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

Safannah

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    459
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Completely Agree
    Safannah got a reaction from Dalal in Make Up Should Be Harram   
    According to my research, anything that is used to enhance a females beauty infront of men is haram
  2. Like
    Safannah reacted to Qa'im in Are Prophet Wives included in Ahl albayat (33:33)?   
    The first part of 33:33 is addressing the wives in the buyut in the feminine plural form, and the second part is addressing the Ahl al-Bayt (singular) in the masculine plural form. The first part is an order, and the Ahl al-Bayt were mentioned in the second part because they are the bayt that the buyut should look up to as a model family.
    Most references indicate that the wives are not from Ahl al-Bayt. In Islam, women have their own family - their father's. They don't join a new family or leave a family when they get married and divorced.
  3. Like
    Safannah reacted to Irfani313 in Is it true that shia militia persecuted sunnis in Iraq?   
    Brother Alidu78: No its not true at all. Anybody can claim anything, but has there been any proof of it just like there are millions of artifacts that prove the Salafi and Wahabi abuse of Sunnis and Shias.
    I'll give you an example, since 1979 till 2015, there are roughly 60,000 Shias have been murdered in Pakistan, with countless Shia masajid destroyed, congregations blownup, Hussaynia (Imam Bargahs) arsoned etc. Till this day, not one Salafi and Wahabi palce of worship, the terror making factories which they call their madrassas, their gatherings which they call Tableegh gathering attended by millions have been terrorized in retaliation.   
    Its against the religion of Islam to hurt innocent people even if they profess to kill you. In Islam you don't punish the criminal before he has committed the crime, neither do you kill Umer for the crime of AbuBakr. 
  4. Like
    Safannah got a reaction from saberrider in Back-Biting: A Sin Worse Than Adultery ?   
    The Punishment for adultery is mentioned in the quran:
    "(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement. (24:2)
    The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.(24:3)
     
    Also note that the punishment for zina cannot possibly be death, as it would be incoherent for the verse 3 (above) to talk about adulterers remarrying.
     
    As for gossiping being worse that adultry, it is not mentioned in the quran (as far as i  know) only ahadiths.
    The Prophet (s) once gave counsel to Abu Dharr ® , saying: “O Abu Dharr! Beware of backbiting, for backbiting is graver than adultery (zina’).” Abu Dharr ® said: “Why is that so, O Messenger of Allah?” He (s) replied: “That is because when a man commits adultery and then repents to God, God accepts his repentance. However, backbiting is not forgiven until forgiven by its victim.” [Al-Hurr al-`Amili, Wasai'l al-Shi`ah, vol. 8, hadith no. 18312]
    This hadith is from a shia source, though im fairly certain that such are present in sunni sources, though with weaker ratings.
     
     
    Perhaps this site should clarify:
    http://www.islamic-laws.com/backbiting.htm
  5. Like
    Safannah got a reaction from NaveenHussain in King Abdullah Dead   
    proof??
    And besides, People are cursed in the Quran - how many verses have u seen that  begin with- "lanatu-Allah on so and so and such a group of people".
  6. Like
    Safannah got a reaction from Kaniz e Zahra in King Abdullah Dead   
    proof??
    And besides, People are cursed in the Quran - how many verses have u seen that  begin with- "lanatu-Allah on so and so and such a group of people".
  7. Like
    Safannah reacted to alirex in King Abdullah Dead   
    But every Imam send curse on Yazid. No body stopped to curse Yazid.
     
    If you are friendly with Yazid then its not our problem, you have to re-think what you are saying.
     
    And don't include yourself in Sunni , they don't like Yazid. If you are Wahabi tell you are Wahabi , don't Insult Sunni with putting blame on them supporter of Tyrant.
  8. Like
    Safannah reacted to Martyrdom in King Abdullah Dead   
    You don't have the qualifications to decide who's faith is weak or not. Now I have a question if a serial killer kills my whole family and dies. My faith is weak if I curse him?
  9. Like
    Safannah reacted to Hameedeh in King Abdullah Dead   
    And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement. Holy Qur'an 4:93
  10. Like
    Safannah reacted to ShiaLuma in King Abdullah Dead   
    King Abdullah has finally passed away therefore fulfilling one of the signs.
  11. Like
    Safannah reacted to Hameedeh in King Abdullah Dead   
    Eid Mubarak.
  12. Like
    Safannah reacted to ShiaHashmi in They Don't Want You To Know This Reloaded Part 2   
    (salam)
     
    ok lets say paper money is haram, what next?
     
    have you stopped using paper money?
  13. Like
    Safannah reacted to Vale of Tempe in 653 False Hadiths In Bukhari & Muslim   
    Muslim scholar argues that 653 hadiths in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are false
     
    January 4, 2009 1:05 pm By Raymond Ibrahim
    Jamal al-Banna, brother of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna
     
    I just heard about this controversy while watching Arabic satellite. So I did a bit of googling and found the following 2 week-old report. While this story has gotten virtually no attention here in the West, it is apparently causing problems in the Islamic world, especially Egypt, where it originates.
    Muslims have traditionally believed that the hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim — both of which are prefixed with that all-important Arabic word, Sahih, that is, “verified” or “authenticated” — are true, indeed, second in authority only to the Koran.
    Simultaneously, there are a number of outrageous hadiths in these two collections — such as Rida al-Kabir (breastfeeding the adult) — which, at least some Muslims, would prefer if they were stricken out of the hadith corpus.
    The problem, of course, is if Muslim scholars cast doubt on a single hadith in Bukhari and Muslim, the collections in their entirety become suspect. And without these two otherwise canonical hadith collections, Sunni Islam — which relies more on the hadith than even the Koran when it comes to regulating life — becomes unintelligible; sharia law falls apart. Another one of Islam’s “catch-22″ situations.
    “Jamal al-Banna’s new book: critique of Bukhari and Muslim,” by John Stringer for St. Francis Magazine, December 18:

    Jamal al-Banna, a younger brother of Hassan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) has just published a book in which he argues that 653 of the hadiths as written in al-Bukhari and Muslim are incorrect and should not be accepted. The Arabic book is titled The Cleansing of Bukhari and Muslim from useless Hadiths (2008).


    After the Qur’an, al-Bukhari’s collection of hadiths (the acts and sayings of the prophet Muhammad) is considered the most sacred book in Islam; never before has any Muslim scholar who lives in the Arab world, thrown so much doubt — publicly – on the sources of Islam.
    But Mr Jamal al-Banna (86 years old now) is used to being attacked by al-Azhar, and he says he does not care. He excludes six kinds of hadiths:
    * Those that explain the Qur’an: the Qur’an can’t by explained by hadiths.
    * Those that talk bad about women – like the one’s that call them equal to dogs and cows and to beat them up and so on.
    * Those that forbid the freedom of religion and that threaten those who leave Islam.
    * Those with extreme ideas for encouraging people into Islam and the ones threatening people wit physical violence.
    * Those that talk about Muhammad’s miracles.
    * Some others of which he thinks that the story is not true at all.
  14. Like
    Safannah reacted to ShiaHashmi in Re-Engineered Women   
    (bismillah)
     
    By Henry Makow Ph.D. 

    Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media  (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.

    In 40 short years, many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts. Consequently, the family is in disarray, sexual depravity is rampant and birth rates have plummeted.
    I will expand on the Rockefeller's role, but first we need to remember that for a woman, love is an instinctive act of self-sacrifice. 

    She gives herself to her husband and children and is fulfilled by seeing them thrive and  receiving their love, respect and gratitude. 

    A woman makes this supreme sacrifice to only one man who will cherish her and provide for his family. Men instinctively want to fulfill this responsibility. This is the essence of the heterosexual contract (i.e. marriage): female power in exchange for male power expressed as love. Sex is the symbol of this exclusive bond. Marriage and family may not be for everyone but it is the natural path for most. 

    Feminism has trained women to reject this model as "an old fashioned, oppressive stereotype" even though it reflects their natural instincts. 

    On Thursday a British writer reported overhearing two young women: 

    "All men are useless these days," one said. "Yeah," said the other. "The trouble is that they haven't risen to the challenge of feminism. They don't understand that we need them to be more masculine, and instead they have just copped out." 

    That's their logic? If women are less feminine, men will be more masculine? Men aren't designed to fight with women. They need to be affirmed by a woman's acquiescence and faith. When women constantly challenge them, men will "cop out" of marriage and family. 

    Now that love and marriage have been "discredited," women have nothing left to exchange for love but sex. Thus, many are unnaturally obsessed with appearance and pathetically give their bodies to all and sundry. 
    Permanent love is not based on a woman's sex appeal, or personality or achievements. Ultimately, it is based on self-sacrifice. We love the people who love us.

    THE BIG PICTURE: THE CENTRAL BANKERS 

    People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive. 

    Recently Aaron Russo, the producer of Bette Midler's movies and "America: From Freedom to Fascism" identified all three confirming what I have been saying. 

    While trying to recruit Russo for the CFR, Nicholas Rockefeller told him that his family foundation created women's liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. He admitted they want to "chip us." Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations.
    The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of  providers also destabilizes the family. 
    A drastic paradigm shift is required to make sense of the world. The Rockefellers are part of the private world central banking cartel that also controls media, defence, pharmaceutical and other cartels. To protect their monopoly of credit and wealth, they are instituting a world police state ("world government") using the bogus 9-11 attack and endless war as a pretext. Rockefeller told Russo about this plan a year before 9-11.

    The poet Charles Peguy said, "Everything begins in faith and ends in politics." The banking cartel needs a philosophy to justify enchaining mankind. That philosophy is Satanism. The cartel controls the world through a network of occult societies linked to Freemasonry, Communism, the Vatican and organized Jewry (Bnai Brith, ADL, AJC,  Zionism.) The highest occult rank is known as the Illuminati.
    Modern Western culture is Masonic. Based on Luciferianism, Freemasonry teaches that man and not God determines reality. (Naturally, they need to overrule natural and spiritual laws in order to assert their own control.) They have noticed that people are diffident malleable creatures who prefer to believe what they are told than trust their own reason or perception. Thus, for example, the media successfully promotes homosexual values that conflict with our natural instincts.

    MEDIA ERADICATES  LOVE 

    Every facet of the mass media (movies, TV, magazines, music, commercials, news) is used for indoctrination and social control with the ultimate goal of enslavement. There is a connection between what happened in Communist Russia and what is happening in America today. In both cases the central banking cartel is asserting its totalitarian control. 
    The mass media's function is to distract us from this, and the imminent Iran war and North American Union. Currently they are using the global warming fracas for diversion.  
    In order to destroy the family, the media convinced women that they could not rely on the heterosexual contract. 

    Myrna Blyth was the editor in chief of Ladies Home Journal from 1981 to 2002. In her book "Spin Sisters" (2004) she says the media sold women "a career in exactly the same drum banging way that the Happy Homemaker had been ..sold to their mothers." (38) 

    The Illuminati undermined women's natural loving instincts using the following mantras:
    1. Men can no longer be trusted. Using the Lifetime Network as an example, Blyth concluded "all men are 1) unfaithful rats 2) abusive monsters 3) dishonest scumbags, or 4) all of the above. Women on the other hand were...flinty achievers who triumph despite the cavemen who...want to keep them in their place." (62-63) 

    2. Women are victims by virtue of their sex.  Blyth says the media sends "one message loud and clear. Because we are women, we remain victims in our private lives, at work, in society as a whole." (156) Thus women must have a sense of grievance, entitlement and rebellion. The same tactic was used to manipulate Jews, Blacks, workers and gays. (See my"Victim as Moral Zombie" )

    3. Women should be selfish. "Liberation and narcissism have merged," Blyth says. Leisure now means, "time for yourself, spent alone, or perhaps with one's girlfriends but definitely without spouse and kids...Endless articles preached the new feminist gospel, that indulging yourself is an important part of being a healthy, well adjusted woman." (65) 

    4. Sex is not reserved for love and marriage. Magazines like Glamour and Cosmopolitan  urge young women to "put out on their first date,"ogle men openly" and be an athlete in bed. There is no discussion of marriage or family. (160) Such women can't trust a man enough to surrender themselves in love.
    5. Self-fulfillment lies in career success and not husband and family. "The social rewards of holding down a job are critical to one's sense of dignity and self worth," Betty Friedan pontificated. In fact, "most work is deeply ordinary," Blyth observes (35-36.) (I'm not saying women can't have jobs, only they shouldn't be tricked out of having families if they want them.)
    Thus many women are schizophrenic as they attempt to reconcile their natural instincts with constant exhortations to do the opposite. The wreckage -- broken families and dysfunctional people -- is strewn everywhere. 

    At the same time, Playboy Magazine etc. aimed a similar message at men. You don't need to get married to have sex. Marriage and children are a bore. 


    CONCLUSION 

    This consistent media drumbeat is organized brainwashing. Society has been totally subverted by the central banking cartel, using a Satanic cult, Freemasonry as its primary instrument. Most masons are unaware of the truth but the owners of the mass media certainly are.
    We used to say, "as American as motherhood and apple pie." Only satanists would trash motherhood. Far from empowering women, feminism has unsexed many. It has   deprived them of a secure and honored role and reduced them to sex objects and replaceable workers.
    Luciferians promote rebellion because they are defying what is natural and conducive to  happiness. Like their symbol, Lucifer, they wish to play God. 
    God's love can be seen in a woman's dedication to her husband and children. Thus the bankers must destroy it.
    - See more at: http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html#sthash.6ygLoVpX.dpuf
  15. Like
    Safannah reacted to Hameedeh in To Shias Who Perform Or Support Tatbir/cutting   
    We have had enough of this topic.

    Thread Locked. 
  16. Like
    Safannah reacted to Aabiss_Shakari in Really ! Why Am I Not Surprised   
    So you r taunting us that we are in minority? Who said that being in majority means u r right? Did not quran say "many of them donot use wisdom"?
  17. Like
    Safannah reacted to GreyMatter in Fed Up With Free Speech Fundamentalists   
    Fantastic article by Mehdi Hassan regarding the recent events in Paris. Sorry for the editorilzed title, the space was limited realtive to the actual heading.
     
      As a Muslim, I'm Fed Up With the Hypocrisy of the Free Speech Fundamentalists Dear liberal pundit,
    Fantastic article by Mehdi Hassan regarding the recent events in Paris. Sorry for the editorilzed title, the space was limited realtive to the actual heading.
     
    You and I didn't like George W Bush. Remember his puerile declaration after 9/11 that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"? Yet now, in the wake of another horrific terrorist attack, you appear to have updated Dubya's slogan: either you are with free speech... or you are against it. Either vous êtes Charlie Hebdo... or you're a freedom-hating fanatic.
     
    I'm writing to you to make a simple request: please stop. You think you're defying the terrorists when, in reality, you're playing into their bloodstained hands by dividing and demonising. Us and them. The enlightened and liberal west v the backward, barbaric Muslims. The massacre in Paris on 7 January was, you keep telling us, an attack on free speech.
     
    The conservative former French president Nicolas Sarkozy agrees, calling it "a war declared on civilisation". So, too, does the liberal-left pin-up Jon Snow, who crassly tweeted about a "clash of civilisations" and referred to "Europe's belief in freedom of expression".
     
    In the midst of all the post-Paris grief, hypocrisy and hyperbole abounds. Yes, the attack was an act of unquantifiable evil; an inexcusable and merciless murder of innocents. But was it really a "bid to assassinate" free speech (ITV's Mark Austin), to "desecrate" our ideas of "free thought" (Stephen Fry)? It was a crime - not an act of war - perpetrated by disaffected young men; radicalised not by drawings of the Prophet in Europe in 2006 or 2011, as it turns out, but by images of US torture in Iraq in 2004.
     
    Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn.
     
    Has your publication, for example, run cartoons mocking the Holocaust? No? How about caricatures of the 9/11 victims falling from the twin towers? I didn't think so (and I am glad it hasn't). Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"?
     
    Let's be clear: I agree there is no justification whatsoever for gunning down journalists or cartoonists. I disagree with your seeming view that the right to offend comes with no corresponding responsibility; and I do not believe that a right to offend automatically translates into a duty to offend.
     
    When you say "Je suis Charlie", is that an endorsement of Charlie Hebdo's depiction of the French justice minister, Christiane Taubira, who is black, drawn as a monkey? Of crude caricatures of bulbous-nosed Arabs that must make Edward Said turn in his grave?
     
    Lampooning racism by reproducing brazenly racist imagery is a pretty dubious satirical tactic. Also, as the former Charlie Hebdo journalist Olivier Cyran argued in 2013, an "Islamophobic neurosis gradually took over" the magazine after 9/11, which then effectively endorsed attacks on "members of a minority religion with no influence in the corridors of power".
     
    It's for these reasons that I can't "be", don't want to "be", Charlie - if anything, we should want to be Ahmed, the Muslim policeman who was killed while protecting the magazine's right to exist. As the novelist Teju Cole has observed, "It is possible to defend the right to obscene... speech without promoting or sponsoring the content of that speech."
     
    And why have you been so silent on the glaring double standards? Did you not know that Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark? Were you not aware that Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet in 2005, reportedly rejected cartoons mocking Christ because they would "provoke an outcry" and proudly declared it would "in no circumstances... publish Holocaust cartoons"?
    Muslims, I guess, are expected to have thicker skins than their Christian and Jewish brethren.
     
    Context matters, too. You ask us to laugh at a cartoon of the Prophet while ignoring the vilification of Islam across the continent (have you visited Germany lately?) and the widespread discrimination against Muslims in education, employment and public life - especially in France. You ask Muslims to denounce a handful of extremists as an existential threat to free speech while turning a blind eye to the much bigger threat to it posed by our elected leaders.
     
    Does it not bother you to see Barack Obama - who demanded that Yemen keep the anti-drone journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye behind bars, after he was convicted on "terrorism-related charges" in a kangaroo court - jump on the free speech ban wagon? Weren't you sickened to see Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of a country that was responsible for the killing of seven journalists in Gaza in 2014, attend the "unity rally" in Paris? Bibi was joined by Angela Merkel, chancellor of a country where Holocaust denial is punishable by up to five years in prison, and David Cameron, who wants to ban non-violent "extremists" committed to the "overthrow of democracy" from appearing on television.
     
    Then there are your readers. Will you have a word with them, please? According to a 2011 YouGov poll, 82% of voters backed the prosecution of protesters who set fire to poppies.
     
    Apparently, it isn't just Muslims who get offended.
     
    Yours faithfully,
    Mehdi
     
    Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html
     
  18. Like
    Safannah got a reaction from mina in To Shias Who Perform Or Support Tatbir/cutting   
    2. Look but we're not stupid- Do you seriously think that people will just blindly stop doing the things u listed (latim, attending majalis, etc.) The chain of events u listed is unlikely to occur if tatbir is banned- especially if it is done by religious leaders themselves. Anyway- it doesnt have to be formally 'banned' for people to stop doing it.
    3.No, i asked you what vid you were reffering to because there were so many on this thread. Im not going to search through 10 pages for 1 vid.
    4. Mourning= grief and crying , yes. But not the extremes to harming yourself to THAT extent.  your body was a gift, respect it.
    5.Okay- suit yourself.
     
    Im done with this thread- it just keeps on going in circles and it seems that everyones  going to stand their  grounds and this argument will be endless.
     
    wa as-salamu alaykum.
  19. Like
    Safannah reacted to eThErEaL in Shias Rolling In Mud For Hussain A.s   
    That does not look "stupid".   Everything new will appear strange.  But it isn't strange to them (and this is important for us to keep in mind with respect to anything).  :)
     
    The question is, on what basis do we have the right to say it is wrong or right? What principle are we using to pass a judgment? 
     
    For me, it is pretty simple.  If I see an expression of love for the sacred (in any form or shape) I will respect it and even defend it if necessary.  Because if there is anything we need now more than ever, it is to preserve the sacred in any way we can (whether it is the environment or nature, shrines, acts of devotion towards holy personalities) because this Is what the modern world is trying to destroy. 
  20. Like
    Safannah reacted to repenter-gone4awhile in Shias Rolling In Mud For Hussain A.s   
    The problem isnt the mud rubbing or taking sand and hitting your self on the head with it.
    In farsi we have a saying "Khak bar saram" which basically means dirt on my head, which again means i wish i was dead(like the dirt they throw on you when you die)
    The problem is how do you do it without looking ridiculously stupid? Yes, some are always going to point fingers and say this looks strange and funny, for chest beating etc, but there is a fine line between strange and just plain silly. 
     
    I can't find a good example, but take this guy as an example:

     
    there is a big difference between the guy above^
     
    and
     
    the guy to the right under
     

     
    One looks like he has taken dirt and hit himself with it, the other one looks like he dove head first in the mud pool at the four seasons spa center. 
  21. Like
    Safannah reacted to wali110 in To Shias Who Perform Or Support Tatbir/cutting   
    Do not call an act of Sacrifice for Hussain  (as) rubbish just because you do not abide by it for you have no true knowledge in regards to it.
     
    Sacrifice for Imam Hussain  (as) has been going on sine the say our beloved Imam  (as) was Martyred and you cannot disprove it.
     
    Just because you might only have recorded history of Tatbir and Zanjeer Zani for the past 200 years does not mean that it came into existence then.
     
    People have always given and sacrificed for our beloved Imam and those People are known to be true devoted lovers of the Imam  (as).
     
    There was an era where People use to get their Hands chopped off as a payment in order to be allowed to simply visit the Holy Shrine out of the love that tey had for the Imam  (as).
     
    But I am sure that someone with a darkened Heart like yourselves would have also go full on against such acts as you have never found it to be recommended in any of your "How to live a live books" !
     
    Grow up !
  22. Like
    Safannah got a reaction from mina in To Shias Who Perform Or Support Tatbir/cutting   
    1. No i did not know the word (im an arab)- thanks for expaining
    2. The baath taking power was not because of people stopping Tatbir- my argument is that it is unrealistic for banning tatbir to have a direct impact . The baath occured due to various factors- it was a political system that had risen against Islam- and not because people stopped doing Tatbir.
    3. I did not watch the vids (what ones are you referring to- this is a long thread), but im justing thinking for myself and it doesnt seem that stopping Tatbir will stop the message of Ahlu-albyt spreading-im just being realistic.
    4. Hmmmmm, what do you mean "it is haram for me".- as in i consider it Haram.
    I still dont agree with what you said here- mourning doesnt mean causing so much harm to yourself- if anything, the purpose of mourning (referring to mourning for Ahlulbayt) is to reflect on our own character (our patience, our determination, our attitudes during hard times) and serves to remind us what we're really here for and where we should direct our lives.
    5. There are legitimate reasons behind those things u listed (polygamy, etc), Tatbir,however, is far too violent and visually disturbing for it to appeal to anyone.
     
    Ok calm down- Stop making it seem as  though im trying to "force" my opinions- im just stating them and justifying them. If you and others dont agree- then so be it.
  23. Like
    Safannah reacted to -Enlightened in Sunni - Shia Marriage   
    Salaam!
     
    Interfaith marriages are one of the most beautiful thing that can ever happen... I think there are so much that we can learn from both religions.
     
    Regarding your first question, I think that the best way would just be to explain your kids about both sides , sunni & shia . Then, let them research on their own. I really believe Allah gave us free will to chose any religion & to research more.. give that to your kids and don't impose a specific belief.
     
    & yes, I am certain that it will work out. Keep in mind that no marriage will ever be perfect , they all have their goods and bads , as long as you make effort to keep going strong. 
  24. Like
    Safannah got a reaction from A true Sunni in To Shias Who Perform Or Support Tatbir/cutting   
    1. what's 'azadari' -
    2. Still your argument doesn't make sense and is a little unrealistic. Come on- we're very conscious of what's going on around us, i'm sure that by not practicing tatbir, somthing as extreme as majalis not being held wont happen.
    3.
    You said: "By keeping Tatbir, you know that there is a hidden agenda to forbid the commemoration of Ahl-el-Bayt -pbut-, if someone tries to forbid or disallow it."
    Lets be real man- this is so far fetched. By banning tatbir, no ones eliminating the commemoration of Ahl-el-Bayt (PBUT), there are other ways of commemorating and those ways are about rousing our emotions and not inflicting harm on yourself.
    4. "...Personally, when i feel so sad for what happened to Ahl-el-Bayt -pbut-, i'd feel like my physical pain must reflect my mental one. ..."
    Then whats the difference between you and those who self-harm ???
    If you feel so sad then why not just commemorate through words, stories, etc. Its about what u feel inside-not out.
    You remember by following their teachings and their moral ideas- THAT is a reflection of who they were and the message of islam, and it is those teachings that they died for.
    People who do Tatbir bring a  bad reputation to Muslims (notice i said 'muslims' and not 'shia muslims', it just is not fair). You could potentially defer someone from Islam, and then it'll be YOUR fault. This is very risky because you may b questioned on it on judgement day- just saying.
     
    Salams
  25. Like
    Safannah got a reaction from mina in To Shias Who Perform Or Support Tatbir/cutting   
    1. what's 'azadari' -
    2. Still your argument doesn't make sense and is a little unrealistic. Come on- we're very conscious of what's going on around us, i'm sure that by not practicing tatbir, somthing as extreme as majalis not being held wont happen.
    3.
    You said: "By keeping Tatbir, you know that there is a hidden agenda to forbid the commemoration of Ahl-el-Bayt -pbut-, if someone tries to forbid or disallow it."
    Lets be real man- this is so far fetched. By banning tatbir, no ones eliminating the commemoration of Ahl-el-Bayt (PBUT), there are other ways of commemorating and those ways are about rousing our emotions and not inflicting harm on yourself.
    4. "...Personally, when i feel so sad for what happened to Ahl-el-Bayt -pbut-, i'd feel like my physical pain must reflect my mental one. ..."
    Then whats the difference between you and those who self-harm ???
    If you feel so sad then why not just commemorate through words, stories, etc. Its about what u feel inside-not out.
    You remember by following their teachings and their moral ideas- THAT is a reflection of who they were and the message of islam, and it is those teachings that they died for.
    People who do Tatbir bring a  bad reputation to Muslims (notice i said 'muslims' and not 'shia muslims', it just is not fair). You could potentially defer someone from Islam, and then it'll be YOUR fault. This is very risky because you may b questioned on it on judgement day- just saying.
     
    Salams
×
×
  • Create New...