₦airaland Forum

Demmzy15:
^^^It's a pity he can't reason beyond sectarianism, everything is sectarian. A non-Muslim doesn't know something about Islam, he jumps in and derails with his "Shia persecution" rubbish. Very pathetic!

there is nothing sectarian. i do not know why it hurts you guys to point out the rot called wahhabism that has eaten up the body of Islam. i am actually doing you guys favor by pointing finger at wahhabism instead of having all and about a billion Sunnis held responsible for their atrocities. or is Saudi petro dollars too sweet for you guys to face the truth? the Quran says we should be just even against our own selves. you guys want to cover up because they chant empty slogans that are disguised as Islamic. how can i not say the truth when week in and week out dozens and dozens of Iraqis are targeted in sectarian attacks? you guys pretend as if it is a normal thing. why are the iraqis targeted? because they are Shia! and by who? you know the answer. the same attacks happen around the world. if it is not the Shia targeted, it is Christians and other faiths. faith-based killings are un-Islamic. so what do you say about those so called Muslims who carry such killings? will you blame shaitan or will you blame their satanic pseudo-scholars who have indoctrinated them and spread killer takfiri fatwas? this thread is all about diagnosis and treatment. i am not Wahhabi, and i will continue to speak the truth. i do not want to be held responsible for the atrocities bloodsuckers commit in the name of Muslim unity or whatever empty slogan. from now till Qiyama, Wahhabism is terrorism. simple.

sino:
Oga Ade! I did not put words in your mouth, I only responded to your statement of "300 being insignificant" accordingly. I used somewhat coerced, you even opined that the basis of this fatwa was due to the strict law on homosexuals in Iran, and if you had watched the videos, one of them actually said he wouldn't have gone for the sex change, there was even an argument in the video number 4 about the fatwa. The fatwa was the propelling force to go ahead with the surgery, if the fatwa wasn't there, these guys would still be guys!
Anyways, I pray innocent people would understand Islam more and not fall into this horrible trap called fatwa, people with homosexual tendencies or other issues pertaining to their sex and sexuality should rather go to a psychiatrist and seek professional help, instead of compounding their woes...

thanks for your fatwa...i'd rather have one from a learned scholar. your fatwa is based on selective judgment, and more likely exceptions. and your solution may still not suffice for those who may say "had there been a fatwa permitting sex change...".

anyways, thanks a lot "Ayatollah Sino".

Empiree:
So it is narrowed down to "Wahabbism" now?. Dont get caught up in that sectarian trash, sir. Did you even study "Wahabi"'s oil connection with the West in the time of ruling king Faisal?. Then US secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger who cajoled the King to sell oil for US $$. The king fell for it in direct violation of Allah's Law. The West is happy and there is no such thing as terrorism bcus its all work i their favor.

Later, the King Faisal publicly voiced his support for the struggles of his muslim brothers in Palestine being persecuted by the zionists, which is not in the best interest of the West. What did they do?. They killed him(terrorism). King Faisal was shot point-blank and killed by his half-brother's son, Faisal bin Musaid, who had just come back from the United States. The dude returned from US with brief cases filled with $$$. That's blood money funded by the CIA. Before this time, we don't necessarily hear "wahabi terrorists" until after this incident. So basically, they got rid of Islamic man of peace who was misguided but later woke up from his slumber. The moment he returned to his Islamic senses, they got rid of him. So do you care if this isn't act of terrorism?. That's the start of it.

So now,, I have every right to say after the King's name, King Faisal (rahimohum Llahu - May God have mercy on him). Remember it was this King that completely abolished slavery in the peninsula in 1962. You may need to inform yourself on this issue of "petro-dollar". That's the genesis of terrorism. King Faisal did not want to be part of it until he was seduced by the US. He wanted to use "Sunna money" legislated by the Qur'an.

stop living in denial. King Faisal is an exception and you are right, but the extremism in wahhabism did not start after his assassination. King Faisal wanted to disobey those who made them be. and he got served, however unfortunate that was. and for your info, Shia do have favorable view of King Faisal, at least for standing up for his Sunni brothers in Palestine, which today most Sunni Arab countries have abandoned, and mainly the Shia are showing support for palestine. however, King Faisal was not a cleric. the extremism in wahhabism, based on Ibn Taymiyya's and Ibn Abdul Wahab's teachings preceded the birth of Faisal and the killings of wahhabism too. the ransacking of the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala (iraq) based on takfir and the murder of thousands of Shia preceded Faisal. also, al-saud's subservient to the west preceded him. so they got rid of him. and he was an individual. even among the most pathetic and hated rulers of Banu Umayyah, you still find Umar Ibn Aziz has an exception to the inhumanity of the over 30 caliphs from the Ummayad dynasty. so if Faisal is an exception, you can use him to judge wahhabism and al-saud. the west are only after their interests. if today the Shia and Shia powers agree to lick their a$$es, the face of middle east politics and the map of the muslim world will change 180 degrees.

Seun:
What can be done about the Wahabi school of Islam, which is being funded by Saudi Arabians? Is terrorism here to stay until their oil is gone?

Fantastic questions, Seun!

first question is what can be done about the Wahhabi school of Islam?

answer: Wahhabism is not even a school of Islam. it claims to be part and parcel of Sunni Islam. however, it is distinct in its extremism and Takfiri preaching and killing. Wahhabism is more or less an ideological movement. i think calling it a "school of Islam" is giving it more than it deserves.

going to the essence of the question, this can be best answered by the Western powers. they created and sponsored al-Saud and the Wahhabi ideology for their interests. when they see that it no longer serves their interests, then they will tell us or show us what they will do. al-Saud are needed to serve western interests and also ensure the oil keep flowing. Wahhabism is used to fight for western interests in Afghanistan against the soviet union and in Syria against bashar al-assad and his allies, namely Iran and Hezbollah (staunch anti-Zionist/Israeli occupation and pro-Palestinian), and to a lesser extent Russian influence.

the second question is, Is terrorism here to stay till the oil is gone?

well, the oil does not have to go for there to be a solution. there can be many solutions. the "saudi oil" is found in the Eastern Province of present day saudi arabia. the Eastern Province is majority Shia. and one way to cut the Wahhabi of money they use to sponsor madrassas in Pakistan, and spread extremist literature in Africa and build Wahhabi mosques in Europe to radicalize Sunni Muslim youths, is to stop the oil money, the petro dollars. that would mean the Eastern Province will have to secede. that is one fear the saudis have for their opposition to the rise of the majority Shia Arab population in neighboring Iraq. the Shia Arab population, once they settle down and gain more affluence will surely gain more influence. Iraq shares a land border with saudi. and unlike Iran, the Iraqi Shia population is Arabic speaking. there is not ethnic bias here. if Iran wants to interfere, like in the case of the Saudi Shia cleric Nimr al Nimr who was beheaded, saudi is quick to scream that Iran is interfering in the affairs of arab countries. iraq is majority arab and majority shia. so that is a thorn for saudis, thus the instability in iraq and the bloodshed. the aim is to make sure iraq does not enjoy stability and peace, and gain strength from its oil money. they feel a powerful Shia majority and Shia led country like Iraq can pose grave consequences for the saudi Shia factor in the oil rich Eastern Province. seceding would mean cutting off the life support oxygen for Wahhabism and its spread.

another means could be direct western military intervention, as has been the case in several Muslim countries. this may be farfetched as the holy land factor can play into the advantage of the saudis. it can risk a world war for western powers to attack a country that houses the holiest places in Islam, even though most muslims are ignorant of the fact that al-saud and their wahhabi clerics got control of these places through bloodshed and by eliminating sunni arabian tribes in the arabian peninsula.

the last option could be pressure from the west, and having an internal coup. this wont also work because the wahhabi clerics are too influential and powerful. there was a survey in which majority of saudis showed approval for isis. the imam of Makkah, appointed by the saudi govt, declared that the saudis (i.e. wahhabis in saudis) have the same beliefs as isis.

in my own view, may be you can say out of bias as a Shia, is for the western powers to make sure that the eastern province secedes. that would start with the liberation of bahrain, a majority shia arab country ruled by a brutal sunni monarchy in allegiance to saudi arabia. saudi sent troops to quell the peaceful revolution in bahrain.

however, it is unfortunate that the Iranian factor plays against the interests of Shia Muslims, be they Shia Arabs or even Shia Africans. the iranian factor has made the biased western media to turn a blind eye on our peaceful teachings and peaceful conduct as Shia. Iran wants to be a power to reckon with. Iran also has historical differences with the USA which sponsored a coup in Iran in 1953 against a democratically elected iranian govt. and anti-iranian policies by the USA through its puppet, the former king of Iran (shah) has made Iranian-US relations uneasy most at times, until recently. general, due to religious affinity, most Shias worldwide have a positive disposition towards Iran. Iran also opposes israel. there is the israel factor. so until Iran and the USA can meet eye to eye and settle their differences on all issues, it will be hard for the Shia to be viewed with trust, even though the mistrust is built on political rivalry in respect to iran than real threat posed by Shia.

so the west really have to say enough is enough to wahhabism. saudi has american military bases and also bahrain. so who or how will anyone stop wahhabism? they are protected by the world's strongest military. and the saudi population is docile towards the political establishment because the opium of religion (wahhabism) is strong on them.

i hope this has answered your questions, to the best of my knowledge and maybe, prejudices!

Farmerforlife:
و إياكم اخي.
Actually, most shia polemics are a study in tadlees, partial narration of hadith, and weak or false historical stories, usually from known liars like alWaqidi. Remember that they have no hadith or history of their own except the ones they made up. I think ot was imam Shafi'ee that said about them that they make up stories, then take these as sources for their deen.
May Allah guide them all.

There is a saying that the dead man and the stupid man are both the same. They do not feel the pain but those around them do.

You talk of tadlees, but that is what you're using to claim it is the Shia using tadlees.

For God's sake, can't you open your eyes and see how misled you are?

A Hadith exist that Abu Bakr angered Fatima (as), and whoever angers/hurt her has hurt the Prophet (s). You guys have another parallel Hadith pointing finger that Imam Ali (as) also angered her. So Abu Bakr and Imam Ali (as) are "same"!!! While evidently, the Hadith that Imam Ali (as) angered her is internally on its own standing and in its own wordings a fabrication because to the very least the Hadith condemning Imam Ali (as) discredits the Prophet! And Imam Ali (as) angering her and later, based on the fabricated Hadith, changed and repented, doesn't negate that she died in a state of anger with Abu Bakr. Two wrongs do not make a right. And I hope you will see why we believe your so called love for the Ahlul-Bayt (as), right from the time of your predecessors, is not genuine love.

The second Hadith, you have the same and exact situation. A Hadith exists in your sahih Muslim whereby Umar, Abbass (ra) and Imam Ali (as) consider Abu Bakr as sinful, treacherous and dishonest liar. You have a parallel Hadith where Abbass (ra) is claimed to have described Imam Ali (as) with exactly the same wordings. ma sha Allah!!! You see why you guys can hardly break free from the yolk of the fabrications of Banu Umayyah and your so called Hadith books?

Ok, let us agree for argument sake that Abbass (ra) also used the exact wordings on Imam Ali (as) that Umar used on Abu Bakr regarding what Abbass (ra) and Imam Ali (as) thought of Abu Bakr. A simple question for you. Both hadiths are in your sahih book. Isn't it common sense and fair therefore that the wordings qualifying both Abu Bakr and Imam Ali (as) as "sinful, treacherous and dishonest liar" be used by you to condemn both Imam Ali (as) and Abu Bakr? You still consider both as "rightly guided caliphs". That is a silly thing to do!

We are Shia and we do not believe in your so called sahih books to judge our Imam Ali (as). But we can use your sahih book to judge your first caliph Abu Bakr and even your so called fourth caliph (i.e. Imam Ali). So you should abide by what is found in your sahih book and accept that your so called rightly guided caliphs were nothing but "sinful, treacherous and dishonest liars".

Besides, it is the least of my concern regarding what Abass (ra) thought of Imam Ali (as) even if I'm to accept both Hadiths for argument sake. To me Abbass (ra) is just another Muslim, regardless of his standing as a good or bad Muslim or a sahabi. What concerns both of us and is relevant to our discussion is what was Imam Ali's (as) position on Fadak and on Abu Bakr's false testimony that prophets do not leave inheritance, a claim that contradicts the evidence in the Holy Quran.

Let us go even a step further, do you really believe Imam Ali (as) will claim what doesn't belong to him? I can conveniently say both Abass and Abu Bakr were wrong, and only Imam Ali (as) was right even if I wholeheartedly accept both narrations. There is no problem because the words of Abbass (ra), a fallible man is not proof for me to accept. There is even no justification for Abbass (ra) to used such wordings against Imam Ali (as) because Imam Ali (as) did not tangibly take or deny Abass (ra) of anything even if they had difference of opinion, again assuming for argument sake both narrations are to be accepted. But the words and thoughts of Imam Ali (as) are proof for the both of us because he is your "fourth rightly guided caliph" and he is my first infallible and divinely appointed Imam. So what Imam Ali (as) thought of Abu Bakr is of immense importance to us both and what Abbass (ra) or whoever thinks of Imam Ali (as) has no relevance to us because the position Imam Ali (as) is to us both is higher than that of Abbass (ra) and only the words of the Prophet Muhammad (s) in describing Imam Ali (as) will suffice.

But coming back to the parallel narrations regarding the same wordings and the same instance that condemn Abu Bakr must also condemn Imam Ali (as) in your so called sahih hadith book. Don't you have the slightest of doubt that there is foul play by your Sunni predecessors who compiled these narrations? And yet you haven't rejected both Abu Bakr and Imam Ali (as), but you're always quick to use these fabrications against the Shia when they point the ills of Abu Bakr. Your argument is not based on opposing evil. Rather it is based on using a supposed or alleged evil to justify another evil and vindicate its perpetrator (Abu Bakr) instead of treading the path of sincerity and rejecting both evils if you're truthful.

These short exhortations are meant to wake you up if you have an atom of a conscience. Don't you see from these instances how misled you are and how you have been placed in bondage through distorted hadiths and history? The same goes about the merits of Imam Ali (as). Every unique merit of Imam Ali (as) is attributed also to Abu Bakr and umar. And every demerit of Abu Bakr and umar are shared and attributed to Imam Ali (as).

Don't your have ears to hear and eyes to see?

quickly:
I value u more than Arab or Mohammed value u as an african. To bedouin Arab or Mohammed u are a slave, adescendants of conquered fellow wey Don swallow banana plus peel.
They already captured u I dey try free u
Arab software needs to be removed from u r brain

you and the Takfiri think alike. those verses from the Quran you misquoted and misinterpreted are conditioned on the below verses, and all the verses to fight have their contexts. they are not carte blanche. if those verses to justify fight do not meet the below requirements, then it is not an Islamic fight, it is not Jihad as per prophetic standards and it is not Quranic.

Holy Quran 22:39-41
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.[And they are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give zakah and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of [all] matters.

HOLY QURAN 2:190:
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

HOLY QURAN 8:61
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that Heareth and Knoweth (all things)."

HOLY QURAN 16:126
"And if ye do punish them, punish them no worse than they punished you: but if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient."

HOLY QURAN 41:34
"Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!"

Farmerforlife:
Your response is too amateurish to warrant a rejoinder. I assume that people who are discerning and think logically should be able to find the gaping flaws in your childish arguments without any input from me. I will only respond if I am asked a question by someone else, who is genuinely interested.
I also see that you have no intention of giving up your habit of partial quotation of narrations... tadlees.

Dear Vedaxcool,

Please (look up and) do not forget these precious words carved in gold and marble in your "almighty sahih muslim" about your hero:

"liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest".

sino:
Your efforts are well appreciated, I do understand you abhor arguments and rather want me to learn, which happens to be is one of my hobbies.
1. Could you please clarify this? was there a period when Imamate was in abeyance? Considering the verse you claimed was in regards to "general Imamate" of which you made the below statement:

when the Prophet (s) was alive, he was also the Imam of all Muslims. so Imam Ali's (as) imamate was not active or has not commenced. so you can say it was in abeyance.

"5). The verse of general Imamah in the Holy Quran is verse 2:124. This proves that Prophet Ibrahim (as) was given a position which was higher than the position he had already attained in prophethood.This would put Imamate at the time of Ibrahim (as)."
This your statement above is quite informative, for you clearly want us to believe that the appointment of Imamate, is higher than that of Prophethood...

yes, imamate can be higher than prophethood. imamate combines spiritual and worldly leadership while prophethood is only spiritual. this is the case, except for the Prophet Muhammad (s) who is superior to all prophet, messengers and holy/divinely appointed imams.

2. Well, I cannot really see how this helps to clarify issues, the verse does not recognize your Imamate as divinely appointed individuals. Since they are not the messengers of Allah (SWT), they fall under the heading " 'wulul Amr " and this can be anybody and there can be dispute with them which we would have to resolve by going back to the Qur'an and Sunnah. It is important to state here that nowhere else in the Qur'an does Allah (SWT) make reference to obey any divinely appointed Imamate. If you do have proof(s), you may present it/them.

do we say this verse points out the imamate is a divine station? no we do not. the verse we hold and claim points out imamate is made through divine appointment is verse 2:124. the verse of obeying ulil amr only maintains our obedience to the 12 holy Imams (as). in other words, even if we must obey ordinary Muslims in dispensing the day to day affairs of Muslims, their legitimacy must come from Allah through the 12 Imams (as) who must have appointed them or endorse them directly or through their teachings. in all ways, leadership is divine because man is the khalifa of Allah on earth.

3. If the Imamate are not separate authority from the Prophet (SAW), they do not go against the Qur'an and Sunnah, then why do we have to take them as anything special?! They have no other guidance except for the guidance of the Prophet (SAW), they must follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW), in other words, they are below the prophets. Any good Muslim leader can uphold the Qur'an and Sunnah and some of these Imams never even attained the position of authority in their land. For the fact that Imam Ali (ra) didn't overturn the rulings of his predecessors after he became the Imam, but rather followed their footsteps, clearly indicates that his predecessors were upon the Qur'an and Sunnah. I had asked your other brother to prove from authentic narrations, Imam Ali's opinions of his predecessors, did he considered them misguided? did he consider them the way you shi'ah portray them to be today?!
All in all, you haven't been able to bring a clear-cut verse from the Qur'an that clearly explains the concept of Imamah according to you shia'ah thus far.

the 12 Imams (as) are only below the Prophet Muhammad (s). Prophet Muhammad (s) through was revealed the Quran, the final message and the most advanced shariah. the knowledge thus given to him is superior to the other prophets. the 12 Imams (as) are inheritors and heirs of the knowledge, wisdom and revelations of Muhammad (s). by this virtue, and being protectors of the sharia of Muhammad (s) based on divine knowledge and wisdom, they are superior to all other prophets who had lesser revelations to the Quran and lesser sharia to that of Muhammad (s). you assertion that he followed in their footsteps is utterly false. if he acted in their footsteps, he wont have refused the condition for taking power over from Umar. and talking about his opinion on his predecessors, you can examine this as tip of the iceberg:

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349 that Umar acknowledged the following to Imam ‘Ali (as):

Umar’s Words:
When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said:” I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).” Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadhrat ‘Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ‘Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.

copied from:
https://www.nairaland.com/3232005/fatima-angered#47640468

sino:
@ShiaMuslim
The concept of Ijtihad is fully understood in Sunnism, and there happens to be adequate materials in regards to this. That you are indifferent to this issue is unsettling, saying just 300 out of the whole population is insignificant shows your level of empathy to your fellow man, not to even talk of to your fellow Muslim brother. So if just one person in your hood is made to suffer, you are indifferent right, it is just one person right?! Even for the fact that it is Iran, and they are shi'ah, I do feel empathy for them, I believe they were ill informed and were somewhat coerced into making such a choice by the fatwa.
In sunni, such a fatwa would have been addressed by scholars and properly put in its right place, i.e in the trash. But it seems your Ayatollahs can get away with anything, no one dares ask questions...
Having two heads is an anomaly, and science being able to provide a machine to fly with, is quite different from growing wings out of my back...If Allah (SWT) want's human beings to fly, he would have created us with wings. Do you believe in scientist more than Allah (SWT)? Are you saying Allah (SWT) didn't know what he created and why he created us so?! (Subhanallah!)
If what one of your highest religious personality says does not concern you as a member of that religion, you might as well say you do not belong to the religion in the first place.
The above reason is not a corrective measure and deterrent to homosexuality, and it is not funny either. It reminds me of a group of people who want to eat their cakes and have it, or people looking for ways to bend the rules, something peculiar to people who lack faith, people when Allah (SWT) forbids something, they look for ways to still do that which is forbidden, by calling it other names or changing its form, like calling usury, business, and now homosexuality, by transgender/sex change, I also know you do not frown at anal intercourse...Well what can I say, we are truly in the end times...
May Allah (SWT) safeguard us. Ameen.

your opinions and those of mine really do not matter as to the reasons the Iranians allow this. but now you are putting words into my mouth and adding pepper and maggi to the story, as the sole purpose of this thread was for that. i fail to see how i lack empathy over the decision someone make to change his sex. if a fatwa says the act is not forbidden, it may still be deemed makruh, then how is that coercion? no one send you and you choose to do it. save your fake sympathy. Shias get massacred weekly and you have not shown that sympathy. i havent read a post or thread of yours showing us your sympathy. our scholars are custodians of our faith. whatever decisions they reach is best known to Allah and to them. however, on such an issue which is not binding upon me, and scholars can differ on and it does not affect me anyhow, i am indifferent.

Fatwa allows sex changes in Iran, but stigma remains

Iran ranks second in the world in the number of sex-reassignment surgeries performed each year.

The Iranian government goes so far as to subsidize the surgeries, paying up to half of the high expenses of both surgery and treatment. Iran says an average of 300 of these surgeries are performed in the country each year.

In 1987, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s fatwa gave the green light for sex-reassignment surgeries. While many consider the now-female Maryam Molkara the first Iranian transsexual to undergo sex-reassignment surgery in 1987, a 60-year-old issue of the Iranian Ettelaat newspaper cites an earlier case. The newspaper ran the story of a proud and happy girl-turned-boy Farhad (formerly Farideh) and his nurse in Tehran’s Pahlavi hospital.

“Deep down, Farideh had always felt she’s a boy,” his mother said, “so I brought her to Tehran from our city [Shabestar, in western Azerbaijan] for evaluation." As Ettelaat informs us, Farideh successfully underwent surgery and treatment in Tehran and when interviewed, expressed enthusiasm for serving in the military.

Maryam Molkara (formerly Fereydoun), however, was religious, and apparently intended to encourage the clerics to issue a fatwa allowing sex reassignment. Khomeini did so, and Fereydoun became Maryam and continued to live in Iran as a woman until she passed away last year.

Another version of the story behind Khomeini’s fatwa is that he decided to issue it after meeting with a couple who were not sexually attracted to each other and could not have intercourse because one of them felt out of place.

Some believe that the ayatollah had made a decision about transsexuals years before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, while he was in exile in Iraq and after having read a letter from Molkara, requesting the cleric’s blessing to transform and become a woman.

Iran’s Health Ministry reports that 56% of transsexuals are males who would rather be female, and 44% are women who want to become men.

Tehran’s fashion of dealing with openly transsexual citizens willing to reassign their gender is yet another paradoxical aspect of the administration’s peculiar prescriptions for “curing” homosexuals.

While Iran does not acknowledge attraction to the same sex, it encourages individuals who, they believe, are confused sexually or from their perception, suffer from sexual disorders to seek out switching their gender. While valid and legal, this option is not as easy as it may sound.

Dr. Mehrdad Baghaei, an Iranian surgeon who specializes in sex-reassignment surgery in Tehran and has been active and well-known in this field over the past decade, told Al-Monitor that most of his patients are young. In a phone interview, he said, “Yet, from time to time, I see unusual cases. Just this morning, I operated on a 61-year-old man, married with grown kids, who wants to become a woman.”

Baghaei added that religious families have less trouble fathoming and accepting their loved ones as transsexuals, since they have faith in what they consider God’s will and would much rather see their family member undergo gender change than be gay.

The Islamic Republic of Iran basically has the same approach: If you stand on either side of the sexual spectrum, as expected, you’re accepted. It’s the "in-between" that makes the government uneasy.

The path to sex reassignment is by no means a short one, nor is it simple — not if aid from the government is desired or needed. An individual who feels the urge to switch genders must start the process by seeing an authorized psychiatrist. These psychiatrists are known and listed, most of them specializing in sexology.

Baghaei tells Al-Monitor, “Six psychiatrists need to examine the patient and talk with them, usually during multiple sessions, to confirm the necessity of gender change. Then, a commission of psychiatrists needs to sign off on the diagnosis of 'sexual disorder.' A forensic examiner of the Iranian Legal Medicine Organization is then required to see the patient and confirm the diagnosis, at which point the Legal Medicine Organization issues a permit validating the sex-reassignment surgery."

The Welfare Organization of Iran covers half of the total expenses of gender change, which includes surgeries, hormone therapy and psychological aftercare. There is usually a wait-list for this coverage. Most patients find waiting worth their while, since it rarely exceeds six months. Immediately after the sex-reassignment surgery, the government issues a new birth certificate for the transsexual citizen and the original one is discarded.

Sina (formerly Simin) is a 26-year-old transsexual receiving hormone therapy and counseling. Talking with Al-Monitor over the phone, he sounds like a teenager whose voice has not quite broken yet. He tells me he looks forward to having a really deep voice. Sina, who co-owns a fancy boutique in the center of Tehran, tells me he is ecstatic about having a girlfriend. He says, "I’m really proud of the decision I made. I’m much more comfortable now, too. Got rid of the hassle of wearing a headscarf. Now I can unbutton my shirt and show a bit of chest hair. It’s gradually getting hairier, so I’ll get to open the second button soon.”

But not everyone is as elated as Sina. Rouzbeh, 18, lives in northern Iran, by the Caspian Sea. He’s already gotten the slip of paper he’d always yearned for: the permit for living his dream of becoming Roudabeh. He’s at the gate, waiting to be let in — except the gate is locked. He told Al-Monitor that he sleeps with the permit under his pillow at night; it is his most invaluable piece of property, his passport to finally breaking free.

Rouzbeh is religious, and is having an extremely difficult time convincing his family that he really feels feminine. He tells me that he attempted suicide last month and prays day and night for God to take him away or grant his wish of becoming his true inner self: a woman, which is what, according to him, Islam supports.

But Rouzbeh’s parents have tried to “get him well” since he turned 13. They have taken him to top doctors both in their city and in Tehran. They have forced Rouzbeh to take male hormones. They just cannot wrap their heads around “him” longing to be “her.”

The challenge of being a transsexual Iranian citizen is not so much the transformation itself as it is surviving the storm of stigma which exists. One may have a different birth certificate, a different look, a different name, but most likely will be forced to find a different job, different mannerisms and a different skin: a much, much thicker one, one that can tolerate the taboo of being a transsexual Iranian.

Mehrnaz Samimi is an Iranian-American journalist. On Twitter: @mehrnazsamimi

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/10/iran-subsidizes-sex-change-surgery.html#ixzz4EhhV1ABr

sino:
I have always been reasonable, and even with you people's outright dissimulation and deceits, I still maintain my open-mindedness and reasonableness in addressing all of the (sometimes) illogical attacks you people bring forth on a regular basis.
Anyway, what I intend to establish here is the problems associated with the strange fatwa of Khomeini, which you seem not to be against from your submissions thus far (you may correct me if I'm wrong).

i do not oppose it and i do not support. i am indifferent to it because it does not affect me in anyway. it does not force me to change my sex and does not make me force others to do it. the act is based on consent and the will of those who would like to do the act. it is consensual. i am also indifferent to this fatwa because i do not have sufficient knowledge on it to support or promote it, and it is not a requirement of my faith as Shia or Muslim to either support or oppose. i have not studied it enough in my estimation.

Now what I would have expected, with such evidences which clearly shows the dangers and problems this fatwa in question portends, is a strong proof against the videos, such as what the fatwa entails, and how people had abused it, or other Ayatollahs going against this fatwa as not Islamic.

it is reported that there are 300 cases annually in Iran. compared to the population it is insignificant.

it is not a case of other Ayatollahs going against it. they may simply rule that it is makruh or haram. it is not a protest. they will express their views as fuqaha and also respect the view of Ayatollah Khomeini. they sometimes agree to disagree. that is the point i explained above about the system of marjaiyyah in Shia Islam. all our scholars cannot agree on everything, aside from the fundamentals of the religion categorically expressed in the Quran and the authentic hadiths. they are not programmed robots and are allowed to have differences in views. it is called Ijtihad. according to Sunni Islam, the sahaba exercised this privilege of ijtihad. for instance in the case of Khalid Ibn al-Walid and the rape of the wife of Malik Ibn Nuweira (ra).

For the avoidance of doubt, it is haram to change what Allah has created, even drawing a tattoo isn't allowed or giving yourself a gap-tooth to look more beautiful etc. Well, perhaps such restrictions do not exist in your books, but we know for sure Allah (SWT) stated clearly in the Qur'an: "Verily, We have created man in the best of stature (image)" (Q95:4).

the question of tattoo for instance, our scholars have different views on it. some would say it is makruh. others will say it is permissible as far as it does not promote sin. they do not interpret the above verse as such when it comes to tattoo or beautifying one's self or enhancing one's beauty. otherwise, you may as well say that cutting of one's hair is changing Allah's creation! these are jurisprudence issues and i am not a scholar. i take precaution and i avoid these issues that i do not have full knowledge on or have no consequence on me personally.

This fatwa is problematic, I wonder how comfortable anyone can be with a man, who has turned to a woman or vice versa. This process defies nature, even with the surgery, the new transgender cannot function appropriately i.e the man who turned woman cannot ovulate, while the woman turned man cannot produce sperm. One would then ask, what is the essence of sex change in the first place? What problems was it trying to solve? Is this sex change about hating your body or as a result of thoughts brought about by society, especially, the west? Are there alternative solutions?!

in Iran, there is much opposition to homosexuality. i believe this fatwa was made on the basis that it is a corrective measure to homosexuality; either to dissuade young people from homosexuality, or to correct it. if you are a man and you want to sleep with another man, then change your sex. if you wont change your sex, then do not sleep with the same sex. it sounds like a deterrent.

also, it is applies to hermaphrodites. and it applies to people with defects or hormonal imbalances.

so the fatwa can be viewed, in my opinion, from the angle of deterrent, corrective measure and medical treatment.

If an individual has both sex organs, then that is a different case entirely, it is not a case of sex change, but rather correcting an anomaly, which is reasonable. This cannot be used as an excuse for allowing sex change.

yes, that is still sex change. the female athletes have suffered in this case.

If you do have one sex organ, a male or a female, that is what Allah (SWT) wants you to be. If a man or woman feels strange in his/her own body, then such people need a psychiatrist, not surgery to change their body to fit their desires, for a man can wake up tomorrow, and wants to be a bird! Yeah! to fly and fly away!

what if you are born with two heads, or in case of the Siamese twins? is that also what Allah wants?

so if in the future science can make it possible to clone a wing to your body and can make you fly, would you deem that as haram?

Isn't it funny how you guys can paint Salafist/Wahabist with the same brush being terrorists and takfiris, Saudi Arabia the home and supporters of these terrorists etc. But when the same is said about your sect and Iran, you all become philosophical, that is hypocrisy if you do not know.

i already stated that this isnt a fundamental belief. you are not forced to change your sex. you are not forcing anyone to change your sex.

secondly, Khomeini is not the founder of Shia Islam, and he is not the father of our Ja'fari school of thought. Ayatollah Khomeini was an alim, and a jurist. you can follow his interpretations and fatwas or follow that of others. these are not fundamentals. refusing the opinions of Khomeini does not make one less of a Muslim or more.

the fatwa on the other hand of Ibn Taymiyyah who is called "shaykhul islam", and is the father of Salafism, and the role model of Ibn Abdul-Wahab the father of Saudi Salafism aka Wahhabism can make you a Muslim or a non-Muslim. the fundamental teaching of Salafism is TAKFIR (who is Muslim and who is not) and based on that TAKFIRI KILLINGS. their teachings are fundamentals. in one of their beliefs, they identify a "true Muslim" based on his opinion on Ibn Taymiyyah. if you love Ibn Taymiyyah you are a true Muslim, and if not, you are not a correct Muslim. these two scholars made Takfir a fundamental of their belief and teachings. the Prophet (s) said anyone who believes in shahadatain is a Muslim. while those two scholars taught that even with the shahadatain a Muslim believes in, you can still be labelled a "mushrik" and a "murtad". and not only that, if they pass takfir (verdict of disbelief) on someone and you refuse to disassociate yourself from that person, you will be punished too and called "kafir".

if i do not believe in Khomeini's fatwa on sex change, no one will kill me or deem me an apostate to be killed. so the comparison does not hold.

madridguy:
Now you're talking.

of course. the truth is out there. you just have to search deep and seek, and you shall find. we can do as much as time permits and our efforts enable us to speak the truth.

lexiconkabir:
Shi'as with their loose tongues
As everyone can see, you are the one exposing yourself as the takfeeriy here, for you to support the massacre of 1.5million Muslims including innocent women and children, you don't consider them Muslims, who is the is showing acts of takfeeriy here? Even Al-khunsari(one of your respected "scholars" described the blood of these Muslims as filthy!! Ah! SubhanAllah!

how did i support any massacre? i did not. i was responding to your allegation against al-Tusi. al-Tusi himself did not do any massacre. what you are doing is blaming him for not supporting the state/dynasty that used to oppress him against the Mongols. the same thing that happened in Iraq in 2003. Sunni Arabs are infuriated because Ayatollah Sistani refused to pass a fatwa to jihad for the Shia to fight against the American occupation. why would the Iraqi Shia, who are majority in Iraq, fight for Tyrant Saddam when he used to kill them like chicken? you cannot commit evil against your fellow Muslims and then blame them or hold them responsible for not coming to your aid in your time of need. be good and kind and act brotherly, and you will be supported. today when the entire Sunni Arab world have abandoned Sunni Palestinians, it is Shia Iran and Shia powers that are backing the Palestinians against the Zionist occupation. do you even acknowledge that? stop twisting and turning, and making false allegations. and then when we say the truth you tell us our mouth is loose.

Empiree:
This is irrelevant. You are just being sectarian. Seun simply sees you and other muslims as MUSLIMS, period. There is no need for this at all. When West attack, they attack ISLAM. They dont give a fig leaf about factions. Donald Trump said today that Hillary must not be allowed to be prez bcus she and obunma failed to call terrorists what they are, "Islamic terrorism". He didn't say wahabi/salafi. If you want to start on that this thread is NOT appropriate for that.

@madridguy, kudos!

this is very much relevant. i am not being sectarian. i am being wholly and fully Muslim. the body of Islam is infected by the cancer of Wahhabism and its Takfiri killings. when your body is inflicted with cancer, what do you do?

i do not care about what the West or its politicians say or do. most of them are ignorant. Trump does not know the difference between Quds and Kurds. to show how stupid he is. it is our duty as Muslims to tell the world about true Islam, the Islam of Muhammad and his Ahlul-Bayt (as). they are the yardstick to measure how islamic anyone and anything is.

the West supports Wahhabism. Wahhabism itself was a tool created by British colonialism to fight against the Sunni Ottoman Empire. so the cancer you are embracing today because it identifies itself as part of your Sunni identity was implanted into your body to fight against you and be a force for division and bloodshed. the same goes with Bahaism created in the Shia body, and Ahmadiyyah created in the Sunni body in the Indian subcontinent by the same british. i see no reason why i would embrace Bahais because they are a Shia offshoot, even if they (God forbid) happen to be in control of Najaf and Karbala. the West allies with Wahhabis, and when these Wahhabis bite the hand that feeds them, the West blame Islam. but when these same Wahhabis are blowing up Muslims in Iraq and Syria, based on sectarian grounds to divide the Muslims, the West keeps silent. you only hear them complain when the Wahhabis are biting their flesh in France and america. you do not hear them talk when wahhabis kill Iraqis or Syrian. do you? so let us not worry about the West and its hypocrisy. worry about how we can rectify the Wahhabi cancerous infection promoted and supported by the West to kill Muslims, before they even kill non-muslims. what do we do? the first way to solve the problem is to remove the cloak of denial and identify the problem. accept that this is the problem and then to get solution would be easy.

the West cannot continue to ally itself with Wahhabi rogue regimes in the middle east that call themselves "monarchy" (a system of governance opposed by Islam), and then actively sponsor Wahhabi terror group to kill Muslims, and also fight enemies of the West (in the case of the Russians in Afghanistan), and then when the Wahhabi beasts are out of control and bite the West where it hurts them most, they rush to blame Islam and hold Muslims responsible. we are not responsible. i am not under obligation to defend terrorists. they are not part of my religion to even start with. there is nothing Islamic about terrorism. you cannot be a terrorist and still claim to be Muslim. is the human soul not sacred in the Quran? did the Prophet (s) not say that the blood of an innocent soul is more sacred than the walls of the holy Ka'bah (the most sacred place in Islam)? so when you go against such bold and great teachings, it is not only blasphemy and sin, but you are not following Islam.

let us face it. if you want to give cover to Wahhabi Takfiri killings and terror, that is your business.

lexiconkabir:
I'm not surprised anyway, this is exactly what Nasir Al-Din Al-tusi did that led to the massacre of almost 1.5million Muslims in Baghdad..... Alliance with the enemies of islam against Muslims just to feel good about your deviant deen.

before mentioning the name of a man greater than your generations, use zamzam and bath to clean yourself from the impurities of takfirism and its killing scourge. when you view al-Tusi as an apostate, and not muslim enough; and further, you do not only stop at declaring other muslims as "unbelievers", but you make permissible the shedding of their blood, why wont they stand up against you? which Islam tells you to kill Muslims in their mosques and cities because you feel you are more muslim than them? why would al-Tusi support a dynasty that massacred the family of the Prophet (s)? you have destroyed your faith with your own hands through extremism and jahiliyyah extremists who were far off from the teachings of the Prophet (s).

madridguy:
Do you have a better understanding of the thread at all? Oga Seun is not here asking you about doctrine, his question is directly to Muslims and not towards Salafist, Wahabist, Shia, Sunni, sufusimn. This is not the time to hide under useless political fraction Sunni/Shia it's time to defend ISLAM as a whole and if you have nothing to contribute, just be reading from below. Allah Hafiz.

Look at your words:

"it's time to defend ISLAM as a whole"

i am so sorry, but terrorism and Wahhabi Takfiri killing and extremism are incompatible with Islam of Muhammad and his Ahlul-Bayt (as) that I follow. maybe they are compatible with your own "islam" of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul-Wahab, and their takfiri predecessors of Banu Umayyad (who beheaded Imam Hussain, grandson of the Prophet, while they shouted Allahu Akbar, like Wahhabis do today when blowing up Shia on Ashura) and right up to Abu Bakr and Khalid Ibn Walid who massacred the Tribe of Yerbo and its leader Malik Ibn Nuweira (ra)-who was a sahabi- even though the latter were upholding salat and raising the adhan (call to prayer); they were massacred based on Takfir passed by Abu Bakr and Khalid. this takfirism and its killings are not part of ISLAM and not part of what you call "whole" (of Islam). therefore i cannot defend it, and i am not obliged to, and i disassociate myself from anyone claiming to be MUSLIM who commits these atrocities. the solution is to make it clear that you too disassociate yourself from them, and not fall for their antics because they are in control of Makkah and Medina through the use of force against other arabian tribes. i hope you now see why we as Shia disassociate ourselves from some bad sahaba who committed crimes and inhumanity and yet hide under the cloak of being a companion to the Prophet (s). i hope,next time you ask, you understand the psychology behind dissociating yourself from evil men and not honoring their memory and praising their names as if they were angels and sugarcoating their atrocities. we do not hate anyone for being a sahabi/companion. we hate and love people not based on their associations and titles but based on their actions, just as we love Salman (ra) for his actions, and he was a prominent sahabi, we disassociate from others also based on their actions.

take this to the bank, ponder over it for the next two weeks, and every night before you sleep think about this and you will in-sha-Allah see the truth.

sino:
Your hypocrisy knows no bound; you should be ashamed of yourself and the sect you belong to. You on another thread would quote articles from different websites to buttress your points, but all of a sudden, you cannot do same on this thread, why?! You people have the same MO, when brought face-to-face with facts, superior arguments, and most importantly, the truth, you become venomous, defensive, redundantly asking silly questions or bringing up superfluous conjectures and applying deceit…

You claim the Qur’an talks on Imammah, we ask you prove it, you go typing several responses with no substance…If a non-Muslim asks you to prove Allah (SWT) is one, that the Prophet (SAW) is His messenger from the Qur'an, do you go on a ranting spree?! As I had said, your scholars would say A, you guys would thereafter say xyz, one wonders what type of religion you people practice, you guys have no solid foundation to stand your belief(s) on…

Here is one of your scholars confirming that the concept of Imammah cannot be found in the Qur’an:

Al-Khomeini said: Had the matter of the Imamah been fixed in the Quran, then those who do not care for Islam or the Quran except where it comes to matters of this worldly life and [matters of] Leadership, they would have used the Quran as a mean to fulfill their suspicious objectives, and would have omitted these verses from its pages121 …

This can be found in his book “Kashf Al-Asrar” p. 131.

I await your spin, as well as your rants, I am not into nonsense arguments, if what you believe is true, bring your proof(s) from the Qur’an kapish!

By the way, this is another verse that destroys your false believe in Imammah. Allah (SWT) says in the Qur’an:

“It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and each and every act of obedience to Allah etc.) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west (in prayers); but Al- Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masakin (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, performs As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and gives the Zakat, and who fulfill their covenant when they make it, and who are patient in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of fighting (during the battles). Such are the people of the truth and they are Al-Muttaqun (pious). (Q2:177)

The above verse is so clear, we do not find your skewed belief in Imammah, We see Tawheed clearly, we see Salat, we see Zakah, even we see freeing of the slaves, and even further, we see Sabr being mentioned by Allah (SWT) as prerequisite for piety and embodiment of righteousness, no believe in Imammah, give me one good reason to believe that Imammah is any important to Islam, and why Allah (SWT) didn’t mention it in the Qur’an…

If you do not have answers, it is not by force to reply, just quietly move along...

Oga, Kulayni compiled narrations on tahreef and so did bukhari and Muslim. Why do you forget or ignore that point? And even of Kulayni himself believed in tahreef, not just compiling different hadiths narrated by some people, Kulayni isn't one of the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). His faith or the lack of it on tahreef is his own headache. And even believing in tahreef doesn't put one out of the fold of Islam even though it is a sin and doing so belies the word of Allah that no blemish shall touch the Quran.

sino:
Well from the verse, Allah (SWT) knows that those in authority are also ordinary Muslims, so when He (SWT) made the directive on how to resolve conflicts among ordinary Muslims, HE (SWT) said go back to Allah (SWT) and His messenger (SAW) to solve your differences, and no one else, because those in authority are not divinely appointed (they do not receive any form of revelation from Allah (SWT) ), we are the ones who appoint them, hence we are to obey them, and we may disagree with them (especially when they call to disbelieve and what the shari'ah never sanctioned). It is very simple bro, or is the verse missing some more information?!

Your claim can be refuted in two ways:

1. The verse has a context. It refers to the time of the Prophet (s) before the commencement of the Imamate.

2. The Shia too have ordinary Muslim leaders, even in the times of the 12 Holy Imams who took directives from them. Example: Malik al-Ashtar (ra) who was appointed the ruler of Egypt by Imam Ali (as).

Even three ways:

3. The 12 Holy Imams (as) have never been or claimed to be a separate authority from the Prophet (s) and whatever they judged or ruled was based on the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). In fact this is the point that made Imam Ali (as) not to be chosen by the committee of six imposed by Umar to choose a caliph. They conditioned that Imam Ali (as) must abide guy me Sunnah of the Prophet (s) and the sunnah of the shaikhain (Abu Bakr and umar). Imam Ali (as) refused and said he will only abide by the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). Had gone two shaykhain ruled by the Sunnah of Muhammad (s), there wouldn't have been need to insist Imam Ali (as) also abide by their own teachings and actions. But apparently based on this condition, they had deviated. The Imamate is a reflection of prophethood. And it is based on the Sunnah of Allah and His Prophet (s) the 12 Imams (as) ruled and judged. Thus the Imamate did not introduce any new rule or Sunnah or sharia or laws that they maybe the source for judgment. The Imams ruled and judged based on the Prophet's teachings. When there is a dispute, the 12 Imams (as) themselves would insist the matter is resolved based on the Quran and Sunnah of Muhammad (s). Anything more or short of that is not acceptable.

So you guys should stop acting like Christians and speaking based on conjectures. The Christians are lost on finding the source of the Quran. They devise different and contradictory arguments. Now you guys are lost on interpreting Quran verses that uphold Imamate. Take it easy. Learning is gradual and so also seeing and accepting the truth. Accepting the truth is a habit too. With time and training you will get there, Allah willing!

sino:
Bro, I wasn't quite sure about the shi'ah beliefs before, I only listened to scholars condemn their beliefs, but my first encounter with them showed they were mostly filled with hate and curses, that was a red flag, then I started a little research, and the more I read, the more I realized their beliefs are not only strange, but false, mostly, their belief system are always antagonistic against the sunni, its like without the sunnis, they wouldn't exist in the first place, a sect created just to oppose the sunnis... And their deceit is legendary, not to mention the fact that their books are filled with mind boggling contradictions and fabrications.

May Allah continue to guide us right Ameen.

Who existed first: Shia or Sunni? The Shia!

Who change the Sunnah just to oppose the other group? Sunnis! Example: you wear rings on the left hand instead of the right which is the correct Sunnah. Why? Because the Shia have adopted this Sunnah of the Prophet and emphasize on it and it has become a trademark. To look different, Sunnis put the ring on the left hand even though the Prophet (s) insisted on the right hand first of its only one ring.

ShiaMuslim:
At least you are making some sense for the first time and you are not lying.
In every law, there are people who try to beat the gun and abuse the intent of the law. If you look at Islamic practices, you can find everyone that has been exploited for the wrong purpose by mischievous people.
Secondly, to us, the sharia is not holy. The sharia was not revealed. The Quran is holy. The sharia is based on interpretation of laws by fallible scholars, via the Quran and authentic Hadith, be they Sunni or Shia scholars. Those scholars are neither holy/infallible imams of the Ahlul Bayt (as) nor prophets. So these laws can be reviewed, annulled or adjusted if the bad is weighted to be more than the good. I'd leave that for the Iranians and their leaders/scholars to decide for themselves and what is good for them in sex change.
Further it is very possible to find another Shia ayatollah who views the permission by Ayatollah Khomeini on sex change to be invalid and haram. In Shia Islam, our scholars are mujtahids. The concept of ijtihad did not stop as it stopped in Sunnism with the four scholars of the four Sunni schools of thought. That is why in Shia Islam, the highest scholars can and are permitted to hold different views and opinions in interpretation. That will keep the religion fresh, dynamic, for all times and progressive. So there is no question about whether the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini can be wrong. It can. That is why in Shia Islam, based on the open concept of ijtihad among the highest scholars (marjaiyyah) who issue fatwas, the ordinary Shia (laity) can choose any among the 80 to 100 of them in the world to follow. You as a Shia can follow any of these scholars opinion and interpretation of Islamic laws and practices and you can also disagree with any of them. The concept of the marjaiyyah is for the laity to choose one of the ayatollahs and make him his source for emulation, as Sunnis follow one of the founders of the four Sunni schools only, and those four have died about a thousand years ago. We follow scholars that must be alive in terms of marjaiyyah or source of emulation called Taqlid. This means our scholars are not infallible and we accept criticism and improvement, as far as the criticism is of their legal opinion and interpretation and not of the fundamentals of the religion expressed unequivocally in the Holy Quran or the authentic Hadith.
So when your fellows want to turn this thread into a bashing exercise of Shia and they want to use it as launch pad to lie and talk nonsense, I simply laugh at what you do not know. You guys are used to anyone who knows some verses of the Quran and had memorized few fatwas with a long beard as worthy of being a scholar. And usually their views are put on par with the Quran and disagreeing with them can lead to Takfir. That's why you see Wahhabis can kill even themselves. Shia on the other hand do not go to such extremes and we view differences of opinions as healthy for our faith and progress as Muslims. And only the marjaiyyah-scholars with the title of ayatollah- that can issue fatwa for Shia. Not even our sheikhs issue fatwa!
In this way we are more organized and our scholars cannot become fatwa machines or government employees calling themselves muftis who make political fatwas to serve governments or tyrants as witnessed many times in the Sunni countries or even by terrorist groups. That is also why I'm Shia Islam not anyone calling himself scholar can call for jihad. Our scholarly system is based on the Imamate. When the ghaibatul kubrah of the 12th Imam (as) started, we are instructed to follow the fuqaha (plural of faqih). The scholar with title of ayatollah is the highest faqih we follow.the marjaiyyah gets its legitimacy from the Imamate and learning in the hawza and not through appointment.the Imamate is a divine station like prophethood.it is a reflection and successorship of prophethood. And both gain legitimacy from Allah (swt).
Both prophethood and Imamate are understood as political and spiritual leadership. The Sunni caliphate on the other hand doesn't get legitimacy from prophethood because you believe the Prophet left without any successor or system to choose a caliph and he left it for the people. Caliphate gets legitimacy from the people. And the Quran says Allah's choice is above ours and the Prophet has more right over us than we have over ourselves since the Shia believe the Prophet appointed a successor. We obey secular authorities on taqiyyah and for the sake of peace where do not have numbers and power (means) for the establishment of Islamic law. We were created on earth as khulafa of Allah and all authority must obey Allah and follow the line of prophethood and imamate to have divine approval/legitimacy for us to listen to and abide by. For a scholar to become an ayatollah or marja taqlid who can issue fatwa, he must have the approval of two existing and living ayatollahs in the hawza ilmiyyah (Islamic seminary in Qom or Najaf, the highest center of Shia learning equivalent to al azhar for Sunnis).

Main thread: https://www.nairaland.com/3213034/tragedy-sex-change-iran-aftermath#47571882

sino:
Mr. ShiaMuslim, I want to believe you watched the videos, and I want to also believe that Ayatollah Khomeini was trying to solve one of humanity's problems with his fatwa, which I would say is a good idea i.e solving humanity's problems. Be that as it may, in one of the videos, one of the transgender was said to have been tested, and found to be 100% male, but still went ahead to go for a sex change. Also these set of people are not really recognized in their communities, they are victimized, shunned and humiliated. They have regretted going for a sex change, and it seems that the problems these fatwa is causing, is far greater than what it was trying to solve in the first instance. From the foregoing, wouldn't it be appropriate if such fatwa is reviewed, and possibly expunged for a more humane, and Islamicaly legitimate verdict for these kinds of humanity's problems?!

At least you are making some sense for the first time and you are not lying.

In every law, there are people who try to beat the gun and abuse the intent of the law. If you look at Islamic practices, you can find everyone that has been exploited for the wrong purpose by mischievous people.

Secondly, to us, the sharia is not holy. The sharia was not revealed. The Quran is holy. The sharia is based on interpretation of laws by fallible scholars, via the Quran and authentic Hadith, be they Sunni or Shia scholars. Those scholars are neither holy/infallible imams of the Ahlul Bayt (as) nor prophets. So these laws can be reviewed, annulled or adjusted if the bad is weighted to be more than the good. I'd leave that for the Iranians and their leaders/scholars to decide for themselves and what is good for them in sex change.

Further it is very possible to find another Shia ayatollah who views the permission by Ayatollah Khomeini on sex change to be invalid and haram. In Shia Islam, our scholars are mujtahids. The concept of ijtihad did not stop as it stopped in Sunnism with the four scholars of the four Sunni schools of thought. That is why in Shia Islam, the highest scholars can and are permitted to hold different views and opinions in interpretation. That will keep the religion fresh, dynamic, for all times and progressive. So there is no question about whether the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini can be wrong. It can. That is why in Shia Islam, based on the open concept of ijtihad among the highest scholars (marjaiyyah) who issue fatwas, the ordinary Shia (laity) can choose any among the 80 to 100 of them in the world to follow. You as a Shia can follow any of these scholars opinion and interpretation of Islamic laws and practices and you can also disagree with any of them. The concept of the marjaiyyah is for the laity to choose one of the ayatollahs and make him his source for emulation, as Sunnis follow one of the founders of the four Sunni schools only, and those four have died about a thousand years ago. We follow scholars that must be alive in terms of marjaiyyah or source of emulation called Taqlid. This means our scholars are not infallible and we accept criticism and improvement, as far as the criticism is of their legal opinion and interpretation and not of the fundamentals of the religion expressed unequivocally in the Holy Quran or the authentic Hadith.

So when your fellows want to turn this thread into a bashing exercise of Shia and they want to use it as launch pad to lie and talk nonsense, I simply laugh at what you do not know. You guys are used to anyone who knows some verses of the Quran and had memorized few fatwas with a long beard as worthy of being a scholar. And usually their views are put on par with the Quran and disagreeing with them can lead to Takfir. That's why you see Wahhabis can kill even themselves. Shia on the other hand do not go to such extremes and we view differences of opinions as healthy for our faith and progress as Muslims. And only the marjaiyyah-scholars with the title of ayatollah- that can issue fatwa for Shia. Not even our sheikhs issue fatwa!

In this way we are more organized and our scholars cannot become fatwa machines or government employees calling themselves muftis who make political fatwas to serve governments or tyrants as witnessed many times in the Sunni countries or even by terrorist groups. That is also why I'm Shia Islam not anyone calling himself scholar can call for jihad. Our scholarly system is based on the Imamate. When the ghaibatul kubrah of the 12th Imam (as) started, we are instructed to follow the fuqaha (plural of faqih). The scholar with title of ayatollah is the highest faqih we follow.the marjaiyyah gets its legitimacy from the Imamate and learning in the hawza and not through appointment.the Imamate is a divine station like prophethood.it is a reflection and successorship of prophethood. And both gain legitimacy from Allah (swt).

Both prophethood and Imamate are understood as political and spiritual leadership. The Sunni caliphate on the other hand doesn't get legitimacy from prophethood because you believe the Prophet left without any successor or system to choose a caliph and he left it for the people. Caliphate gets legitimacy from the people. And the Quran says Allah's choice is above ours and the Prophet has more right over us than we have over ourselves since the Shia believe the Prophet appointed a successor. We obey secular authorities on taqiyyah and for the sake of peace where do not have numbers and power (means) for the establishment of Islamic law. We were created on earth as khulafa of Allah and all authority must obey Allah and follow the line of prophethood and imamate to have divine approval/legitimacy for us to listen to and abide by. For a scholar to become an ayatollah or marja taqlid who can issue fatwa, he must have the approval of two existing and living ayatollahs in the hawza ilmiyyah (Islamic seminary in Qom or Najaf, the highest center of Shia learning equivalent to al azhar for Sunnis).

MrOlai:
Agent of shaytan! Always looking for an excuse to defend their evils!
On the issue of sex change, it completely haram in Islam! It is Allah(SWT) in His will and wisdom that makes a person either a male or a female. Nobody has the right before Allah(SWT) to change the sex of a person for whatever reason! There are men who are just like women in terms of thinking, attitude, physique, etc. That does not make them women! Also, there are women who are just like men in terms of thinking, attitude, physique, etc. Some women are naturally stronger than their male counterparts in terms of virtually everything. In fact, some women have higher amount of testosterone(male hormone) in their bodies and consequently, they are hairy and often grow beards! Does that make them real men?
On the issue of hermaphrodites, that is clearly an abnormal medical condition. It is exceptionally different from what shia are doing in Iran courtesy of the evil fatwa from your Ayatollah Khomeini. Medicine as a discipline is welcomed in Islam only to correct an anormaly, not to change Allah's creation.
On the issue of Homosexuality, it is a shear madness! The Prophet(SAW) recommends death penalty for the homosexuals. Nobody is born homosexual! I repeat nobody is born homosexual! Homosexuals give such a silly excuse just for them to be allowed to continue with the madness. Homosexuality is nurture and not nature. People acquire homosexuality through practice with time.
In Psychology, it is established that if a person repeats an act frequently enough, then, such an act becomes his habit! Bestiality is being gradually permitted in some parts of the world now! A time will come when those people having sex with animals will claim that they are born like that! Allah(SWT) destroyed the people of Lut because of homosexuality.
You shia people are among the people spreading homosexuality on the land! How?
- Your scholars allow sodomy with a woman(having sex with a woman through her anus).
- Your scholars gave fatwa allowing Sex Change.
- Prophet(SAW) gave severe punishments for the homosexuals; your scholars said NO!
- Your scholars consider Bestiality(having sex with animals) as Makruh and not Haram! Meanwhile the Prophet(SAW) said if anybody is caught having sex with an animal, both the person and the animal should be killed!
- You scholar, Ayatollah Khomeini, gave fatwa permitting zina/mut'ah sex even with prostitutes
And many more...
Your shia people are abuse to Islam(except the ignorant ones amongst you)! Even some non-muslims might be better than you before Allah(SWT)! Some Christians I know would not allow sodomy of a woman, they would not allow Sex Change, they hate homosexuality with passion; they would be ready to kill anybody that has sex with animal! These are non-muslims!
The terrible nature of shiism is the reason why Scholars of Islam consider you shia kufar!
Anybody Allah(SWT) created a man would always be a man and anybody Allah(SWT) created a woman would always be a woman! This is a fact even in Medicine! Ask the Doctors! This is a fact they might not tell the trangenders! I pray Allah(SWT) in His mercy to have mercy on the soul of your scholar, Ayatollah Khomeini, for all the evils he has created on the surface of the Earth!

you sound like someone who shaitan has fingered his a n u s or committed sodomy on. you sound mad...filled with hatred and lies to stir sectarian fervor based on ignorance. you are stupid but you do not realize it because your own religion is an opium to your senses. you are in deep slumber.

first question is what is the punishment for homosexuality in Iran? it is death! several were hanged for homosexuality. and do not get me wrong, i am not staying this to impress you or impress those retards like you who only think of destroying lives. and i do not support this death penalty in Iran for homosexuality or adultery or fornication or any illicit sexual relations. i stand as a person, whether my coreligionists agree with me or not, against the death penalty for illicit or out of marriage sexual affairs. even if you bring me hadiths that the Prophet (s) allowed death penalty for illicit sex, homosexuality or otherwise, you are not "the Prophet" or "a prophet". then, how many homosexuals and how many adulterers did our Prophet (s) killed? i am not aware of any specific case, other than blank check hadiths making such claims in Bukhari and the likes. does the Holy Quran prescribe DEATH for illicit sex, homosexuality inclusive? no! if you disagree, show me a verse!

the issue of death for illicit sex has been a contentious issue even among scholars within the same Islamic schools of thought, in your Sunnism and in our Shia Islam. it is sad Iran applies the interpretation that punishes with death for illicit sex, instead of repentance and rehabilitation to make the human being better. of course, had you being Shia, you will support Iran to this. that is the difference between a Shia Muslim and "other" types of Muslims. you do not think. they think for you. the door of ijtihad is closed for you. you still follow what Abu Hanifa, a nobody, judged 1400 years ago. mumu! and because we think you do not like us. your problem. in the Quran, how many times are we asked to think, ponder, reflect? but you do not because you are dumb and you want Islam to be seen as a religion for the dumb and deaf!

our scholars do not force marriage couples to have a n a l s e x. if they choose to within the umbrella of marriage, it is regarded as highly undesirable but not forbidden. how can you forbid legally married people from themselves? you can only admonish them. their bodies are permitted to each other. otherwise, you will encourage married people to commit "haram" with themselves by your holier than shit mentality.

please show where any of our scholars said categorically that "bestiality or s e x with animals" is not haram. not what to do to the person or the animal if people are caught in the act. (there is a difference). but that the act itself is not haram. expose your ignorance.

in Sunni hadiths, the Prophet (s) allegedly allowed and forbade mut'ah for six times. today because you believe it was the Prophet that forbade mutah, you call it zina. yet it does not spare you from the fact that he had allowed it before stopping it severally times and on different occasions. you are therefore blaspheming the Prophet (s) out of your sectarian fury and blindness and holier than shit mentality. deaf, dumb and blind!

the sex change has been clarified. take or leave. your people thrive in homosexuality. check what happens in Sunni Arab countries. whether it is nature or nurture, provide your solutions to save lives from what you deem evil and also from destruction and death, instead of prescribing death as a remedy. if you have no solution, then you are dumb. accept it. before replying my post with holier than shit mentality, and words of ignorance, sectarian blindness and hatred mixed and blended with lies, first provide a solution to the problem of homosexuality. if you cannot, and death and death and death is all that Sunnism stands for, from punishing illicit sex to blowing up Shia Muslims and Christian civilians in their places of worship and cities, then reply first with this sentence/disclaimer:

"i, MrOlai of nairaland, have no solutions to humanity's problems but i feel talk is free, and lying is cheap and to defend my blindness, sectarian hatred, ignorance and fanaticism i must talk and lie. therefore i must REPLY and talk as if i know about issues better left for mature and learned minds to discuss, even though i know not. please i am DUMB. i just want to reply".

sino:
@ShiaMuslim,

First and foremost, Thank God you are not running away, and for the record, I post when I deem it fit and necessary as well as prevailing circumstances; I am not under any obligation to respond to your post immediately, it is my prerogative to apply myself on this forum accordingly.

Secondly, this is a forum, and it is expected that members should exhibit a level of intellectual capacity and ability. You are expected to post your opinions and if necessary, backed up with appropriate evidences for discussion.. pointing me to a link does not answer the questions posed on this thread thus far, and I find this act of yours similar to Al-Haydari in the video above by the OP, when confronted with similar question, beating about the bush and not going straight to the point…I guess it is a tough one to answer, if the scholars amongst you find it difficult, no wonder you are also afraid to give substantive answers…

Lastly, again I would ask, and this time, I would rephrase putting to cognizance what had transpired so far.

1. You have claimed that verses in the Qur’an are about Imamah (and this is referring to shi’a concept of Imamah), please post them, and give us the authentic narrations from the Prophet (SAW) that support this understanding from these verses…If you can, please post understandings of the ahl-l-bayt on the verses you quote

2. Prove the principles of Imamah (according to your shi’ah beliefs) from the Qur’an, note, if you may, the five pillars (fundamentals) of Islam according to authentic narration from the Prophet (SAW) can be proven (i.e their principles) from the Qur’an.

3. With respect to the Al-Muhajir’s statement being a mix-up due to his old age and several surgeries, making him to forget Tawheed as a fundamental of Islam, and listing zakah, sawm etc, as part of the fundamentals, you then posted the 5 Usul (Fundamentals) of the Shi’a to be; 1.) Tawheed 2.) Adl (Divine Justice) 3.) Nubuwwah 4.) Imamah 5.) Qiyamah (resurrection), hence, I request you provide evidences to support this list from the Prophet (SAW) and the ahl-l-bayt…

Now these are straightforward questions that do not require dillydallying, if you are sure of what you believe in being a command from Allah (SWT) then you should provide answers…But if you do not have answers and want to keep pointing to external links for me to visit, then I doubt you know what you are doing…

@lexiconkabir, perhaps you should mail the mods, seems the anti-spam bot has picked on your posts…

most of you stupid folks think people come to online forum to waste their time with long posts and senseless argument. i do not aim to win arguments here or win any trophy or impress anyone. i have pointed out that the Quran supports imamate. there is the Verse of Imamate in the Quran, the Verse of Wilyah, the Verse of Tathir, the Verse of Mawaddah etc. there is absolutely NOTHING we believe that CANNOT be backed by the Quran. brother Albaqir has the patience to spoon feed your and make long replies, and provide you with references and isnad, but not everyone will. maybe he can help you. but of course, with all his effort, hatred has not departed from your heart.

if you want truth, go find it yourself. google is your friend. if you are an agent of Iblis, stay in your darkness. i have given you replies, but you still want to prove to be a philosopher in ignorance. i will give you answers, and you keep asking questions of denial. if you want to know more, search. if you want to argue, deny the truth. very simple. the choice is yours.

lexiconkabir:
^^ This is nice!!! Youtube actually opened my eyes to their deviance, they always claim that they dont believe in ta'reef of the Quran, i later got to find out that its all Taquiyya!!

Na'udhubillahi minashayateen.

do not accept blindness, or another person using his palms to blind your eyes in the name of hatred. do not let shaitan use your brain. let me quote from another thread a reply to this your claim:

you are either misleading ignorant folks, or you are lying. either case is bad. Al-Kulayni has a disclaimer to his book, Usul al-Kafi:

"'Test the various reports by the Book of God; whatever agrees with it take it,whatever disagrees with it reject it."'Take what is agreed upon (by scholars). Certainly the universally accepted should not be doubted.'"

The above is found in al-Kafi by al-Kulayni.al-Kulayni was a Shia hadith recorder/compiler (just like Bukhari and Muslim for Sunnis),and he considers the Quran (as per the saying of Imam Sadeq) to be the yardstick for separating truth from falsehood.

in Sihah al-Sittah of the Sunnis, traditions on Tahreef of the Quran, even narrated by Aisha, abound. not to go into details, you can take a look at the examples given in the below link:
http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/creed-of-shia-explained/tahreef-of-quran.html

does this mean we as Shia would accuse Sunnis collectively as believing in Tahreef because classcial Sunni scholars of past recorded hadiths supposedly "sahih" ones in their hadith collections? we do not.

sino:
Brother Sheriff.shatterz wrote:

"One verse in the Qur'an completely destroys the shia imamate belief

As the active Members on this group know that, in any of previous post the Shias miserably failed to prove their fundamental belief of Imamate after Prophet(SAWS) from any CLEAR verse of Quran WITHOUT the help of any Tawil or ahadeeth, as they themselves admitted, hence which proved them to be a deviant sect as per Quranic verse (3:7).

Now in this post let us see that how a CLEAR verse of Quran destroys the whole concept of Imamate after Prophet(SAWS). The verse is So deadly for the Shias that, they attributed reports to their Imams where they suggested additional wordings in the verse, claiming that this is how it was revealed. And the Shia Scholar like Majlisi went ahead to explain this hadeeth by saying that the wordings HAS BEEN REMOVED from Quran. So this verse was so deadly for their belief that they had to claim Tahreef of this verse in order to save their belief.

Here is the Quranic verse:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.(4:59).

(I). In this clear verse, we find that in matters of disagreement between those in authority and those under authority, we need to refer back to Allah and the Messenger. Had it been that, those in authority were divinely appointed then, Allah wouldn't have given any scope to disagree with them.

(ii). If those in authority were divinely appointed then, Allah would have asked the believers to refer them along with Allah and Messenger in matters of disagreement.

But Allah(swt) giving the possibility of disagreement with those in authority, and asking us to refer back to Allah and Messenger is a clear evidence that those in authority were not divinely appointed and their obedience is conditional, unlike the obedience to Allah and Messenger, which is unconditional.

Lets see what authentic Shia hadeeth had to say about this clear verse destroying their belief, see how they claimed that the verse had additional wording:

In Rawdat Al-Kafi #212 we read:

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ بُرَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالَ تَلَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ تَنَازُعاً فِي الْأَمْرِ فَأَرْجِعُوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَ إِلَى أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ كَيْفَ يَأْمُرُ بِطَاعَتِهِمْ وَ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُنَازَعَتِهِمْ إِنَّمَا قَالَ ذَلِكَ لِلْمَأْمُورِينَ الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ

[`Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, from ibn abi `Umayr, from `Umar bin Udhaynah, from Burayd bin Mu`awiyah that abu Ja`far (as) RECITED: {Believers, obey Allah, obey His Messenger, and your leaders, if ye fear that you would differ among yourselves then refer it to Allah and the messenger and your leaders} Then he (as) said: “How can he order their obedience then allow you to differ with them? He only meant the ones who are under orders when he said {Obey Allah and obey the messenger}.]

The narration was declared as “Hasan(GOOD)” by Al-Majlisi in his book “Mir’at al-`Uqoul” 26/76.

Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Majlisi adds:

و ظاهر كثير من الأخبار أن قوله:” وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ” كان مثبتا هيهنا فأسقط

[It is apparent from many of the narrations that the term “and the leaders among you” was affirmed here, but was then removed.](“Mir’at al-`Uqoul).

In the footnotes of Hayat ul Quloob(3/165), the Shia translator Molvi Basharat Hussain states that:

[ “The author(Baqir Majlisi) says, Hazrat(Imam) meant that, If ulil amr is not mentioned in the end(of verse), it would be the evidence that the ummah can disagree with them, and this is against the order of obedience towards them which is in the beginning of the verse”]. (Hayat ul Quloob 3/165).

So see respected readers, when a Clear verse of Quran destroys the myth of divinely appointed leaders after Muhammad(SAWS), how these people try to manipulate the verse of Quran by claiming that, it had an extra wording, which was removed.

May Allah Guide the truth seeking and objective Shias."

http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/one-verse-in-the-qur'an-completely-destroys-the-shia-imamate-belief/msg11705/#new

the verse does not at all refer to disagreement between the Muslims and "those in authority". the verse refers to disagreement among ordinary Muslims themselves. how the author of the above article managed to smuggle "disagreement between Muslims and those in authority" into this verse is mind-boggling. this is an act of tahreef.

Ibn Taymiyyah gang of perverts are having a jamboree in this thread. well, obviously Islam is not for superficial thinkers, or people who dont think at all. people who have made terrorism their religion. let me think for you a little. is there any wisdom in permitting sex change? yes, there are many good reasons for it to be permitted. Ibn Taymiyyah's gang are misquoting the Holy Quran.

there are many reason for sex change especially in modern times with advance medical practice. there are people born with DEFECTS. those defects are not what you can describe as "God's creation" or "God's decision". they are medical conditions. many of you know of hermaphrodites. what do you do to them? do you leave a woman with b r e a s t s to continue having a p e n i s hanging between her legs? or a man to continue having b o o b s like women? what do you do? what of males who have hormonal imbalances, and medical examination proves that he has more of the female than the male hormones?

the permission of sex change is not aimed at altering the "normal" but rectifying already existing medical problems or defects (which could have been as a result of environmental factors) that beg for solutions. of course, the look at these people would make it all seem "abnormal". but these are problems in society that cannot be escaped. same thing with homosexuality. you can bring all the laws and punishment to ban it, but what is the solution to it? in Iran, if a man is effeminate and has more female hormones than male hormones, and no therapy or prayer can cure him, except surgery, it is allowed. ipeople who are pretenders are the worse. look deep into your villages, your communities, your states, etc. and you will find them plagued with different vices. yet you want to lecture a scientifically and medically fast developing country like Iran. please take panadol for your own headache.

funnily, people with little brains are quick to raise the issue of mut'ah. well, whatever you say about mutah, remember that Sunnis are of the view that at a point in time the Prophet (s) approved of mutah and your highly esteemed sahabah were among those who practiced it before it was allegedly "banned" (by Umar). (in fact as per Sunni hadiths, the Prophet purportedly repeatedly banned and allowed it up to six times and in six different occasions). follow Islam, not your desires and emotions. you have Jihadun Nikah, Misyar and every innovation (bid'ah) and yet your headache and standard of morality is only "high" when your put on your fake morality lenses to "judge" iran or the Shia. clowns!

(Sunni scholar) Shaykh Abdullah Katamtu:

Ibn Taymiyyah thoughts source of extremism in the Islamic world

Rasa - Shaykh Abdullah Katamtu referred to the role of the extremist fatwas propagated by 13- and 14th-century Takfiri cleric, Taqiuddin Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, in the spread of extremist throughout the Islamic world.

[img]http://media.en.rasanews.ir/Original/1395/04/15/IMG14231350.jpg[/img]

RNA – Shaykh Abdullah Katamtu referred to the role of the extremist fatwas propagated by 13- and 14th-century Takfiri cleric, Taqiuddin Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, in the spread of extremist throughout the Islamic world.

The Imam of the al-Wasim Mosque in Damascus’ Yarmouk refugee camp said the Takfiri phenomenon and scholars friendly to it have become the greatest enemies of Islam and Muslims by their misuse of Islamic sources and wrong interpretations of religious concepts.

He added that the propagation of extremist and Takfiri fatwas among the people, especially young people of the Islamic world, has led the world to receive a false interpretation of Islam.

He said that the political exploitation of religion is a mistake and that the Zionist regime has launched an armed struggle against Muslims and is sowing discord and division in the Islamic world in order to divide Islamic countries, especially Syria, Iraq and Egypt.

Shaykh Katamtu continued, saying that Wahhabis and other extremist groups have become the tools of the Zionist regime and sought to implement the goals of this regime in Islamic countries. “Muslims and Islamic governments should remain vigilant in regard to the events surrounding them so that the enemies cannot target them,” he said.

The member of the Union of‌ Scholars in Syria stressed that Islam is a religion of mercy and peace and added that “Islam is not a religion of the sword, does not allow the killing of innocent people, aggression nor destruction, but rather the Prophet Muhammad introduced Islam as the religion of mercy, kindness, peace and friendship.”

The Sunni scholar urged Islamic countries and the religious scholars to renounce the Takfiri ideology and false fatwas and said that in order to combat this ideology and its propagation of extremist fatwas all options need to be employed, including military, political and media options.


Shaykh Katamtu said that the fundamental problem of the Islamic world is the lack of practical and serious efforts to resist against the Takfiri ideology and the propagation of false fatwas and said: “Unfortunately, Islamic scholars look only to themselves and their countries and not toward other Islamic governments and Muslims. They must know that if one of the Islamic countries launches an attack on another part of the world, the outcome will soon reach them.”

111/112

http://en.rasanews.ir/detail/News/422524/23?utm_content=buffer7f235&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Demmzy15:
My proclamation was very clear, and it was that King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud(rah) never invaded Karbala or Najaf. If you have any document which points to that, please present it and I'll gladly concur.

two has been given. one is from the huffington post. seems you did not read the reply. a quick google search will clarify that the event happened. it was not once that the al saud left the arabian peninsula to attack iraq and in particular Najaf and Karbala, and to loot the treasures in the holy sites, destroy the mosques, level the tombs of the Prophet's family members, and kill innocent people. what Isis is doing today against Iraq's Shia is something that the predecessors of the saudi monarchy had done in their official status. now things have changed. so the dirty work is done by those everyone call "terrorists". yet still, you hear of condemnation for attack on a gay club in america, but silence when hundreds of Shia are butchered by suicide bombers in baghdad. the Muslim world is in a mess. it is even lack of humanity and human feelings.

mustaphaseve:
Rafidah claimed that the boko haram are of salaf faith but why did their leader come out in a video and claimed they killed Abu Abd-Rahman Muhammed Auwal albaniy zaria we all know he is the greatest salifist preacher Nigeria have ever had or is he also a Shia (ahaly bidah ) or suffi sunnist?
And why is it all the time we begin to discuss a matter in this place the Shia people who brings it up navigate to another topic e.g salifism and extremism then u will see saudi had hand in the sept 11 Attack
Shia (ahl Bidah ) we know all ur wrong doings and u cannot distract us ask £l binawi he know even if it is zakzaky that comes here he cannot change my fate but i may be able to talk him out bidah

brother, first you should learn to be civil. calling people names like "ahl bidah" does not make your case stronger or vindicate your beliefs. people have a right to follow what you call "bidah", and even "kufr". the Quran guarantees people's right to believe and disbelieve, and constitutionally people are free to worship as they will, and it is a universally accepted human right. if you have contributions to make, let it be of relevance to the discussion and not scattering dust to prove anything.

the problem with Salafist/Wahhabi ideology is Takfiri killings. you can disagree with others without calling them names, and even without being so intolerant that the differences can have you to kill. the example of Salafist/Wahhabi terror groups turning against each other and passing Takfiri (declaration of disbelief) against themselves is not a hidden secret. that is how Syria ended up with two factions of alqaeda (al nusra, and isis). these people disagreed on who should be their emir, and they end up killing themselves because each side calls the other "kafir". the problem of intolerance and takfiri killings is that it knows no limit. tolerance should be taught that not everyone who disagrees with you should be killed or becomes a kafir. you are not God. no one wants you to be Shia. its your choice to be what you like. Shia Islam is not Zakzaky's property. it has been before him and will be after him. you can still disagree with Zakzaky and be Shia. to many Shia Zakzaky is not given notice. he is ignored because many do not agree with his methodology of turning differences into cause for divisions. so please stick to the topic. if it is hatred you simply want to vent, then you're on your own. the Holy Quran says: "CALL UNTO THE PATH OF YOUR LORD WITH WISDOM AND KIND WORDS"! It doesnt say call unto the path of your lord with "killings and insults". i hope you see the difference between the two approaches.

Demmzy15:
^^^EID Mubarak Akhi, your points are well noted. Would reply them later!

Good.

For your info, when you present wiki to establish figures or details, I'd reject it as unreliable. When I present wiki most often, it's to establish the picture or confirm that an event took place (a general idea). Anyone can edit figures and details, but hardly anyone can post a fictitious event or story even on wiki.i was trying to establish al Saud ransacked Karbala and Najaf and killed thousands based on Takfir. but Not to make detailed claims.and along with wiki I always try to post an independent source. I just want to clarify so you don't feel I'm being unfair or unjust or playing double standard.

^

Eid Mubarak.
take a look at the evidences given above your post and in the end of the last page. get back to the topic. enough with the "my papa strong pass your papa" arguments. get back to the topic: the source of Salafist/wahhabi terror and the role of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahab. im not going to waste my time further. everything is clearly stated already. you can deny as you like. no problem. these are contemporary issues. lets get to the source of the problem and back to the topic. thanks