Search the Community

This morning I was reading surah At-Taghabun and came upon this ayah, the translation mentioned stinginess of the soul and that picked my interest. I'm pretty curious about what it is and how does it affect us (spiritually, physically and mentally)? If anyone knows please let me know, the surah and translation are down below. فَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ مَا ٱسۡتَطَعۡتُمۡ وَٱسۡمَعُواْ وَأَطِيعُواْ وَأَنفِقُواْ خَيۡرٗا لِّأَنفُسِكُمۡۗ وَمَن يُوقَ شُحَّ نَفۡسِهِۦ فَأُوْلَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلۡمُفۡلِحُونَ (Sahih International) So fear Allah as much as you are able and listen and obey and spend [in the way of Allah ]; it is better for your selves. And whoever is protected from the stinginess of his soul - it is those who will be the successful. -Surah At-Taghabun, Ayah 16

Following is a detailed explanation by His Eminence: “In this respect, the Holy Quran gives a general rule mentioned in the Ayahs that talk about the permissibility of eating what is in the sea, for Allah says: ‘Lawful to you is the game of the sea and its food, a provision for you and for the travelers, and the game of the land is forbidden to you so long as you are on pilgrimage, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, to Whom you shall be gathered,’ (05: 96). As for the traditions (Hadiths), in this respect, they are contradictory between the ruling of the permissibility of whatever is in the seas even if it does not have scales on it, if it is fish, and the ruling of the forbiddance. Some Shiite jurisprudents tried to solve this contradiction in several ways, one of which was referring the permissibility Hadiths to the Imams considering that they gave this ruling out of fear for their followers (Taqiyya), meaning that it does not convey the actual ruling, while forbiddance Hadiths actually does. Others refer the forbiddance to the abomination of this act or saying that the forbiddance is the ruling after taking into consideration all relevant traditions…” He adds: “On our part, we adopt the narrations that conform to the Holy Book and reflect permissibility, for adopting what conforms to the Book comes in first before referring the permissibility ruling to Taqiyya. If the traditions continue to be contradictory and there was no way to reach a consensus in any way, one should refer to the general rulings in the Book, which, in this case, talk about the permissibility.” He also confirms that “some of our Shiite jurisprudents, such as the Second Martyr, considered that the abomination stands out before anything else, and so are the opinions of Al-Muhaqqiq Al-Hilli, Al-Muhaqqiq As-Sibzawari and Al-Muqaddas Al-Ardabili, which is actually narrated on the authority of Al-Qadi, the student of Sheikh At-Tousi. Therefore, the permissibility ruling includes all kinds of sea animals and seafood, even if they were not fish with scales.” [The Fatwas of the late Sayyed (ra) and the juristic office of His Eminence, the Religious Authority, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (ra)] http://english.bayynat.org.lb/Editorials/Shariah_Seafood.htm#.UYGWZ8sayK0

Bismillah Alrahman Alrahim Assalamu Alikom Brothers and Sisters in Islam, I have a question regarding a dream I recently had. Just before I go to details of the dream, I just wanted to make it clear that I don't usually have dreams about prophets and certainly not Imams of the Ahlulbait, although it would be an honour to meet such characters in my dreams. So just before I went to bed, I decided to do something I usual haven't done before to get closer to Allah (S.W.T.). I kept my head in sajdah, and kept reciting Shukran (Thanks) and 'afwan (you are welcome OR Thank you) to Allah alone for at least a couple of minutes, until I started perspiration on the Turbah. I also placed my cheek each time on the Turbad and repeated the same words. I felt lighter Alhamdoillah, and thereafter went to sleep after watching an islamic lecture. Naturally I wouldn't remember all of the dream, but the following is what is clear to me. I found myself in a masjid (in Najaf I assume as it will become clear further on, although I have never been there), and there were a couple of people in front of me making duaa in front of this beautiful room sheltered by thick glass. I tried to look at it, and there I see Imam Ali (A.S.) making sajda without any movements with his cheek (can't remember left or right cheek) exactly in the same position as I did, before I went to sleep. And I even remember the sajda I made before I went to sleep in the dream whilst looking at him. I was able to see his hands and face. He had a dark complexion, almost very brown. It surprised me for some reason. Furthermore he was wearing the kind of clothing people would wear in those times before going to battle, with the armour and protective gear etc. The next part is what I really didn't understand. Due to his sajda position, he didn't seem to move at all, which made it difficult for me to make out whether he was alive. This room Imam Ali (A.S.) was in had his stuff, a simple chair, things carved of wood and probably a bed as well. I took a few steps away to try to comprehend where this was, and I realised this was Najaf, and the masjid was the Imam Ali Masjid. So in essence his grave in the masjid, appeared to me as a room where he made sajda, and a few items were present with him. Please Brothers and Sisters, I am wondering what this means, and I would really appreciate it, if someone could explain, why I saw Imam Ali (A.S.) in the first place, in the same position I made the sajda with my cheek on the Turbah, I saw him do the exact same sajda? Am I just reading too much into it, or does it actually signify something? After all I did what I did before going to bed, because I wanted to become closer to Allah (S.W.T.).

Salam can someone please explain this Hadith, and why marketplaces are seen to be despised if they’re places where one may gain a reasonable and Halal sustenance which can be used in the way of Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

"In the past I had a brother in faith who was great in my eyes because of how small the world was in his. The desires of his stomach held no power of him. He did not long for what he did not have, and of what he had he did not indulge in much. Whenever he spoke people were silenced as he quenched the thirst of the questioners. Even though he was weak and feeble, during times of seriousness he was like the lion of the forest and the serpent of the valley. He would not speak of what troubled him until it had passed. Even if he could be exceeded in speaking, he could not be excelled in silence, as he was inclined to keep silent rather than speak. If two choices fell before him, he would ask himself which one was more akin to the longing of his heart and then he would oppose it. These qualities are incumbent upon you, so you should acquire them and excel each other in them. Even if you cannot acquire them, know that taking a little is better than leaving a lot." In the last sentence, “know that taking a little is better than leaving a lot”, what does Imam Ali mean by that?

https://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol1-n3/three-topics-theological-philosophy-dr-ahmad-ahmadi/proof-contingent-and-necessary#falsity-circular-and-infinite-series-causation As to the infinite series, there are many reasons for considering it invalid. We shall discuss two of them here. a) If we consider a chain of causes and effects whose last link is an effect which has not yet become a cause of another thing‑for example, a slight movement of the hand, which we consider as an effect of preceding causes, but it is not yet a cause for another effect‑we shall see that every preceding link of this chain, which precedes this last effect, must at the same time be a cause for its next link and an effect for its previous link, and so on. Thus, every link of this chain is at the same time a cause and an effect, and we know that if a link in the chain is the cause of its succeeding link that does not excuse it from the need of a cause preceding it. Therefore, every link in the series is an effect dependent on a cause. Now supposing that this chain is infinite and there is no First Cause, it implies an infinite number of middles with no sides,5 which is of course impossible. For example, in the chain A→ B→ C→ D→ E→∞ we take A to be the last effect (the slight motion of the hand which has not yet become a cause for another thing). 6 The link B (the muscles, in our example) is the cause for A and is also the effect of C or the effect of nerves). Link C is the effect of D (the effect of will, in our example). Thus every one of the links of the chain is both a cause and an effect at the same time. As has been argued, though every link is the cause for the following link, it does not mean that it can itself dispense with a cause preceding it. Therefore, every link is necessarily an effect, too. So we may overlook the causation of all links and illus­trate them thus: A→ B→ C→ D→ E→∞ ; this means that we have an endless chain of effects without coming across anything which is a cause without being an effect; as we have already shown, it is impos­sible. b) We said that the existence of an effect or phenomenon is dependent, not self‑existent, or in other words, it is a contingent being or an intermediary existent. Now the supposition that there is an end­less chain of contingent beings, implies an infinite chain of dependent and intermediary beings which do not depend for their existence on an independent, self‑existent being, and this is impossible. From what we have said, we can draw this conclusion: first, that we perceive the existence of phenomenon or the contingent being either through our acquired knowledge or through introspection (`ilm huduri); i.e. we perceive the external world through acquired know­ledge (`ilm husuli) and the inner states of the self through introspection (`ilm huduri); second, that every contingent being is dependent on a cause, otherwise it cannot possibly be existent; third, the chain of contingent beings and causes must inevitably originate from the First Cause, the Self‑existent Being, that is, God. Khwajah Nasir al‑Din al‑Tusi has formulated the argument of the Necessary Being in this statement: Which means, if we accept the cause of all existence as the exis­tence of the Necessary Being, we have reached the desirable conclusion; otherwise‑that is, if we do not accept the Necessary Being as the first cause‑ the existence of the Necessary Being is necessitated by the impossibility of a causal circle and a causal linear series.

I was recently speaking to a friend, she mentioned something to me that I had never heard about before, that crossing over a stretch of water, which I assume to mean travelling overseas can change ones luck, she says that she heard this from a local sheikh , is this something commonly known or accepted? Would appreciate any sources of where this notion has stemmed from