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

Is a "Beard" wajib?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

He said: And I asked him about the man, is it for him (i.e. is he allowed) to take (i.e. shave) from his beard? He said: As to his two cheeks (or, two sides of the face), then there is no harm, however as to its front then no.

Macisaac then why does Sistani say even shaving the sides of the face are not allowed based on obligatory precaution? This is what I have been trying to tell our brothers on this forum. Sistani is even more restrictive then what our Imams (as) told us to do and by making Islam harder than it really is Islam becomes heavy when it was designed to be lite and easy and Islam becomes like a "turkey" whose wings are not strong enough to let it fly. All these excessive obligatory precautions are in my humble opinion unnecessarily encumbering. Islam is designed to be lite like an "eagle".

Now the wordings of the hadeeth you quoted can be possibly be seen as a recommendation of the Imam (as) and not a obligatory command because it doesn't say haraam or sin. Perhaps the man asked the Imam (as) what would you prefer for me to do and the Imam gave his preference but it doesn't necessary mean wajib; it could mean mustahabb. Therefore I appreciate Ayatullah Saanei's and Fadlullah's rulings that keeping the beard is a recommended precaution and not wajib.

As for the brother who commented on it ok for women to disgard their head covering I am so sorry brother but you are wrong. It is not ok for women to do so at all. No Islamic jurist in the Shi'ah school of thought says it is ok. All of them say it is a big sin. Do not encourage our sisters to sin. You are doing Amr bil Munkar by saying such things which is a big sin in itself.

I want all our brothers and sisters to at least do the minimum requirements of Islam so that they can go to heaven and be protected from hell. I want for others what I want for myself.

If a woman finds it too hard to wear hijab (because she can't get a job with hijab or another strong reason) according to Saanei she can wear a wig but she can not walk in the streets with her head uncovered. To do so is a sin and sin leads to hell.

I still respect our sisters who don't wear hijab because I am not a woman and I can not even imagine how challenging it must be to wear hijab in the West however I can not ever say that I approve of them disobeying their Lord. May Allah forgive them and make things easier for them.

Edited by soulfulharmonydotcom
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I want all our brothers and sisters to at least do the minimum requirements of Islam so that they can go to heaven and be protected from hell. I want for others what I want for myself.

You want everyone to do the minimum whereas our Aimmah [as] have encouraged his Shi'is to attain Wara' which means keeping away from even doubtful things.

If you read Sifat ush-Shi'a, anyone who does not attain Wara' is not a true Shi'a of Ali [as]. This is what the ahadith state.

And Ayatullah Sistani doesn't make Islam hard. Love of the world does.

Edited by Whizbee
Link to post
Share on other sites
You want everyone to do the minimum whereas our Aimmah [as] have encouraged his Shi'is to attain Wara' which means keeping away from even doubtful things.

First of all I said "at least the minimum requirements". Of course I would love to do more than the minimum and I would love for everyone to do more than the minimum but I would like everyone including myself to at least do what Allah says is obligatory and stay away from all that is prohibited. Then if someone wants to pray 51 raka'aat a day instead of 17 that is wonderful. Do you pray 51 raka'aat a day? Some ahaadeeth say that one can not be a shi'ah unless they pray 51 raka'aat a day! Are you a shi'ah? If not stop claiming to be what you are not. To do so will only bring about your own perdition.

Second of all I am not at all telling anyone to do what is doubtful. I have no doubts about what is haraam and halaal. I do not do doubtful things. Just because the jurist I emulate says something is halaal and the jurist you emulate says that same thing is haraam it does not mean that if I choose to do that thing it means I am doing something doubtful.

For example Saanei says a man taking a 2nd wife without the 1st wifes consent is haraam but Sistani says it is halaal so if you took a 2nd wife without your first wifes approval would you like it if I accused you of doing something doubtful and hence call you impious? I don't know if you are a man or woman but I am assuming you are a man. Are you? Your screen name sounds masculine. Sorry if you are a woman but you understand my point.

Our Imams (as) have said the following:

ÇÏø ãÇ ÇÝÊÑÖ Çááå ÊÚÇáí Úáíß Êßä ãä ÇÚÈÏ ÇáäÇÓ æ ÇÌÊäÈ ãÇ ÍÑã Çááå Úáíß Êßä ãä ÇæÑÚ ÇáäÇÓ

“Perform what Allah has enjoined upon you, so you will be among the greatest worshippers among people, and refrain from what Allah has prohibited you will be among the most pious among people.”

Yes indeed if a jurist puts even a single obligatory precaution let alone hundreds he/she is making Islam harder than it really is if his/her obligatory precaution is unnecessary and not conforming with the reality of what actually is obligatory. That by definition is making Islam harder than it really is. Yes I have noticed and many others on this forum have noticed that Sistani is known for making a lot of edicts based on obligatory precaution. If you want to emulate him or consider him the most knowledge jurist in the world that is up to you. As far as we are concerned there is no consensus or unanimity as to who is the most knowledgeable jurist today as was the case in the time of Shaykh Ansari or Sayyid Muhsin al-Hakeem. The specialists (Ahlul-Khibra) have said that several jurists in their view are on equal footing and qualification. I respect and love Ayatullah Sistani. I also emulate him via Tab'eed though because I see him as equal in knowledge to Saanei.

Some of his views on certain issues are here . You can download his risaalah here.

I hope one day you will come to respect Ayatullah Saanei and all of our other great Shi'i jurists in Islam. Just because one emulates Sistani it doesn't mean that one should speak ill of other jurists and their emulators.

I respect your emulations so please respect ours.

Edited by soulfulharmonydotcom
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I believe your whole rant is based on the erroneous assumption that I am against men following whoever their marja is and shaving their beard.

Yes indeed if a jurist puts even a single obligatory precaution let alone hundreds he/she is making Islam harder than it really is if his/her obligatory precaution is unnecessary and not conforming with the reality of what actually is obligatory. That by definition is making Islam harder than it really is. Yes I have noticed and many others on this forum have noticed that Sistani is known for making a lot of edicts based on obligatory precaution. If you want to emulate him or consider him the most knowledge jurist in the world that is up to you.

If you are an Usooli then it is our belief that our maraji' do not make things halal or haram based on their whims and fancies and if Agha Sistani does pass a fatwa about any issue, it is done after much research into ahadith.

Your claim that you respect all maraji' sounds hollow after your insinuation against Ayatullah Sistani. You have the temerity to accuse him of "making Islam harder" and then you turn around and say that I don't respect other maraji' and doubt their knowledge.

SubhanAllah.

Edited by Whizbee
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
You want everyone to do the minimum whereas our Aimmah [as] have encouraged his Shi'is to attain Wara' which means keeping away from even doubtful things.

If you read Sifat ush-Shi'a, anyone who does not attain Wara' is not a true Shi'a of Ali [as]. This is what the ahadith state.

And Ayatullah Sistani doesn't make Islam hard. Love of the world does.

Excellent post.

Seriously soulharmony, whats important is choosing the right marja not what their rulings are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously soulharmony, whats important is choosing the right marja not what their rulings are.

Dingdong your screen name reflects the level of your intelligence.

Even the Ahlul-Khibra can't tell for sure who is more knowledgeable, Sistani or Saanei. Some say Sistani, some say Saanei and some say they are relatively equal in knowledge.

Now if the Ahlul-Khibra are unable to reach a consensus as to which of the two are most knowledgeable how on earth can you figure out which of the two is indeed more knowledgeable? They have relatively equal credentials, have studies the same body of literature, graduated from the same school of Usuli Ijtihaad methodology of 12er Shi'ism.

I already posted the credentials of Saanei. Here it is again.

http://saanei.org/en/pdf/books/zendeginameh.pdf

Now let us compare the two if you insist to be able to figure out for sure who is more knowledgeable. I have the advantage over you because I have some training is Usul al-Fiqh, Hadeeth science and Arabic morphology and grammar. I have demonstrated on this very thread that Sistani made and edit on an issue beyond what the Imam Ma'soom instructed. I have already demonstrated in the Music thread that a jurist that rules more on precaution is more likely to be less knowledgeable because he could not arrive at certainty of conclusion while other jurists could do it.

I will quote Shaykh 'Arif Abdulhussein.

Can you at least be true to yourself? If the experts could not figure out which of two doctors is definitely most knowledgeable then how can you as a layperson figure out who is??? Same with ijtihaad Dingdong.

Can you honestly tell me that if you found two doctors who were relatively equal in knowledge you would go with the opinions of the doctor that imposed more obligatory precautions? For example 1 doctor says drink 8 glasses of water a day and the other says drink 12 as a precaution you would drink 12 a day while both promise you will be cured by following their instructions. If their promise is equal I would go with the 8 glass doctor not the 12. Would you go with the 12?

I will quote Shaykh 'Arif Abdulhussein. I have put the link so many times on this forum but now I will actually quote.

Many people have been led to believe that there are no choices other than to follow Ayatullah Sistani's edicts on differing horizons with regards to the sighting of the new moon crescent. This is only true if the followers of Ayatullah Sistani believe him to be the single and most learned jurist in the world. For those that except Sayid Sistani as the 'A'alam', his edict on this issue of the moon is not Ehtiyat Wujubi (obligatory based on precaution), and therefore there is no facility to refer to another Marja.

However, if a person does Tab'eedh, the individual has a number of choices. Before discussing the options, it is necessary to reacquaint with the rules regarding Taqleed. The following is an extract from "Islamic Laws" by Ayatullah Sistani:

3. There are three ways of identifying a Mujtahid, and the A'alam:

(i) when a person is certain that a particular person is a Mujtahid, or the most learned one. For this, he should be a learned person himself, and should possess the capacity to identify a Mujtahid or an A'alam;

(ii) when two persons, who are learned and just and possess the capacity to identify a Mujtahid or the A'alam, confirm that a person is a Mujtahid or an A'lam, provided that two other learned and just persons do not contradict them. In fact, being a Mujt ahid or an A'lam can also be established by a statement of only one trusted and reliable person;

(iii) when a number of learned persons who possess the capacity to identify a Mujtahid or an A'lam, certify that a particular person is a Mujtahid or an A'lam, provided that one is satisfied by their statement.

4. If one generally knows that the verdicts of Mujtahids do vary in day to day matters, and also that some of the Mujtahids are more capable than the others, but is unable to identify the most learned one, then he should act on precaution based on t heir verdicts. And if he is unable to act on precaution, then he should follow a Mujtahid he supposes to be the most learned. And if decides that they are all of equal stature, then he has a choice.

As the majority of people are not qualified to identify the most learned, they must follow items (ii) and (iii) of the above criteria. This however places a dependency on learned scholars to determine the A'alam. Historically, this criteria has been very easy to follow. In the time of Sayid al Khoei and Sayid al Hakim, the vast majority of learned scholars meeting the above criteria had a consensus on the A'alam jurist and accordingly Sayid Al Hakim and Sayid al Khoei were regarded as the A'alam in their times.

Since then however, a number of factors have changed. Today, there are many learned scholars, who are jurists in their own rights who regard Ayatullah Sistani as the A'lam. There are also many eminent, pious and learned scholars who regard Ayatullah Wahid Khorasani as A'alam. Similarly, there are many pious jurists who support that Ayatullah Lankarani, Aytaullah Khamenei and Ayatullah Tabrizi are A'alam. Since many of us individually do not have the qualifications to determine the A'alam, we must rely on options (ii) and (iii) of the above criteria. Due to the differences however, it becomes very difficult to have certainty in which Jurist is the most learned. As many of the leading Marajah that have been vetted as A'alam by other learned scholars, it is reasonable to assume that all have same level of ilm, and in effect are equally A'alam. On this basis, people have the option to do Tab'eedh.

Tab'eedh, very simply, is a procedure where one chooses any of the equally learned maraja' on any issue. Article 4 of 'Islamic Laws' states "And if decides that they are all of equal stature, then he has a choice." Literally this allows the individual to mix and match on any fatwa of those jurists he believes to be equally A'alam. Tab'eedh should not be confused with ehtiyat (to act on precaution) as ehtiyat is for the person who is unable to decide who is the A'alam. Tab'eedh is an option for those who deem all the maraja' to be equal.

Shaikh Arif argued in a recent lecture that it is absurd for any individual to act on the premise that one jurist is the A'alam in this day and age. Most individuals are unlikely to meet the first criteria of article 3 of 'Islamic Laws' and due to the diverse opinions of the scholars, it is impossible to determine the A'alam under criteria (ii) and (iii). Ultimately, an individual can choose any marja' on the issue of the new moon if they have understood the concept of Tab'eedh and have validated the various issues discussed above.

http://www.aimislam.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7964

If you have a problem with tab'eed go argue with Shaykh 'Arif. Tell him that he is ranting when he said it is absurd for any individual to act on the premise that one jurist is the A'alam in this day and age.

My goal here is only to show people that they have options. Most people don't even know that they are allowed by Sistani to follow another jurist if Sistani rules based on precaution! I am only taking it a step further by saying there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Sistani is more learned than any of the other 25 Grand Ayatullah's alive today, there is none.

So according to Shaykh 'Arif's words you who are emulating Sistani on the premise that Sistani is the most learned in this day and age are absurd people. Just because you are the majority and I am among the minority it doesn't mean I am absurd and you are enlightened! Subhanallah wa bihamdihi astaghfirullaha li wa lakum

Asslaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakaatuh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

One point to be noted is that the extremist Ayatullah Sistani who is making Islam hard and crossing the limits set by Imams isn't the only one who forbids shaving the sides. Ayatullah Khamenei forbids it too.

Ayatullah Khamenei's rulings:

Q1: Is shaving the beard considered as sin?

A: According to obligatory caution, shaving the beard is ḥarām. Therefore, rulings and consequences of a sinful act are applied to it as a matter of caution.

Q2: Some men leave the hair around the chin grow, i.e. goatee, and shave the rest of the beard. What is the view on such practice?

A: The ruling on shaving a part of beard is the same as that passed on shaving the entire beard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

(bismillah)

(salam)

If you have a problem with tab'eed go argue with Shaykh 'Arif. Tell him that he is ranting when he said it is absurd for any individual to act on the premise that one jurist is the A'alam in this day and age.

My goal here is only to show people that they have options. Most people don't even know that they are allowed by Sistani to follow another jurist if Sistani rules based on precaution! I am only taking it a step further by saying there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Sistani is more learned than any of the other 25 Grand Ayatullah's alive today, there is none.

So according to Shaykh 'Arif's words you who are emulating Sistani on the premise that Sistani is the most learned in this day and age are absurd people. Just because you are the majority and I am among the minority it doesn't mean I am absurd and you are enlightened! Subhanallah wa bihamdihi astaghfirullaha li wa lakum

Here is an extract from the quote you kindly brought forward:

Tab'eedh should not be confused with ehtiyat (to act on precaution) as ehtiyat is for the person who is unable to decide who is the A'alam. Tab'eedh is an option for those who deem all the maraja' to be equal.

If it is absurd to claim that one jurist is more knowledgeable than the other, surely it should also be absurd to proclaim that they are all equal? After all, in both cases you're attempting to measure the knowledge of one jurist against the other, only that in one case you recognize one as being more knowledgeable, and in the other you recognize each and every one of them as being exactly equal. It is the same comparison with different conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
After all, in both cases you're attempting to measure the knowledge of one jurist against the other, only that in one case you recognize one as being more knowledgeable, and in the other you recognize each and every one of them as being exactly equal. It is the same comparison with different conclusions.

(wasalam) Brother no two human beings on the face of the eart are exactly equal in knowledge. Read the above article in context. What is necessary for tab'eed is the belief in relative equality in knowledge between jurists not exact equality. Shaykh 'Arif seems to believe this suppostion is plausable and so do I. Don't you?

You have 26 graduates from the same university with the same credentials and they studied the same material and learned the same methodologies and they all graduated with straight A's with honors. Not 1 among them demonstrated in any way shape or form that he outshined any of his co-graduates. Can it not easily be assumed that they are about the same in knowledge? Of course it can.

Hasanain Rajabali in the recent revert conference in Toronto also argued in favor of tab'eed in this day and age. Read

http://revertmuslims.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3661

for details. I will quote:

I think you should post the question to the scholars. But I would say that based on a lecture at the reverts' conference on taqlid that I would think the answer is yes. In fact, Hasnain Rajabali basically said that if as far as you understand it several maraje are at about the same level of knowledge and ranking the best over all, then you can pick and choose fatawa between them at will even if their risalahs don't say that.

Well that is exactly what he said you COULD do, in his opinion. I know that is controversial, but that is what he said. As long as there is not one clear marja better than all the rest, if several are about equal, he said you could do that even though it is not written in the risalahs that way. He said some maraje do allow that now, and he felt even if a particular marje didn't allow it since others did you could still do it; but if someone is not comfortable with that, you can still pick just one. He said either way fulfills your obligation of taqlid. Shaykh Saleem Bhimji was sitting right next to him when he said it and did not speak up to say he disagreed with that opinion. But you could always ask, as I first suggested.

I am only repeating what was said by Hasanain Rajabali. That is all I can tell you, I can't provide any more information about who has what opinion about it, which maraje have similar views, or what not. One could always follow any of them if one took the path of precaution, but now I guess some are saying the path of precaution is not required if they are all equal level - i.e. that you don't have to pick the hardest ruling among all of them, you can pick any ruling among all of them, if the scholars are all recognized as willing and qualified of having people follow them in taqlid. Apparently Hasanain Rajabali believes it permissible to do so enough to say so to many people in a lecture about taqlid.

People are enemies of what they are ignorant of. I forgive the rude posts about me above. Yaghfirullahu li wa lakum inshallah. Wassalaam.

Edited by soulfulharmonydotcom
Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope Ayatullah Sistani forgives rude posts and insinuations/accusations against him too. Yaghfirullahu li wa lakum inshallah.

My dear brother if anyone has insulted Ayatullah Sistani here it is you because you in your zeal to appear witty apparently used sarcastic remarks with no fear of God and said the following and I will quote:

One point to be noted is that the extremist Ayatullah Sistani who is making Islam hard and crossing the limits set by Imams isn't the only one who forbids shaving the sides. Ayatullah Khamenei forbids it too.

You apparently lack Akhlaaq and Adab. Can't you see this is a fiqh discussion forum? We are looking at the possible reasons for the opinions of jurists. Relax and don't get a heart attack. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. Nobody here made any rude insinuations or accusations against Ayatullah Sistani. It is all in your imagination and due to your Su al-Zann bil Mu'mineen. You are the one insinuating that I intended to disparge Ayatullah Sistani. I am only asking why he ruled as he did.

I just asked an 'Alim and he told me the answer. He said Sistani's and Khamanei's obligatory precaution ruling is not technically an edict. It is an exclamation that they are admitting that they are not sure on this issue about where the right course of action lies so they say we see some evidence to say beard and some to say no beard so we will say full beard based on obligatory precaution and if another qualified jurist by chance has researched the issue and came to a decisive conclusion on this issue by all means you are allowed to emulate that jurist on this issue. Guess what? Saanei is a qualified jurist who has arrived at a decisive conclusion; a fatwa not ihtiyaat that shaving the beard is permissible! Is the issue settled now?

Subhanallah wa bihamdihi astaghfirullaha li wa lakum

Assalaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakaatuh.

Edited by soulfulharmonydotcom
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If this is how you carry on a fiqhi discussion then it is you, dear brother, who lacks basic adab and akhlaq.

You said:

Sistani is even more restrictive then what our Imams told us to do and by making Islam harder than it really is Islam becomes heavy when it was designed to be lite and easy and Islam becomes like a "turkey" whose wings are not strong enough to let it fly.

So you are accusing him of turning Islam into something weak and going a step ahead of our Imams [as].

Maybe learning a little of Arabic grammar and referring to a few ahadith has made you so arrogant that you will "reform" Islam and save it from people like Sistani.

You are claiming you were just "asking a question". A question can be asked in many ways. And yours lacked all the akhlaq that you pretend to posses.

Edited by Whizbee
Link to post
Share on other sites

You people are in the dark. There are very few enlightened people among you. You have no idea what is going on in juristic circles do you? Ayatullah Saanei says that most jurists of today are petrified fossilized devout ignoramuses. I am not saying he is talking about Ayatullah Sistani. You be the judge.

I already explained that making too many edicts based on obligatory precaution actually makes a superstructure over the real shari'ah that is heavy and encumbering. It prevents the spread of Islam. For example several jurists like Fadlullah, Jannaati, Saanei and Nasir Makarim say all humans are tahir. Sistani says hindus and athiests are najis. Now explain to me how can one logically expect our people to spread Islam in India and former communist Russia if we believe those people are as impure as dogs and pigs? If you were a hindu and I said to you I think you are impure as a dog and I can't eat your food nor drink from your cup but I want you to be Muslim what would be your reaction?

Anyway here is a quote from RMA about backward jurists. Enjoy.

http://revertmuslims.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3504

In recent times, there has been much debate in Muslim circles regarding the question of reformation in the Muslim world. More specifically, questions that have been posed include: how can a religion, which is believed to be immutable and constant, regulate and serve the needs of a changing community? How can a legal system that was formulated in the eighth and ninth centuries respond to the requirements of twenty-first century Muslims? Is there a need for reformation in Islam? If so, where should it begin and in which direction should it proceed? These are some of the most challenging questions facing contemporary scholars of Islam

Jurists who argue for the reformulation of Islamic laws also maintain that the interpretations of Islamic revelation were interwoven to the specificity of those times and places. They state that jurists can only pronounce general principles, not rulings that are to be enforced at all times and places. For the reform-minded jurists, it is essential that Muslims continue to review and revise the law in keeping with the dictates of their changing circumstances.

Scholars like Ayatullah Sanei, Ayatullah Jannati, Ayatullah Mohagheg Damad, Hujjatul-Islam Muhsin Sa‘idzadeh and Mohsen Kadivar have called for a reevaluation of traditional juridical pronouncements on many issues. As a matter of fact, in my discussions with some maraji‘, I detected a distinct silent revolution within in the seminaries in Qum. The views of the maraji‘ are, on many important issues, polarized. According to the contemporary jurist Ayatullah Mohagheg Damad, since civil rules are variable, Islamic laws must change accordingly. Thus, in our own times, Islamic legal rulings must be reinterpreted based on the principle of harm and benefits and other principles established in usul al-fiqh (the science of inferring juridical rulings from textual and rational sources). Stated differently, there is a need to enact laws that are conducive to the welfare of the community even though such laws are not found in earlier texts.

Based on such principles, jurists in Iran have proposed a wide range of revision in classical formulations. Scholars like Mohsen Kadivar have argued for freedom of religious thought and belief. He states that there is no Qur’anic basis for the killing of apostates (murtad) and the imposition of religion on infidels. Restrictions in religious liberty and the persecution of heathens, he argues, contradict the essence of freedom of conscience in the Qur’an. There is a need for freedom to enter a religion and leave it. The choice between a particular religion and death is tantamount to denying people their freedom. The Qur’an endorses the logic of freedom of religion and creed. Khadivar concludes.

Ayatullah Bojnourdi, a former member of the Supreme Judicial Council in Iran, advocates for a change in the Islamic penal code. He maintains that if the process for execution of penalty (stoning) results in the denigration of Islam and causes the people, especially the youth, to demean the religion, then the process should then be revised so that the image of Islam should not be tarnished. If flogging in the public arena creates a negative impression regarding Islam, such a practice should be abandoned. This is because the preservation of the dignity and prestige of Islam is the prime task and a duty that has priority over other obligations.

According to Ayatullah Sanei, “..since the subject [women’s situation] has changed, the framework of civil laws must change too. Our current laws are in line with the traditional society of the past, whereas these civil laws should be in line with contemporary realities and relations in our own society.” Sanei maintains that women can be judges, their testimony is equal to that of men, the blood money to be paid for killing of a woman is equal to that of killing a man, and that salvation is not restricted to Muslims. Another mujtahid, Ayatullah Jannati allows women to be not only mujtahids but also a source of reference (marji‘ al-taqlid) i.e., she can issue juridical rulings that both men and women can follow.

Sanei has gone further than most other scholars. In my discussions with him he allowed women to lead men in prayers, even in a public setting. Most maraji‘ have insisted that only men can lead other men in prayers. Sanei admits that there are petrified fossilized devout ignoramuses who prevent such reforms in the law to take place. It has to be stated that many other jurists disagree with the reform-minded jurists. Such polarization indicates that far from being monolithic, Islamic law is multi-vocal and that there are differing opinions on some of the most important issues in Islamic jurisprudence. Indeed, such ikhtilaf has been an enduring phenomenon in Islamic history.

Liyakatali Nathani Takim

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So brothers and sisters, there you have it.

Islam is actually a plaything in our hands to change rules to make it "modern".

Thanks for your very informative post, brother. I really did enjoy reading it.

Let's disregard all ahadith about women and inheritance, about the kuffar being najis, about not shaving so that everyone starts loving Islam. Or whatever remains of it after the "makeover".

Ingenious. MashAllah.

Edited by Whizbee
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
So brothers and sisters, there you have it.

Islam is actually a plaything in our hands to change rules to make it "modern".

Thanks for your very informative post, brother. I really did enjoy reading it.

Let's disregard all ahadith about women and inheritance, about the kuffar being najis, about not shaving so that everyone starts loving Islam. Or whatever remains of it after the "makeover".

Ingenious. MashAllah.

[Edited]

Edited by inshaAllah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

So brothers and sisters, there you have it.

Islam is actually a plaything in our hands to change rules to make it "modern".

Thanks for your very informative post, brother. I really did enjoy reading it.

Let's disregard all ahadith about women and inheritance, about the kuffar being najis, about not shaving so that everyone starts loving Islam. Or whatever remains of it after the "makeover".

Ingenious. MashAllah.

Using the logic you put forth are we to conclude that there are to be no alternative prespectives/interpretations on issues?

Ayatollah Sanei has a fatwa in which he states that shaving of the beard is not haram. Why is this hard to swallow? Did he make this ruling out of the blue as you seem to allege while "disregarding the ahadith"?

Did you know that Ayatollah Alozma Jannati considers the meat slaughtered by Jews & Christians to be permissible to consume? Just check out his official website. I guess he just "made up" this ruling as well.

Now about the Kuffar being najis, Soulofharmony stated:

For example several jurists like Fadlullah, Jannaati, Saanei and Nasir Makarim say all humans are tahir. Sistani says hindus and athiests are najis. Now explain to me how can one logically expect our people to spread Islam in India and former communist Russia if we believe those people are as impure as dogs and pigs? If you were a hindu and I said to you I think you are impure as a dog and I can't eat your food nor drink from your cup but I want you to be Muslim what would be your reaction?

Soulofharmony quoted from an article which stated:

Another mujtahid, Ayatullah Jannati allows women to be not only mujtahids but also a source of reference (marji� al-taqlid) i.e., she can issue juridical rulings that both men and women can follow.

Sanei has gone further than most other scholars. In my discussions with him he allowed women to lead men in prayers, even in a public setting.

These are Shia Marja's making these rulings or do you think they just come w/ these things for sake of "modernity"?

Since I am not a Shia and you are let me ask you this:

As a Shia aren't you supposed to respect the judgement and knowledge of your scholars?

[Edited]

Edited by inshaAllah
Link to post
Share on other sites
So brothers and sisters, there you have it.

Islam is actually a plaything in our hands to change rules to make it "modern".

Thanks for your very informative post, brother. I really did enjoy reading it.

Let's disregard all ahadith about women and inheritance, about the kuffar being najis, about not shaving so that everyone starts loving Islam. Or whatever remains of it after the "makeover".

Ingenious. MashAllah.

Mr. Whizbee your excessive sarcasm does not make you look witty or intelligent. Why don't you speak plainly and straight forward. If you don't understand something just ask with humility and please stop being so arrogant. There are two elements in Islamic law, static elements and dynamic elements. No one can change certain static elements like 5 prayers a day and fasting in the month of Ramadan etc. Then there are dynamic elements and those Islamic Laws that were revealed regarding a few social issues 1400 years ago are dynamic not static. For example the Qur'an says men are Qawwaam over women and women are dependent on men in the context of permanent marriage. Did Islam make that a static law or a dynamic law? Was this merely the stating of a fact of social inequality 1400 years ago in Arab society and Allah making Islamic laws as such to protect and shelter the disadvantaged gender at the price of her independence or did Allah intend to always keep women below men in rank regardless of social changes in the future? Is it clear now? Some jurists are too ignorant to realize that certain elements of Islamic law are dynamic and are meant to be customized according to social changes and some laws are meant to be static and immutable until the last day such as the ritualistic laws of worship etc. Don't you see that most women in modern societes are no longer needy of men in our times? Social change has indeed made woman equal to men so should not Islamic law also be customized to fit her growth since 1400 years? Yes or No? Do you not want equal inheritance? Do you not want equal testimony? Do you not want equal custody of children? Saanei is your savior. He has been sent to liberate women and give them power as they deserve for all their hard work and sacrifice. Women are amazing. They are smart, hardworking, compassionate (usually) humble and loving creatures. I believe most women of today are better than men, much better. They deserve to be treated equal to men from the social islamic law point of view. You should demand your entitled rights and not be such a pacifist knowitall. It reminds me of Shaykh Ahmad Deedat's story about how he would explain to untouchable hindu women that they are not lower than other castes and hey would cry nahee nahee, God has ordained that we be subordinate to others in this life, lol. Wake up and stop being so disrespectful to Ayatullah Saanei your master and liberator. Ayatullah Saanei is a giant for women's rights in Iran. He is one of your strongest advocates and warriors to protect your rights? Is this how your show your gratititude? Don't you know that the Prophet said (sawa) that Islam started strange and will return strange so blessed be the strangers? What does that mean? You are too ignorant to realize that Ayatullah Saanei is a real helper of Imam al-Mahdi (as). You are not even worthy to kiss the dust on his boot. May Allah forgive you and guide you. Why don't you reveal your gender? Are you ashamed to reveal that Allah created you as a woman? Do you think it impious to reveal your gender on a public anonymous forum? You are really a very self-righteous pious person aren't you? Your type of people are the 2nd worst enemy of Muslims today, the first are the Malang Akhbari literalist knowitalls and the second are those who refuse to acknowledge that Islamic Law also has dynamic social elements that are meant to change according to the needs of the times. Stop living in the dark-ages. If you want to be true to yourself stop driving cars and flying plains and using computers. Why don't you go live on some deserted island in India with the natives? Why do you accept modernity in some elements and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that certain Islamic laws are designed to also change according to social change? I hope I have helped you understand somewhat. If not you perhaps some others will get some understanding and insight into this issue. I will leave it to the other enlightened few on this forum who are usually silent. Please stand up and speak the truth. We can't fight this battle alone. We need helpers.

Assalaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakaatuh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
...a woman might decide to ask a question to a clean shaved person on the street thinking that he is a woman.

wa `alaykum assalam

I know that you did not directly imply as much, but I do want to clarify that it is not haram for a woman to speak to a man.

* íÌæÒ ááÃÌäÈíÉ ÅÓãÇÚ ÕæÊåÇ ááÃÌÇäÈ¡ ÅáÇ ãÚ ÎæÝ ÇáæÞæÚ Ýí ÇáÍÑÇã.Á

(ÇáÝÞå ááãÛÊÑÈíä¡ ÔÄæä ÇáäÓÇÁ¡ ã #505)

t is permissible for [a non-mahram woman] to make herself be heard by non-mahram men except when there is fear of getting sucked into a haram act.

(Minhaj as-Salihin, Vol 2, p 15 as quoted in A Code of Practice for Muslims in the West, Women's Issues, General Rules, #458)

* Women are permitted to speak to non-mahram men as long as the following conditions are met: 1) The speaking is not done with the intention of lust and seeking sexual pleasure. 2) The woman does not make her voice soft and attractive. 3) There is no fear of falling into corruption. When a woman is speaking to a man, she must not make her voice pleasing and soft... (A Code of Ethics for Muslim Men and Women, compiled by Sayyid Mas`ud Ma`sumi, translated by Arifa Hudda and Saleem Bhimji; Chapter III: Rules Related to Socializing, Part II: Women Talking to Non-Mahram Men, rules 182-183, pp104-105; rulings obtained from Minhaj as-Salihin and Risalah Tawdih al Masa'il)

* [Mut`ah] is not required [in order to discuss and talk with someone of the opposite sex on the internet]. -Asgharali M.M. Jaffer (as posted on Dar es Salaam Tabligh www.dartablish.org retrieved Sat 01 Mar 2008 17:27 +0100 CET and Fri 25 Apr 2008 13:00 by self)

* There is no harm in men listening [to recordings of ladies' Islamic classes] for the described purpose [the discussions are informative]. -Asgharli M.M. Jaffer (as posted on Dar es Salaam Tabligh www.dartabligh.org retrieved Sat 01 Mar 2008 17:33 +0100 CET and Fri 25 Apr 2008 13:00 by self)

* A woman can be as active, or more so, as any other man in many fields. She can lead public policy campaigns. She can organize fund raising drives to build a mosque. She can host public gatherings. And for all these acts Allah will reward her regardless of her gender: [Qur'an 3:95] (Sayed Mohammad Mahdi al Husseini al Modaressi, as posted on Shiachat.com with ID Almodaress and timestamp 23 Jun 2004 retrieved Fri 25 Apr 2008 12:30 p.m. by self)

* [it is permissible] to attend a social gathering (non-Religious or non-Educational) in which women are in complete, proper hijab. [There is no problem in] a Muslim tak[ing] part in lectures, Seminars, etc. in which women are in complete, proper hijab. (Sistani.org Q&A: Interaction in Social Life cid=506)

Regarding the beard, I have been able to find the following:

A Code of Practice for Muslims in the West, Youths' Issues, General Rules

507. Based on obligatory precaution it is not permissible for a man to shave his beard. Similarly, it is not permissible for him to just leave the hair on his chin and shave the sides. This too is based on obligatory precaution.

508. A Muslim is allowed to shave his beard, if he is compelled to do so or if he is forced to shave it for medical reasons, etc. It also allowed if he fears harm to his life by not shaving or if growing the beard would put him in difficulty (for example, if it becomes a cause of ridicule and humiliation that is not normally tolerable by a Muslim).

In the next section, "questions and Answers, there is some more:

519. Question: If a person commits haram by shaving his beard by razor blade on day one, is it permissible for him to do the same on the second, the third, the fourth day and so on?

Answer: It is precautionarily compulsory to refrain from it.

520. Question: At times the big companies in Europe discriminate —among those who come to them seeking jobs— between those who shave the irbeards and those who don’t shave them. If this is true, then is it permissible to be clean shaven in order to get the job?

Answer: Shaving the beard —whose prohibition is based on obligatory precaution— would not become permissible just by the desire to get a job with these companies.

521. Question: Is it permissible to shave the two sides of the face and leave the hair on the chin?

Answer: Shaving the beard is haram based on obligatory precaution, and this includes the hair that grows on the sides of the face. However, there is no problem in shaving the hair that grows on the cheeks. (repeated as Q115 in Contemporary Legal Rulings in Shi'i Law, Mu`amalat, Part 2, Beard)

There were also some Q&As on the DarTabligh site:

Dar es Salaam Tabligh Q&A

http://www.dartabligh.org

Beard

QUESTION 1

With reference to Question and Answer No. 115 in the book on Contemporary Legal Rulings in Shi'i Law (in accordance with the rulings (fatawa) of Ayatullah Al-Uzma Al-Seyyid 'Ali Al-Husayni Al-Seestani Dama-Dhilluhu) and translated into English by Br. Hamid Mawani sates: Q. Some men shave their beard and leave some hair on the chin alone. Is this sufficient by the Shari'ah? A. (It is not sufficient). FM, p.434.

Does it mean that wearing beard on the chin only is not acceptable and by that defination a person would lose his adaalat?

ANSWER

My understanding of this Question is that it refers to people who shave the beard leaving only some hair on the chin i.e. when one sees the hair on the chin, one would not call it a beard.

However, if one leaves a proper beard on the chin (not just some hair), then this would suffice according to the shari'a. Thus one would not lose his 'adala

And Allah knows best

Liyakatali

Beard

QUESTION 3

I am 19 yrs old. I am of taqlid of Ayatullah Ali al-Seestani. I used to have a full beard and I shaved, now i have just beard on the chin. (by chin I mean the beard covers the chin completely and towards the moustache). My dad doesn't mind me having a full beard but my mother dosen't agree to it. My question: is it okay to shave from a full beard to just some beard on the chin. Keeping in mind that the mother's acceptance is important in Islam also.

Thank you

ANSWER 3

Salaamun 'alaykum,

The growth of the beard that you described (covering the chin) is sufficient. Having the full beard is not wajib.

Also, please note that on Shar'i issues, one has to fulfill what is incumbent even if the parents object to it.

With salaams,

Liyakatali Takim

Edited by pink
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

(bismillah)

(salam)

You have 26 graduates from the same university with the same credentials and they studied the same material and learned the same methodologies and they all graduated with straight A's with honors. Not 1 among them demonstrated in any way shape or form that he outshined any of his co-graduates. Can it not easily be assumed that they are about the same in knowledge? Of course it can

Thankyou for your reply, brother.

The important thing to note here is that the case being discussed is very different to graduating from a same university with same grades and same degrees. As you know, Islamic studies may roughly resemble this in their initial stages but as you advance it becomes much more complex and diverse.

The same goes for academic studies. Up to the bachelor degree, there is a certain homogeneity. The masters cycle is already a lot more independant and the doctorate (PHD) is almost completely independant, far beyond the classroom method.

The fuqaha have not studied at the same schools, under the same teachers, or for the same amount of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
If you don't understand something just ask with humility and please stop being so arrogant.

You mean the same humility that you display when you say:

You people are in the dark. There are very few enlightened people among you. You have no idea what is going on in juristic circles do you? Ayatullah Saanei says that most jurists of today are petrified fossilized devout ignoramuses.

I'll try. :rolleyes:

Do you not want equal inheritance?

No.

Do you not want equal testimony?

No.

Do you not want equal custody of children?

No.

Saanei is your savior.

Prophet Muhammad [saw] was the savior of the whole mankind.

He has been sent to liberate women and give them power as they deserve for all their hard work and sacrifice. Women are amazing. They are smart, hardworking, compassionate (usually) humble and loving creatures. I believe most women of today are better than men, much better. They deserve to be treated equal to men from the social islamic law point of view. You should demand your entitled rights and not be such a pacifist knowitall.

You wrongly assume that lesser inheritance, guardianship and dependence on men make women inferior to men.

I disagree.

Men and women are equal but different and no social changes can alter that reality. I don't need any man or women to "liberate" me from the laws brought by Rasulallah [saw].

Wake up and stop being so disrespectful to Ayatullah Saanei your master and liberator.

Is this guy for real LOL :lol:

Why don't you reveal your gender? Are you ashamed to reveal that Allah created you as a woman? Do you think it impious to reveal your gender on a public anonymous forum?

I do realize that you don't have very many gray cells buzzing up there but if you really are so obsessed with my gender, it's there on my profile for all to see. Don't tell me you didn't know we had something called profiles on ShiaChat. ^_^

You are really a very self-righteous pious person aren't you?

Yes, veeeeeeeeery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...