him completely. But that doesn't mean we can do whatever we want. I don't know or understand all of mathematics, but when someone says 2+2=5 I can tell he is wrong. Similarly, we can't just say God can create himself or be in a trinity of some sort. It would be wrong, based just on not knowing God.
  15. It is self contradictory, regarding the first quote. You tell me, if God Almighty is omnipresent, meaning he is everywhere at once, EVERYWHERE, then can he put someone where he is not? Part 2: Jesus has a beginning and end regarding his mortal life, according to Christians. Before, he may have been anywhere. His body was created, like it or not (albeit with miraculous origins-the angels bringing him and so on, this is in Islam as well). And another thing is that he met his end on the cross, according to Christians. But apparently that wasn't his end. He came back to life. So he had two beginnings and one end. The more you talk about it, the more confusing it gets. I mean no offense, of course, but this is what happens to me whenever I talk about the subject with a friend. Part 3: How come you ignored every other contradiction/statement I made? I enjoy discussing with you-you should read everything and make some more posts! ;) But think about what you post before you post it! :huh: :blink: :D
  • Create New...