Discuss & Debate | Share | Learn

[abuali]

Brother Qarrar,

This particular thread was started due to a khutba delivered in Dar es Salaam which unfortunately led to an unpleasant saga that should never have occurred.

We all agree on permissibility of forms of azaadari unless permanent harm or danger is there as concluded in the earlier post, however, this particular discussion is with regards to the reply of Aga Sistani (may Allah grant him a long healthy life) to a brother in Pakistan following the ruling by Aga Khamenei (may Allah grant him a long healthy life)

As you may be aware, apart from the halaal of Muhammad and the haraam of Muhammad, there are things on which rulings can change based on development of circumstances.

Also quoting Ayatullah al Udhama Sheikh Muhammad Husain Naeni (R.A.) who was also quoted in the post in the other topic you linked to:

Secondly, there is no objection to beating cheeks and chest till they show redness or blackness. It is also permitted to hit one's back with chains to that extent, or, even if a little blood comes out. As to hitting one's front part of the head with the sword, it is allowed if it does not entail extra ordinary danger. It should be confined bleeding, without harming the skull bones, nor causing excessive bleeding, the same way as experienced and trained people do. However, if one does it carefully, yet in a dvertently harms himself by excessive bleeding, that would be a forbidden act, like one who did Wudhu, Ghusl or kept a fast believing that it was safe for him and then it turned out to be harmful. However, it is better, in fact Ahwat that only experienced and trained people engage in such acts. The youths who in their intense grief, love and emotions for Imam Husain (a.s.) exceed the limit and as a result carelessly harm themselves, should refrain from such acts. May Allah keep them steadfast on the right path, in this world and here after.

(refer to http://www.ask.or.tz/articles/rulings_on_zanjeer.html)

does not refer to a situation where such acts may be weapons for creating anti-shia and anti-muslim hate. You will refer that he advises caution by reading the bold part, but only referring to the bodily harm that can result in intensity of love, grief and emotions.

So yes, this is an old topic, but with new information. I feel its very important, especially for those who reside in Dar es Salaam, to reason this issue out in forums such as this, because actions without thought may lead to dire consequences, both here and hereafter. (but thats my thought..feel free to think differently :))

[Muhammad Mahdi]

Welcome Br Hasan to this forum. Thank you for approaching this issue and raising your opinions peacefully. It is with peace that we can come to a conclusion.

most of us agree and even if doing lanaats on dushmane ahlul bayt defames school thought it sould be avoided but when he was asked not to do so he did so, am i right

Performing acts like zanjeer defames the school of Ahlul Bayt, both to the non musims as well as to the other muslims. However, la'an does not defame shiaism to the non muslims and to the majority of other muslims. Most muslims will agree with you that Yazid (la) was a corrupt man.

Secondly he said Hijab of Bibi zainab a.s. or veil was not snatched here he asked where is Taqwa. I would like to ask Imam -e- Mazloom's clothes were looted Bibi Sakina a.s. was slapped by Lanati Shimr-e-Jaushan and whenever Imam Zainul Abdeen a.s. was asked he replied SHAM SHAM SHAM for what?.

The Shiekh said the hijab was not snatched. If you have evidence to prove it was snatched away leaving her hair open, then kindly provide this evidence to the Sheikh and to the members of this forum.

As to why imam said SHAM SHAM SHAM, there can be many reasons. I would like to remind you though that the hijab, if snatched away, (as mawlanas recite) was on the night after Ashura and not in sham.

here is said about lanaat mentioned above if it brings disunity and sunnis attending ur majalis then its haraam to say so.

Can you please clarify this statement as I do not quite understand it.

Brother my question is according to Quran to spread Fitna is Haraam right, Sheikh said many time this is a sensitive issue and i think he said controversial also so isnt it was a duty not to raise this issue.

When the Prophet preached islam, the quraysh used to get angry at him. Religion is a sensitive issue, yet this did NOT stop the prophet. Why should it stop us?

After seeing the fatwat fo Marja ikram mind it these not mere replies which is quoted by you.

These marja's fatwas are, if i can say it, "outdated" Currently most of us follow Ayatullah Seestani and it is hm we should refer to not the other marja. The current threat to shia islam due to zaneer and qama zani might not have been there when these fatwas were issued.

Now i ask you my dear borther didnt many other issues fall under those acts for enimies of islam and non shia espeacially MUTAH , Mohar used for salaat

There are some issues which are the basis of religion and others not so. There are also other acts that the Imams themselves recommended. The acts basic to religion or recommended by Imams should not be removed whether or not the threat. The other acts which were introduced by followers of Imams due to the love of Imams are not part of religion. You will agree with me, that to Zanjeer and qama zani ad khandaq were not practiced by the imams.

Acts like Mutah, will, to a neutral on muslim seem very logical and hence attract him/her to Islam.
Unfortunately we can not say the same for zanjeer.

Did he ever said Biddat or Haraam or refrain from it

But it is biddat!

I had a objection for the words used by you with care LESS LEARNED in our dictonery there is two words either Learned or Ignorant if you cant use it for someone then avoid it.

Want to buy a new dictionary? sorry couldn't resist
You see, those who abused the Sheikh were not learned for it not the sign of educated people to act like that. And I couldn't call them ignorant for who am I to do so. So I have given them the middle one. And I have been very generous!

I had read the fatwa not reply of ayatullah Sistani that is like in my words if there is fear of loss of life or damage to limbs injuries which are irreversible then you cant do.

The current ruling is that it should also not cause harm to the religion.

[hasanrizvi]

Dear Bro Mohammed,
Thanx for welcoming me.
I had read your replies but found that many views and comments had been avoided, i request you to go one by one to each and inshallah many reasons and answers you will find there itself. Still am replying to all replies.
----

Performing acts like zanjeer defames the school of Ahlul Bayt, both to the non musims as well as to the other muslims. However, la'an does not defame shiaism to the non muslims and to the majority of other muslims. Most muslims will agree with you that Yazid (la) was a corrupt man

.----
Dont you think its your view only, i request you to visit to india where i had seen this very act of zanjeer,qama had not only attracted but some of them started performing it. I had seen with my eyes even Hindu doing it and sunni also did who was not so good for Shias but after performing his views changed. Secondly you said it defames School of thought surprisingly in places where the majority of Shias reside like India,Pakistan,Iraq this never defamed might be in some parts western world, for that even i believe if it surely causes harm to Islam then it should be avoided in public like we performed majlis in Arab continent before.Third you said most muslims agree that Yazid l.a. was corrupt i think you do not know that they term Yazid la. as a khalifa of islam and whole lobby is working on it to prove he never did any wrong it was Ibne Ziyaad who did so. Regarding Laan i would like you to ask your elders about it, they will tell u better and even in dar it started when our previous Aalim was doing in Qunoot ours community members objected to which he replied in one of his khutba.Yes Laan is ibadat but you ask Sheikh he only said it becomes haraam i mentioned in my last post read it.

The Shiekh said the hijab was not snatched. If you have evidence to prove it was snatched away leaving her hair open, then kindly provide this evidence to the Sheikh and to the members of this forum

Again here you missed my answer to this well for Sheikh we had provided enough proofs so i request you to be in touch with daily religious proceedings in Dar. Just one proof of you only coz no one in this forum or else where had any doubt about it. Please tell me why head of Hz. Abbas a.s. was not spear why it was in the neck of Horse.

As to why imam said SHAM SHAM SHAM, there can be many reasons. I would like to remind you though that the hijab, if snatched away, (as mawlanas recite) was on the night after Ashura and not in sham.

I totally agree with you that veil was snatched before sham-e-ghariba but there was no market well decorated in kerbala and no mob to see (tamashbeen).Secondly Bibi Zainab a.s. raised the Hand for cursing when she saw tears in Imam Hussein's a.s. eyes as she was asked to wait for many hours outside court. Then Bibi Fizza a.s. in court asked her tribe persons what and why they raised 500 swords. I again request you to please read and think it is not for me to prove to Sheikh but you who believed it. Secondly as you said maulana recite, its ur duty as stated in Quran do not be blind and deaf - we should know the facts its not that i like certain person so whatever he says is right rest is what all says is wrong , am not saying you said its general talk for this part only

here is said about lanaat mentioned above if it brings disunity and sunnis attending ur majalis then its haraam to say so

Refer to my post above i said in brackets i will explain later its that part.and this part also i explained in this post above.

hasanrizvi wrote:Brother my question is according to Quran to spread Fitna is Haraam right, Sheikh said many time this is a sensitive issue and i think he said controversial also so isnt it was a duty not to raise this issue.
When the Prophet preached islam, the quraysh used to get angry at him. Religion is a sensitive issue, yet this did NOT stop the prophet. Why should it stop us?

Am very sorry to say you mis quoted the Issue Fitna cannot be compared with islam preaching. So now read it again and reply if you can

These marja's fatwas are, if i can say it, "outdated" Currently most of us follow Ayatullah Seestani and it is hm we should refer to not the other marja. The current threat to shia islam due to zaneer and qama zani might not have been there when these fatwas were issued.

I feel sorry for you again coz above in your post you quoted Ayatullah Khamenei now u agreeing for Ayatullah Sistani if you are follwer of Ayatullah Khamenei then its haraam for you but for Ayatullah Sistani's follower its not nehow please don't use the word OUTDATED for fatwas as it reflects lack of knowledge, secondly the fatawa mentioned above can be refered to Marje ikram netime, dont use your thinking over it please. You said its threat to Shia islam can you prove or name person who wanted to come to our school of thought and this act prevented him brother wahabis are against shias and all their beliefs they target those parts which are sensitive first it was Rauzas then Niyaz , Nazar then Mutah then Taboot then Alam then zanjeer/qama but it inshallah we will again unite on this issue and tear their cheeks like Maula Ali did in his cradle.

These all acts mentioned above is acts of love for Imam Hussein its not wajib that it can push back neone who wants to join us, today 50% of shias are not doing this that doesnt means they are not shias.

There are some issues which are the basis of religion and others not so. There are also other acts that the Imams themselves recommended. The acts basic to religion or recommended by Imams should not be removed whether or not the threat. The other acts which were introduced by followers of Imams due to the love of Imams are not part of religion. You will agree with me, that to Zanjeer and qama zani ad khandaq were not practiced by the imams.
Acts like Mutah, will, to a neutral on muslim seem very logical and hence attract him/her to Islam.
Unfortunately we can not say the same for zanjeer.

Well first i had already answered second part u said Mutah to a neutral person seems logical brother everything is logical thats why we follow but its not for non muslims i myself is being questioned so many times for Mutah and not for Zanjeer, as you know something pleasurable is questioned more than other.I again request you to visit to sunni gatherings here in dar you wont find them in big numbers we in Asia face this. Mutah is termed as prostitution and even someone has posted on you tube about debate with some european and all were mocking at us and saying our Ayatullah Sistani as sexologist. So when this is defaming shia - islam isnt it becomes haraam or we just look after our pleasures. Your unfortunetly is a fortune for me that in DAR no non mulsim or non shia ever questioned Zanjeer except our own people while Mutah is being questioned and is substance of laughing even here in DAR.

hasanrizvi wrote:Did he ever said Biddat or Haraam or refrain from it

But it is biddat!

I can't comment except that you better start your taudhihul Masael or book of Islamic Laws. I said so because even the reply u posted of Ayatullah Sistani never said it so and secondly that was reply to a question which was i think not properly understood by you, thirdly here there was no conflict before as it was in pakistan between follower of two marja and last is Ayatullah said those acts he never said Zanjeer qama khandaq mutah laanat so it upto you to decide although he was asked for zanjeer but he said for all those acts....

Want to buy a new dictionary? sorry couldn't resist
You see, those who abused the Sheikh were not learned for it not the sign of educated people to act like that. And I couldn't call them ignorant for who am I to do so. So I have given them the middle one. And I have been very generous!

First those who abuses any lover of ahlulbait not only sheikh cannot be called learned mind it am not saying abusing is allowed for others.Secondly keep generousity for all Lover of Ahlulbait and this the only reason i am posting my views.

hasanrizvi wrote:I had read the fatwa not reply of ayatullah Sistani that is like in my words if there is fear of loss of life or damage to limbs injuries which are irreversible then you cant do.

The current ruling is that it should also not cause harm to the religion.

Well you are saying current ruling that means it must have a Masla number please provide, i would like to clear one thing there is a huge difference between ruling , fatwa & replies.its not must all questions asked suit us it may differ for one place to another but fatwa and ruling is universal

[abuali]

Brother Hassan & Muhammad

Br. Hassan, Thank you for coming back to respond to Muhammads reply. Forgive me but I did not understand many of the responses that you had posted (most likely due to my own lack of vision and low level of understanding)

Like I said I have many comments to make and questions to ask, but I feel that making any of my posts long will defeat the purpose by making this forum too long and hard for readers to follow.

With this regard I would like to request all posters to please keep this discussion on a point to point basis. Each point can be numbered and any comment on that point or any refutation of that point can be given with reference of that number. This will ensure that many readers benefit from this discussion. Does that sound ok Br. Muhammad and Br. Hassan?

[abuali]

I will perhaps start by example

Br. Hassan, from your post:

we in Asia face this.

I have assumed that you live in Asia

That brings to mind a question:

Are you fully aware of what happened in Dar? Have you heard the friday khutba by the sheikh and did you witness the akhlaq of the people who 'verbally attacked him'?

If so, can you be kind enough to tell us the nature of your source

[abuali]

The Shiekh said the hijab was not snatched. If you have evidence to prove it was snatched away leaving her hair open, then kindly provide this evidence to the Sheikh and to the members of this forum

Again here you missed my answer to this well for Sheikh we had provided enough proofs so i request you to be in touch with daily religious proceedings in Dar. Just one proof of you only coz no one in this forum or else where had any doubt about it.

1. Snatching of Hijab
I have to agree with Muhammad Mahdi in this particular point (but this may be due to my lack of knowledge). I am not a student of Islamic History and I have not read or researched any Islamic History books especially on the event of Karbala. Hence the only source from where I have heard about the snatching of 'hijab' is in marshia's, nawha's and majalise's. I cant remember any narrator giving a reference to where this particular event in history is recorded.

Hence, what I think Muhammad Mahdi is asking is 'I do not know that the 'hijab' was snatched or not because I have not studied any source of history that says so or denies so. But if you are claiming it was snatched, what is your source/proof' The burden of proof lies on you Br. Hassan

Please tell me why head of Hz. Abbas a.s. was not spear why it was in the neck of Horse.

I did not understand the above statement. Please explain

[hasanrizvi]

Br. Hasin,

Thanx for advice.
Your First Post was regarding Sheikh's issue, first i like to tell you that i myself is the witness of that meeting held on Friday Night in outer open section of Imam Bargah and nothing bad or verbal attack was on him. Secondly he even joked that who is arranging dinner then he left smiling so no need of any clearification for that.

Your Second post was that even you had not seen any book for that riwayat of Bibi Zainab's a.s.Veil snatching well brother the problem is that we give our most of the time to worldly studies which is also good but not to islamic history for e.g. if someone asks about Imam Zamana a.s. and his meetings in Ghaibat-e-Sughra and his command to follow Marja in Ghaibat-e-Kubra we wont be able to provide any proofs such as riwayat. We listen to learned Ulema's and they even tell us the source but unfortunetly evrything is not available in internet for us to read if i can tell names of five books which is in Farsi and Urdu how will you confirm, dont take me wrong this is the problem we face. Secondly brother today another problem is that we have to prove our belief why , why not the others who condemn it. Still i will explain you very simply about veil issue. Refer to any book of journey of Qafil-e-Hussein from Karbala, you will find all heads of Martyrs were one on Spear's head while one was tied to the neck of Horse, someone asked Imam Zainul Abdeen a.s. in Madina for the reason and he replied Our Uncle a.s. cannnot bear to look at the Barhaina heads of Bibiyan.Once even his companion said Maula till when u will cry he said "you had not done insaaf (justice) Yakoob lost one son Yusuf and knew he is alive then also he cried till he lost his light of eyes" (all in my words) the his companion said "but Maula Shadat is your Wirsa" To this Maula replied "again you have not done insaaf shadat is our wirsa but Rida (veil) of mother and sister is not in our wirsa"(in my words) One more reference from MukhtarNama when Hz. Mukhtar was called in the court of ibne Ziyad la. and Ibne Ziyad said you had not said salam to ameer(ruler) he replied My Ameer is Imam Hussein a.s. to which ibne Ziyad la. said this hussein a.s. whose Head is here, Hz mukhtar got angry and all his chains were teared apart but at that he heard the voice of Zanjeer as he was about to turn Imam Zainul Abdeen a.s. said Mukhtar dont turn as Namuse Mohammedi a.s.(Ladies of Prophet house ahlulbait) are without veil.
So brother mukhtarnama you can get easily and you can refer to it.
Brother Hasin am extremly happy that atleast people of Dar are intrested in knowing the history i request them to study as well and also prove to me that only Makna was looted which is not a veil.

May allah grant us knowledge by wasila of bibi ZAinab a.s. and help us to increase wasail for Aza-e-Mazloom rather than decreasing it further just because i had not read whether i tried or not and to what extent its another big question. I wish i could go to Hauza in Qum or Najaf just for 2 years and get pagdi(amama) and then what i say others had to prove right or wrong as i will be always right LOL
Ayatullah Bashir Najafi who is marjae taqlid confirmed it i have witneses tell me how can i put them here LOL.


wasalam
Hasan

[hasanrizvi]

Dear All,

Alhamdolilah we got the fatwa of Ayatullah Sistani and many other Ulema's on the Issue of Qama and inshallah within two three days i will post it on this forum as the person bringing it is in syria, secondly it was said Biddat and haraam for shedding of blood now alhamdolilah miracle has happend here in dar am sending the image to brother hasin and reuest him to post the image where khake shifa oozed out blood on shabe aashoor and if anyone wants to see live can contact. I have confirmed the place and person it is with.
i had found link regarding the veil of Bibi Zainab a.s. read the chapter when Imam hussein a.s. adivces bibi a.s.http://www.ezsoftech.com/stories/download1.asp

[zulfiqaar]

Dear Br. Mohammed

I quote from the sections in your post.. " .... and security provided for the Shaykh."

"Let us, who have accused and abused the brave Shaykh ...."

Firstly if the Shaykh is really brave as you mention, then there is no need to provide security for him.
If he is being portrayed as "mazloom" then that is a different story.

"And if it is very important for us to give out blood, then why not donate blood? This way, we will be spreading the message of Imam peacefully and saving lives too. And if we feel the spirit is not there while doing so, let us take an mp4 player with us and play a nawha while doing this noble act!"

As per the "brave" Shaykh anything that was not practised during the time of the prophet is "Biddah!!"

Therefore Blood Donation and the use of MP4 player fall in this category.

May Allah (swt) hasten the reappearance of our 12th Imam.

Salaams

Zulfiqaar

[Fatimah Zahra Karim]

Salaams
Hasan: regarding B. Zainab's hijab, someone went to ask the sheikh to clarify what he meant. The sheikh said that the outer clothing, what we call chador, was snatched, but the bibis of the time used to be extensively covered and their HIJAB remained. Ask any woman who wears a chador constantly and she'll tell you. Even if she's wearing a salwar kamiz that classifies as hijab (it's long, loose, not revealing), she will feel uncomfortable in the presence of strange men without her chador on. It was probably this type of discomfort that the bibis faced.

Zulfiqaar: The definition of "bid'a" according to the sheikh and everyone else, is introducing into religion anything that the prophet (saww) did not. If you consider it wajib to use an mp4 player, yes, it is bid'a, but i doubt anyone does that. As for blood donation, it is our duty as muslims to help wherever we can. If your blood saves someone's life, blood donation is a recommended act.

Just a reminder here...we're trying to discuss issues, ideas. Let us please keep sarcasm to ourselves. It is not needed.

[zulfiqaar]

Dear Sister Fatimah,

I am well versed with the "extensive covering of women who wear chadaar constantly". I know it was not the our type of "Coat Chaddars" or "See Through transparent Open Flowing Abbayas". For general information "Shalwar Kamiz does not mean chaddar". I think we all know how we can individually define Chaddar and "Hijab". I do not think it would be wise if we enter into detailed discussions about this topic here.

Secondly if you really want to know what comments were made by the shaykh then you should refer to the local people with whom he spoke directly. This will minimise the fitnah and fasaad in the community. I think this should be our goal.

You did not get my point regarding Biddah. As per the Shaykh's explanation of Biddah (I obtained this from a reliable witness) leave alone Blood donation or use of an MP4 player, anything not used during the time of the prophet is Biddah. Basically his statement was that Zanjeer, Qama, etc are biddah. Sorry to mention that his statement was later changed to mention Biidah -e- Hassanah!

There was no sarcasm mentioned anywhere. We should not make statements that contradict each other. Either we agree that the Shaykh is brave then there is no need to arrange or even mention the issue of security. By announcing publicly that security is being provided for the Shaykh it shows a picture that the Shaykh has said something which he should not have said.

Brother Hasin,

I therefore agree with your quote in which you say to brother Qarrr "This particular thread was started due to a khutba delivered in Dar es Salaam which unfortunately led to an unpleasant saga that should never have occurred."
Sorry brother Hasin, but some youths write that if we dont hear such things from the mimbar where will we hear it from."
I think it is the presentation and approach which matters when we discuss controversial topics.

I will just advise you one thing as a fellow brother regarding your statement "I have assumed that you live in Asia
That brings to mind a question: Are you fully aware of what happened in Dar? Have you heard the friday khutba by the sheikh and did you witness the akhlaq of the people who 'verbally attacked him'? "

As per the reply of Br. Hassan " ...first i like to tell you that i myself is the witness of that meeting held on Friday Night in outer open section of Imam Bargah and nothing bad or verbal attack was on him. Secondly he even joked that who is arranging dinner then he left smiling so no need of any clearification for that."

As you see brother, you were assuming that Brother Hassan lives in Asia and the fact is that he lives in Dsm. (This is as per my understanding.) In fact Brother Hassan says that he was actually present and personally witnessed the akhlaq of the people. He further clarifies that this conversation took place "at the open section of the Imambargah" implying that he was present in Dsm and knows the location of the meeting which took place in addition to the maulana being in a jovial mood discussing dinner plans.

Also when you mention that "..the people verbally attacked him.." this was also denied by Brother Hassan who says he was present. The details are mentioned in his reply.

I request that we should not make assumptions and also not depend on the narratives of others. This is just my humble request because this is an Inflammatory topic. Again brother no hard feelings. We should all unite and try to keep this occurence behind us now.

Brother Hasin and Sister Fatimah,

I recall that When Imam Ali was asked what is the difference between truth and falsehood? He replied, "Four fingers". i.e. The distance between one's eyes and ears. Whatever you see with your eyes is the Truth. Whatever you hear has an exellent chance of being part of Falsehood.

May Allah (swt) hasten the reappearance of our 12th Imam.

Salaams

Zulfiqaar

Nb Brother Hasin, I am impressed by the discussions that you have started and are continuing to develop for the benefit
of our community. May Allah (swt) reward you manifold for your efforts.

O Allah (swt) send you blessings on Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him and his pure progeny) and his family.

[hasanrizvi]

Dear All especially Zulifiqar
Zulfiqar you are 100% right i am in Dar and i took that remark of bro Hasin that i am from Asian origin. You raised very logical questions and sorry to say that today we are defending our beliefs and rituals from insiders while before we fought with Wahabees and we won on all front, our lives be sacrificed on those who gave away thier lives for Ziarah of Imam Hussein a.s. some gave their hand some both hands .
Now lemme explain Biddah to sister- Biddah is something added to islam after prophet a.s. as wajibat and Prophet a.s.'s sunnat. Now Br. Zulfiqar gave good example Mp4 used for listening Nauhas cannot be termed as Biddat because that is not wajib like wise ZAnjeer Qama etc which is never said wajib or sunnate Rasool cannot be called Biddat as Biddat is Haraam.
Other issue was CHADOR or Chadar it was bit amusing coz i discussed and posted so many incidents still it wasn't understood by question is why we are defending something/someone which/whom we dont know even and also how come anyone knows the intention behind saying If i call someone Thief and person supprting me says my intention was that i stole words my friends my question is had anyone asked sheikh if not then why to defend instead of questioning him.
Bro Zulfiqar even the change of statement of Biddah-Hasana was said by someone else saying that intention of Skh was this LOL
Anyways am waiting for bro Mohammed Mehdi to reply who said "YES IT IS BIDDAT"


Ya Allah please send our Imam a.s. who in Ziarat Says i Shall weep blood instead of tears (ofcourse for Imam Hussein a.s.and companions)i hope no one suggests HIM a.s. about their so called baseless views.

[Muhammad Mahdi]

Salaam Alaykum

Sorry to say, I do not think I will be posting much on this thread, seeing how the discussion is going. I will of course be reading your opinions and reply if I see I need to.

Biddat is anything added to the religion. Why I said zajeer is biddat is because as Ayatullah Khamenei explains on his website, it was not practiced during the times of Imams. Today, anyone who stands up to oppose zanjeer is abused, cursed, and called wahabi. Such are the actions of these people who do such act that they believe hat zanjeer is part of religion. Hence it becomes biddat.

[Fatimah Zahra Karim]

I live in Dar too. (I think you have assumed I do not, since you're asking me to talk to the local people)

A question: Did you witness everything that is being discussed here? You seem to be relying largely on Hasan's comments in your remarks towards Hasin.

The sheikh was asked in a Q&A session what bid'a meant. You misquote him. I have a recording to prove that he did not say what you say he said. He said sunni's call tarawih bid'atul hasana, but there is no such thing.

I recall that When Imam Ali was asked what is the difference between truth and falsehood? He replied, "Four fingers". i.e. The distance between one's eyes and ears. Whatever you see with your eyes is the Truth. Whatever you hear has an exellent chance of being part of Falsehood.

I heard this from him, myself and have a recording to prove it. You heard it from a 'reliable witness', who, it turns out, wasn't telling the whole truth. Maybe you misunderstood him/her.

I know shalwar kamiz is not chador. But it may sometimes meet the requirements of hijab. The point I was trying to make was that the sheikh said the bibi's chahdors were snatched but their hijabs were not.

As for sarcasm, I see you're not willing to go without it. Was Imam Husain brave or not? I think we all agree that he was. Yet when he went to meet governor of Madina, did he not take H. Abbas(as) and the other qurayshi warriors with him? Did he not tell them that he would raise his voice in case of any threat to his life and they were to come in in this situation? Was this not security?

Does not Nasrallah go around with body guards?

Was the Prophet (saww) not provided security in the battle of Uhud? Did not a WOMAN take up a sword to defend the Prophet (saww)? Are you implying, God-forbid, that the Prophet (saww) was a coward? That a woman was braver than him?

By announcing publicly that security is being provided for the Shaykh it shows a picture that the Shaykh has said something which he should not have said.

It could mean that, or it could show we have zealous, ignorant, think-in-the box people in the community who are willing to attack an alim, merely for speaking what he considers is the truth. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

God mentions several times in the Quran

"...Bring your proof if you are truthful..."

Attack the shaykh if you will. But do so with references not with fists, threats, and swearing.

[Fatimah Zahra Karim]

Other issue was CHADOR or Chadar it was bit amusing coz i discussed and posted so many incidents still it wasn't understood by question is why we are defending something/someone which/whom we dont know even and also how come anyone knows the intention behind saying If i call someone Thief and person supprting me says my intention was that i stole words my friends my question is had anyone asked sheikh if not then why to defend instead of questioning him.

I seriously dont get what you're trying to say here. Can you please avoid run-on sentences? No offense, but a full stop here and there would be appreciated :?

If you mean we should ask the shaykh what he meant, instead of just blindly defending him...that is exactly what we have done. We have questioned him and when I put forward his opinion I say 'he meant...'. Since I obviously cannot read minds, the only way I can know what he meant is by asking him.