Ask any question about Shia-Islam thread

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Kaffir has never been a derogatory name. If kaffir is derogatory, then people of the book is also derogatory. Munafiq is also derogatory.
    When they are just simple islamic terminology for classifications.
    By all means open a new thread if you want to discuss it.
    this has already been discussed so many times

    it's not about history or philology : it's about intention. "kaffir" is derogatory when meant as an insult (as it often is)

    same with the n-word (which actually simply means 'black" in latin)

    best
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    this has already been discussed so many times

    it's not about history or philology : it's about intention. "kaffir" is derogatory when meant as an insult (as it often is)

    same with the n-word (which actually simply means 'black" in latin)

    best
    Well obviously if it is meant as an insult then it sure is.
    But simply saying this is a muslim, this is a kaffir, believing in another god will make you a kaffir. Then no.
    You haven't brought to light anything new friend.
    Best wishes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Well obviously if it is meant as an insult then it sure is.
    But simply saying this is a muslim, this is a kaffir, believing in another god will make you a kaffir. Then no.
    You haven't brought to light anything new friend.
    Best wishes.
    I have brought to light that there is an analogy between terms like "rafidhi", "kaffir", or even the n-word

    often terms which are meant to be derogatory, can be taken up with pride by those they are directed against

    good night
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    I have brought to light that there is an analogy between terms like "rafidhi", "kaffir", or even the n-word

    often terms which are meant to be derogatory, can be taken up with pride by those they are directed against

    good night
    Anything can be an insult if the intention is there.
    The word woman can be an insult.
    So nothing groundbreaking here.
    Goodnight to you too.
    Apologies to tawheed for derailing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    If Ideas oversteps the boundaries I will personally scold him.
    And if you do the same i will also scold you.


    :mmm:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    I don't really know, but i would never call an adhmadi muslim by an offensive nick-name, call them kuffar, or abuse them, or cluster gang up on them.

    I'll find out for you though.



    The shia position on interfaith relations is different to the salafi position. In our madhab, we are not just told to be good to non-muslims and be cordial, but we are allowed to be close friends with them, associate with them, so long as it is not in Haram.

    Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, the rightful successor of Muhammed s.a.w stated in one of his letters to his governors: "A person is either your brother in faith, or equal in humanity ".

    Ayatullah Sistani - the biggest shia scholar alive today - has stated that one can be friends with a non-muslim.

    We are taught to be productive members of society, to integrate without compromising our beliefs, to show love and compassion to our neighbours, and to be an asset to british society - not a burden. We are encouraged to partake in politics, rather than being told we are being accomplices 'with the kuffar'.

    As for the salafi-position, you can read it here: https://islamqa.info/en/21530

    According to the salafi-sect, being friends with a 'rafidha' (an abusive name for a shia) or many groups within the ahlus-sunnah who they regard as innovators, is not encouraged and potentially forbidden.

    So you and i can be good friends, so long as there is mutual respect shown. But a salafi can't be my friend, or even your friend.
    Thank you for the detailed response.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [Just posting this for future reference - this is not an exhaustive reply to the naming of the sons of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s - so a refutation of it would not really mean anything].

    Shiachat is back online, and inshAllah this means i can begin to answer questions quicker (time permitting, inshAllah)

    With regards to the name 'Umar', this name atleast, was very famous and common among the Arabs. There were a number of prominent companions of Muhammed s.a.w named 'Umar'. Ofcourse, to a sunni brother and sister today, Hazrat Umar, is considered a stern, but very pious and steadfast man, and unanimously the second best person after Muhammed s.a.w (and Hazrat Abu Bakr). When Umar is mentioned, and when Umar is mentioned as a name for one of the sons of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, a sunni brother can not imagine him naming his son Umar, after anyone but Umar.

    Putting to one side the fact a number of prominent, well respected companions held that name, or at the very least, it was a common name among the arabs - were there any Umars who lived during the time of Muhammed s.a.w, fought with Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, were near and dear to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, and to add to that, were even made the leader of a number of key cities by Ali ?

    Yes, indeed, we find there is one named Umar , the son of Ummulmimineen Salama (r.a), one of the most loyal and noble wives (all the other wives are ofcourse, to be respected). She disagreed with Umulmimineen Aisha, with regards to her stance at Jamal. Umm Salama argued that Ali a.s was on haq, Ali a.s was the best man alive by a distance, Ali a.s was the caliph, and that he should be trusted to deal with matters, and one should not even think in their heads of causing disturbance, let alone making an 'ijtihad' to accumulate forces agains his will and command.

    Umm Salama sent her son, Umar ibn Salama (r.a), a brave man, to fight with Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s during the various fitnahs. Indeed, such was the position and status of Umar (r.a), that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s even appointed him as the governor of Bahrain in addition to a number of other key places.

    It can be argued that Umar was a common name, and that there were other Sahaba named Umar. So Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, who had well over a dozen sons, could have named his son Umar, due to the commonality of these names. He could also have named it after a number of companions of Muhammed s.a.w, or of those Umars not recorded in history, but had closeness to him. It may also be likely, he named his son after Umar ibn Salama r.a, who not only was the son of one of the greatest wives of Muhammed s.a.w, but fought his corner when muslims were waging war on him, and a man who garnered his trust to such an extent, he even made him governor , when he (Ali a.s) was caliph.

    According to some history books/ sources it is also noted that Ali a.s's son was Amr - not Umar. This is very common with the name 'Umar' and the mistake scribes make. Many times in ilm al rijal, among sunni and shia hadith literature there are disagreements on whether someone was called 'Amr' or Umar'. This is just a point i wanted to throw out there.

    Coincidently, i believe some say the son of Umm Salama was also 'Amr' and not Umar (but this i am uncertain about, as i have only heard 'Umar' from shia sources).

    I don't hold this view, and i am not putting any weight on it, but i am just throwing it out there that, it may also be possible that there are other reasons for naming his son Umar. I don't say them because it will give people a chance to unfairly ignore the weight of my post and focus on afterthoughts as a main argument.

    I think the claim that one makes with absolute confidence therefore, that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s named his son after Hazrat Umar, absolutely and there is not other valid alternative explanation but him is erroneous, and a claim not made if someone is open and cognisant of the facts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ***I will be replying to brother Zamestanehs question on tawassul and istigatha first inshAllah before replying to anyone else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:


    It's no coincidence Imam Malik - who lived in Medina - and the ahlulbayt asws - also lived in Medina- prayed with their arms by their sides, or at the very least with Imam Malik, considered it preferable.

    Medina was there Muhammed s.a.w was able to truly be the leader of the Ummah, and where Islam flourished. In Makkah in those ten years , he barely had a hundred or few hundred followers at the most. The majority of the Sahaba in Makkah and arabia only converted in the last 1-3 years of his Prophethood, and errors and innovations were prone to occur due to geographic factors among others.

    Indeed, we find in the many battles during the last few years of the life of Muhammed s.a.w many still disobeying him, questioning him, fleeing from battles in their numbers.

    I'm not saying the people of Medina were perfect either, by any means. There were major problems in Medina itself. But i believe, atleast in the fiqh of salah, geographical variation had a part to play.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    An excellent, thorough article by a maliki-brother on Sadl : https://malikifiqhqa.files.wordpress.../07/sadl_1.pdf

    I don't endorse the following video completely, but it is worthy of a watch:

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Shiachat is back online, and inshAllah this means i can begin to answer questions quicker (time permitting, inshAllah)
    I was hoping to get your answers rationalised by you through the openly available shia sources. So that I can have a look and compare your beliefs, shia beliefs and sunnis ( as I currently do now) and see which side makes more sense.
    Basically I would have hoped for your answers rather than answers dictated to you by the hawzas and their students.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    I was hoping to get your answers rationalised by you through the openly available shia sources. So that I can have a look and compare your beliefs, shia beliefs and sunnis ( as I currently do now) and see which side makes more sense.
    Basically I would have hoped for your answers rather than answers dictated to you by the hawzas and their students.
    For the vast majority if not all the beliefs i hold, i have undergone a process by which i look at both sides, truly reflect at the arguments given to me by both sides and consider them fairly. If you know me, and know my soul, you would understand how restless i get when i am confronted by a view which counters one i have and makes me think. I remain with certianty, but do not stop until i research that area sufficiently.

    For the vast majority of questions, i have deemed it sufficient to use resources that are free, open and accesible. However, where i believe i need to double check a fact, or ask someone who i know is far better versed in an area and can better explain it, without making any errors - or perhaps elucidate further on an aspect, i ask. I am not ashamed to research further if i do not know exactly how to approach an answer.

    Many resources are not available in english - but are in farsi or arabic, which is why i must consult about them.

    I'll give you a few examples:

    Brother Zamestaneh asked about the issue of ahadith and shia Rijal coming (allegedly) later than sunnni rijal. I know a brother on shiachat who is nearly an expert on these issues. The vast majority of shia works on Rijal are in Arabic/Farsi. I am still learning arabic daily and am not to the level where i can translate entire textbooks on issues. Therefore, asking a brother who can understand these languages, and is almost an expert on this issue , whose power of eloquence and grasp of the subject at hand are far superior to mine, made me reach out to him, rather than arrogantly doing half-a job answering a question.

    In many instances and cases, i have answered the questions on key aqeedah issues. Where i need translations on works, or a brother who is a student of knowledge to correct any misunderstandings or even slight doubts i have on a topic, or asking someone far more knowledgable than i am to elucidate me on aspects of a question i may have overlooked, i request and seek help from such people without any shame whatsoever.

    You , for example, asked me about niche works from Ni'matullah Jazeri. You referred to a book the vast majority of shia's would not have even heard of (even if he was a known scholar), and even those who have heard of this book in paticular, our ulema ask people to refrain from reading that book (possibily) according to a student of knowledge. Furthermore, the views given in that book go against the clear ijma of shia ulema which i had already presented to you - but you were insistent on me to address this one rare and niche book.

    Therefore, it was better for me to ask a student of knowledge who may have read the book (which i believe he has) and knows the full context of the issue, what our ulema say about it, and what one should do in terms of their approach to it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    An article i have recently posted on the shia forum i use:

    I have made a similar thread before, discussing one contention our brothers in the ahlus-sunnah have against the shia view of Ghadeer. As you know, our sunni brothers believe Ghadeer was solely a way for Muhammed s.a.w to resolve a dispute about Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s having intercourse with a slave girl , which caused enimity between him and a fraction (a percentage, not all, and we don't even know if most) of the 300 armed men sent to Yemen, which took place around or over a month earlier involving a dispute in how he handled the Khums. Indeed, many websites are set up with the title of the article 'Ghadeer exploded' or 'Rafidah holywood - ghadeer distortions' or 'You shia rafidah, come here and we will teach you about ghadeer'.

    In refuting the shia narrative of Ghadeer, they ask - Why did Muhammed s.a.w not announce the declaration of Ali a.s at Makkah infront of all of the Pilgrims? Why did he announce it to the Muhajiroon and the Ansaar primarily, as well as those who were traveleing north of Makkah to towns other than Medina?

    There are a number of ways to answer this - and my thread is not designed to answer this in any exhaustive or even sufficient manner. I believe in order to even approach the issue, one must take into account a few things (i have missed critical elements needed to address the claim made by our sunni brothers. I am only discussing one part)

    1. Medina was the place Islam flourished, containing the ansaar and the Muhajiroon. The vast majority of the Sahaba converted in the last one, two , or three years of the life of Muhammed s.a.w. Many were enemies of the Prophet s.a.w for decades, before converting. During the first ten years of his prophethood, Muhammed s.a.w amassed very few followers in Makkah, and was persecuted severely. In Medina, during the next segment of his prophethood, Islam truly flourished. However, many companions still disobeyed him, fled from battles again and again even during his final years, and so the situation was far from perfect. As for the Makkans, many of them were enemies of Muhammed s.a.w for decades. Makkah only converted during the last two or so years of the life of Muhammed s.a.w. It is not as though the people of Makkah was life-long ardent followers. Many in Makkah only converted to save their lives, and because they had little choice. Many still had that hatred for Muhammed s.a.w. As for the muslims all over the rest of Arabia, who converted during the last year or so of the Prophet s.a.w's life, Islam never truly developed there are strong as it did in Medina. It takes time for such things to happen, and Islam was still in it's infancy in those areas. There was political uncertianity everywhere in Arabia, hypocrites in Makkah. Medina was probably the one place you could say with followers who had been with Muhammed s.a.w the longest, and spent the greatest ammount of time with him.

    It speaks for itself that Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar, in Saqifah, along with a minority of the ansaar, never at all spoke about the right of the Makkans or those from other tribes around Arabia to have a hand in the issue of leadership. Rather, they believed the issue of leadership must be resolved firmly between the emigrants and the helpers, residing in Medina. The first five Caliphs, including Hasan a.s temporarily, all came from the emigrants and the helpers, or those who resided in Medina. Indeed, according to our sunni brothers, all four of the 'rightly guided caliphs' were chosen and eminated from the people of Medina.

    If it was sufficient for Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar, and a minority of the ansaar in medina, in the absence of the vast majority of the sahaba to choose , in secret the next leader, why do people question if Muhammed s.a.w declared infront of all of the sahaba who came with him, including the people who may have traveled north of Medina as well (to other parts of arabia) that Ali a.s is the rightful leader inbetween makkah and medina?



    Reading through Tarikh At Tabari, i have also found a very interesting narration.
    "Abd al- Raluman b. 'Awf came to me saying, "Today I saw a man1307 who came to the Commander of the Faithful [i.e., Umarj and said, 'I have heard so-and-so' saying: If the Commander of the Faithful is dead I would give my oath of allegiance to so-and- so,"-309 The Commander of the Faithful said that he would get up among the people that evening and warn them against the group of people who want to usurp their power." I said, "0 Commander of the Faithful, the pilgrimage brings together the riffraff and the rabble; they are the ones who will dominate over your assembly. I am afraid lest you should say something today which they might neither heed, nor remember, nor put it in its context and spread it everywhere; so wait until you come to Medina [which is) the place of refuge [dnr al-hijrah] and a seat of the sunnah. [There] you can confer privately with the Messenger of God's companions, both the Emigrants and the Ansdr. You i can say what you will with firmness, they will retain your words and interpret them properly." He replied, "By God, I will do it at the first opportunity which I get in Medina."


    Points to make about the above:

    One of the lovers of Hazrat Umar , and his close companion, tells him to wait before giving a speech on a crucial matter pertaining to leadership after him. His logic being during the Hajj, there are many who assemble from all over arabia, as well as the people of Makkah, among whom are people who may be hypcorites or misunderstand his word, or not take heed, or distort it for one reason or another or cause mischief (this is my intepretation). He therefore advises him to wait until he reaches Medina, so he can declare this important issue to the people who he deems to be far mor recipient, living in the 'seat of the Sunnah'. Therefore, Hazrat Umar himself waits till he reaches Medina, before giving this speech.

    If Hazrat Umar, and his companion recognize the volatile political climate, the fact that hajj gathers people who are capable of causing mischief and chaos and distorting words and spreading vitriol, and that it would be better to convey the important words of leadership to the absolute centre of the muslim community in the land where Islam flourished the most, i say, why can't Muhammed s.a.w do likewise ?

    Furthermore , Muhammed s.a.w did not declare Ali a.s at Medina, but on the way to Medina. There were still many companions and groups who would have travelled to areas north of Medina and journeyed with him. There may have been wisdom in thus, not declaring it at the Hajj in Makkah.

    I am not assuming it was the reason, merely having a discussion on the potential possibilities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PART 2 of the above article:

    Just to add, in Saqifah, Hazrat Abu Bakr argued that the arabs would not recognise a leader save a man from the Quraysh.

    [This i contained in Tabari, Bukhari too i believe, Or muslim]
    "He said: 'Now then: 0 men of the Anjar, you deserve all the fine qualities that you have mentioned about yourselves, but the Arabs will not recognize this authority except in this clan of Quraysh, for they represent the best in lineage and standing"

    If Hazrat Abu Bakr, in the Saqifah, away from the vast majority of the sahaba, gathered together in secrecy, deemed it acceptable to choose a leader for the entire arabian peninsula and Ummah, so long as they were from the Quraysh, arguing they would only accept from the Quyaysh due to liniege and standing - why do people say that Ghadeer can not be about leadership, because it was done between Makkah and Medina, infront of the Muhajiroon and Ansaar, and others who may have travelled with them and those going north of Medina or in the direction of travel ? Indeed, when Muhammed s.a.w declared Ali a.s at ghadeer it was out in the open, infront of tens of thousands at the very least. And on another point, if being from the Quraysh is one of the qualities Hazrat Abu Bakr argued was essential for the leader after Muhammed s.a.w due to liniege and respect, what of a man who was from the Banu Hashim?

    Put that aside, what about a man who was the cousin of Muhammed s.a.w, his father being the brother of the Father of the Prophet of Allah , coming from the very same mother! No other cousin of Muhammed s.a.w did he share from an uncle who came from the same mother as his father! What of the one who even married the daughter of the Prophet s.a.w! No-one alive had a greater right to being the caliph, if we go by Hazrat Abu Bakrs argument about liniege. And if he knew and had already prepared this speech or had in his mind his argument, it begs the question as to why he did not consider taking a man most qualified in terms of liniege - Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. What did he know that stopped him from doing so?

    If you are okay with Hazrat Abu Bakr being chosen in secrecy away from the majority of the sahaba in saqifah, why do you complain when Muhammed s.a.w publicly declared to tens, if not hundreds of thousands of companions (lets say tens and not hundreds if you dispute it) between makkah and medina on the day of ghadeer. Not only that, Ali ibn abi Talib a.s by Hazrat Abu Bakr's own argument of liniege, had far more of a right to being the caliph!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    For the vast majority if not all the beliefs i hold, i have undergone a process by which i look at both sides, truly reflect at the arguments given to me by both sides and consider them fairly. If you know me, and know my soul, you would understand how restless i get when i am confronted by a view which counters one i have and makes me think. I remain with certianty, but do not stop until i research that area sufficiently.

    For the vast majority of questions, i have deemed it sufficient to use resources that are free, open and accesible. However, where i believe i need to double check a fact, or ask someone who i know is far better versed in an area and can better explain it, without making any errors - or perhaps elucidate further on an aspect, i ask. I am not ashamed to research further if i do not know exactly how to approach an answer.

    Many resources are not available in english - but are in farsi or arabic, which is why i must consult about them.

    I'll give you a few examples:

    Brother Zamestaneh asked about the issue of ahadith and shia Rijal coming (allegedly) later than sunnni rijal. I know a brother on shiachat who is nearly an expert on these issues. The vast majority of shia works on Rijal are in Arabic/Farsi. I am still learning arabic daily and am not to the level where i can translate entire textbooks on issues. Therefore, asking a brother who can understand these languages, and is almost an expert on this issue , whose power of eloquence and grasp of the subject at hand are far superior to mine, made me reach out to him, rather than arrogantly doing half-a job answering a question.

    In many instances and cases, i have answered the questions on key aqeedah issues. Where i need translations on works, or a brother who is a student of knowledge to correct any misunderstandings or even slight doubts i have on a topic, or asking someone far more knowledgable than i am to elucidate me on aspects of a question i may have overlooked, i request and seek help from such people without any shame whatsoever.

    You , for example, asked me about niche works from Ni'matullah Jazeri. You referred to a book the vast majority of shia's would not have even heard of (even if he was a known scholar), and even those who have heard of this book in paticular, our ulema ask people to refrain from reading that book (possibily) according to a student of knowledge. Furthermore, the views given in that book go against the clear ijma of shia ulema which i had already presented to you - but you were insistent on me to address this one rare and niche book.

    Therefore, it was better for me to ask a student of knowledge who may have read the book (which i believe he has) and knows the full context of the issue, what our ulema say about it, and what one should do in terms of their approach to it.
    Well fair enough bro.
    But the thing I have to say is:
    just because someone doesn't know or hear about a book/author doesn't necessarily make the author or book any less influential or important.
    Your average joe public may not know much about Shakespeare but that doesn't take anything away from the fact of how important he was and the influential role he and his plays/poems played.

    Also weirdly you called the issue of wilayah a niche area :confused:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Interesting that you mention the sadal.
    As a seeker of the truth I have been at this issue of sadal and comparing the sunni stance with that of the shia and despite my search still being in its infancy I have come across some very interesting stances.

    For instance the sadal has somewhat consensus among shia and that placing your hands on each other nullifies your prayers, as khomani says in his book tahrir al wasiilah in the sub section of ''prayer nulifiers'':
    التكفير: وهو وضع إحدى اليدين على الأخرى نحو ما يصنعه غيرنا وهو مبطل عمدا ولا بأس به عند التقية
    -Placing your hands on top of each other like the ''others'' do is a nullifies when done, but there is no harm on placing the hands on each other when performing taqiyah
    (the more I read about shia taqiyah the more I see it as an excuse to deceive people, as seemingly it makes permissible things you believe to be haram. Why would I risk my prayer to deceive others (since there are sunnis who do isbaal/sadal in the first place) would it mean too drinking alcohol, eating pork, drugs, zina..etc can be ok when in taqiyah mode?)
    *But what surprised me even more were the hadiths I came across:
    ما رواه الصدوق بإسناده عن أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام أنه قال: لا يجمع المسلم يديه في صلاته وهو قائم بين يدي الله عز وجل يتشبه بأهل الكفر< - يعني المجوس
    Narrated from the sadooq with chain linked to Ali ra saying: A muslim does not join his hands in prayer while standing in front of God emulating the disbeliever.
    *ما روي عن زرارة عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام أنه قال: وعليك بالإقبال على صلاتك، ولا تكفر، فإنما يصنع ذلك المجوس
    Narrated from ja'afar that he said: do not places your hands on each other for only the majoos do that.

    So does your view follow the opinion of your scholars, imams and marji'is that our prayers in their entirety are nullified and that we do the action of deviants?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Is it true that the main reason for sectarian conflict is because of the fundamental difference between sunnis and shias -shites permit anal yet sunnis dont? Is this true?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladiatorsword)
    Is it true that the main reason for sectarian conflict is because of the fundamental difference between sunnis and shias -shites permit anal yet sunnis dont? Is this true?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That doesn't even deserve a serious response.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    That doesn't even deserve a serious response.
    Sorry that wasn't a serious question. But jokes aside is it true shi'ism permit anal?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 7, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.