Jump to content
  • Blog Statistics

    • Total Blogs
    • Total Entries
  • Latest Blog Entries

  • Latest Blog Comments

    • Salam alaikum brother! Me and my brother used to be the cyber worriers on the net back then, always talking on the Sunni Shi’a wars (cyber wars lol) 2003 it was i remember. My posts are still there and my brothers   I was 16, at college we were all excited back then when we came to know about shiachat (2003). God! It’s been soo long! Around then I remember shiachat introduced the ‘chat rooms’. As a typical 16 year old i took the benefit of that and used to Annoy everyone haha .. oh god lol (me laughing) and then guess what happened? Shiachat banned me from using my account. It really didnt bother me much back then but now I miss my account and my posts ..and I decided today that I need to make a new account... and here I am! 32 this year! And was 16 when i used it..
    • While lots of the time I agree with what rkazemi says, I have to say I’m not seeing what she sees in terms of your blog post. I don’t see you telling woman to go back to the kitchen or any of those disrespectful slogans. Not even implied.  what I see in your blog posts and responses to others is a very balanced, respectful individual. Many people on here look-up to you as inspiration as to how to be a better Muslim, and for your contributions to this forum, we greatly appreciate it and thank you.  You are definitely not a male chauvinist. 
    • This is an extract of the teachings of Mughira to his followers the Mughiriyya [Taken from Abu Tammam’s Bab al-Shaytan of the Kitab al-Shajara, translated by Wilferd Madelung and Paul E. Walker]:   The tenth sect is the Mughiriyya related to al-Mughira b. Sa’id al-Ijli [sic. al-Bajali]. They make up one group of the anthropomorphists. The object of their worship according to them, is a [divine] man the light on whose head forms a crown and he wears garments. His loincloth is the Qur’an that was revealed to Muhammad, the messenger of God, may God bless him and his family; His robes are the Gospels that were revealed to Jesus, on whom be peace; His shirt is the Torah that was revealed to Moses, on whom be peace; and His pants are the Pslams that were revealed to David, on whom be peace. He possesses limbs and a physical constitution like that of a man and has a belly from which flows wisdom. They claim that the letters of the alphabet agree with the number of His limbs and that each letter in it resembles one of His limbs. The alif  is the position of His foot because of its curvature. The rest of the members they describe in accord with the description of these letters. They insist that al-Mughira said to his followers once when speaking of the letter ha’: if you were to see its place on Him, you would see something awesome. He was hinting at some genitalia of His and that he had seen Him [in a heavenly ascent]. The Mughiriyya claim that these letters are all a part of one name which is the greatest name of God. In addition they insist that al-Mughira was a prophet and he knew that name. With it he used to revive the dead and perform other marvels. They report that once al-Mughira passed through a cemetery with some of his followers and there in that cemetery he revived the dead and fed them fruits in mid-winter. Moreover, he displayed to them a flash of light that ran from the crown of his head to his feet; he toyed thus with his followers and bewitched their eyes with tricks of magic. They also report that al-Mughira spoke about the beginning of creation. He said that God, the glorious and most high, was once alone and nothing was with Him. When He wished to create things, He spoke His own name. His word flew and landed over His head above the crown. Al-Mughira said that this was His statement, “Glorify the name of your Lord most high” (87:1). Then with His finger He wrote on His palm the deeds of humans that are acts of disobedience and obedience and He became angry at the acts of disobedience. His sweat overflowed and two oceans gathered from His sweat, one brackish and dark, the other pure luminous. Then looking into the ocean, He saw His shadow, so He went forth to seize it. He plucked out its two eyes and created out of them two suns and He blotted out some light from the moon. Then, out of the physical forms of His shadow, He created the heavens and the stars. Next, from these two oceans, He created creation in its entirety: from the dark brackish water, He created the shadow of the unbelievers, from the pure luminous water, He created the shadow of the believers. The first among them that God created was Muhammad, may God bless him and his family, in accord with the statement of God, the glorious and the mighty, “Say: if the Most merciful had a son, I would be the first of the worshippers” (43:81). Next he sent Muhammad to the people altogether while they were yet shadows and He commanded him to have them bear witness on their own account of their recognition of the lordship of God, the apostleship of Muhammad, and the guardianship of Ali, on whom be peace, and that he recited His words, “When your Lord took from the tribe of Adam …” (7:172). Then He proposed to the heavens and the earth that they should prevent Ali b. Abi Talib from assuming the caliphate and the imamate, but they refused. Next He proposed it to the mountains but they refused also. Then He proposed it to the people, whereupon Umar went to Abu Bakr – both were at that moment still shadows -  and he ordered him to take upon himself the task of preventing Ali by them both betraying him. Thereafter Abu Bakr did exactly that. All this is in God’s statement, “We did indeed offer the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains but they refused to undertake it being afraid of it. But man undertook it; he was indeed unjust and foolish” (33:72) Then Umar said to Abu Bakr, “I will support you against Ali, on whom be peace, so that you can pass the caliphate to me after yourself”. That is in God’s statement, “Like Satan when he said to man, ‘disbelieve’ and when he renounced belief, he said, ‘I am free of you’” (59:16). Here the Satan is Umar and the man is Abu Bakr. In their view, the earth will disgorge the dead and they will return to this world. The Mahdi will appear at the end of time, they say, and Gabriel and Michael will aid him between the Ruqn and the Maqam. He will choose nineteen men and give each one of them a letter of the greatest name of God and by means of it they will defeat all armies and dominate the earth. 
    • W. Salam. Indeed they were. However, these words are spoken by a proto-Sunni Hadith narrator called al-A’mash. This indicates that the `Aimma and their true followers were not doing La’n openly and that Mughira betrayed Taqiyya.
    • Salam brother  Thank you for sharing this, very interesting to read! Just one question regarding this statement:   "The first person I heard abusing Aba Bakr and Umar was al-Mughira b. Sa’id" Weren't the Imams a.s speaking bad about the two themselves before Mughira l.a?     
    • My post is focused mainly on how Western socio-political discourse occurs between two poles: (1) Freedom, and (2) Harm. This is the result of a long, crystallizing history. Islam may have areas of overlap with utilitarians and classical liberals, but overall the Islamic thesis puts God above everything else. Regarding your point about jahiliyya: I can easily say that jahiliyya gave many freedoms to women that Islam removed. Jahiliyya had no penalties for fornicators, it had rights for prostitutes, it allowed women to marry a second husband to conceive a high-status son, it had female prophetesses, and it had female goddesses. Islam restricted all of this. Yes, Islam did give many additional rights to women, but my point is that Islam is not all about freedom and liberation. It is about accountability, responsibility, and duty. It freed some aspects of our lives, but it restricted others. Anyone who reads Islamic literature with feminist glasses will be surely disappointed. As for your point that men in eastern culture "don't lift a finger when they are at home", that sounds like a gross generalization of billions of people and hundreds of cultures. Even if I were to concede that eastern men generally cook and clean less than their wives, they work longer hours, and a lot of the handiwork, lawn-mowing, technology fixing is done by men. Either way, it's not a competition. One shouldn't have a men vs women mindset, or even a victimized mindset. Men too are victims; they are the ones most effected by violence, suicide, work injuries, drugs, prisons, gangs, and dropping out of school... a victim mentality however would not solve these problems. Islam = Submission in Arabic, it's not submission to men, it's submission to Allah. Submission in some cases will be the opposite of freedom, but I would argue that sincere submission to Allah frees you from your fears and your desires, and leads to a good and contented life. I never said women should be slaves to men, or that womanhood is a disadvantage, or being dark-skinned (?) is bad. Men and women are simply different and have different rights and responsibilities in Islam. Islam is a sexually dimorphic religion. Women don't pay mahr, they don't pray/fast during their time of the month, they are not conscripted in wartime, they don't need to work, they don't need to divide their wealth, etc. By the same token, women have some unique laws and responsibilities. Total freedom and equality means removing every gendered law, including the ones that restrict men and free women, and vice versa. This is antithetical to our revelation. Please don't call me dishonest or a male chauvinist just because of one respectful criticism of modern feminism. That type of spiteful namecalling won't get you much sympathy from a neutral reader. State your arguments respectfully.
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

About this blog


I have honestly given up on being limited by a title for my blog. I will just post whatever comes to mind. 

Entries in this blog

Mansur Bakhtiari

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

اللهم صل علی محمد واله و عجل فرجهم والعن اعدائهم

السلام علیک و رحمه الله

Now, as you may already know, I am leaving the country for 10 days, meaning my next entry about Saint Paul and deviations in early Christianity will have to be delayed. However, I wanted to make a post about tabarra because it's an issue that is very controversial in our community. We have staunch opposers and staunch defenders. I think I made 3-4 threads on this topic, which I will find and post at the bottom of the page Inshallah. I will provide various proofs through hadith, the Quran and scholarly verdicts. I guess this is somewhat more of an opinion piece, however I have done a lot of unbiased research on this, and am quite sure there is enough proof to establish tabarra as an Islamic concept, and highly recommended. Before I start, let me say that I don't want a war in the comment section. It's really not helpful for this website. If you disagree with me, point out the exact parts which you feel are incorrect and we can discuss :)


تبرأ-Tabarra: It is from the Arabic root برء. According to the Al Maany English to Arabic dictionary, it can mean to deny, reject, disown, be absolved of and to disown. A commonly used definition is disassociation, which also works given the context. Actually, that is the definition given in the Al Maany Arabic Terms Dictionary. The word is actually used in the Quran (9:1) to describe the Prophet (saw)'s disassociation from some of the Muslims who declared an alliance with the unbelievers of Mecca. The word is also used by Allamah Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi (Haqqul Yaqeen, Volume 2, Page 591) to describe the wicked men and women we should (according to the english translation) disassociate ourselves from. However, in theory we could also use the word reject, because we do reject what our Sunni brethren believe about them. I feel the correct definition for this word in the context of this discussion is rejection. Disassociaton or absolving ourselves from them does not make sense, because simply calling ourselves Shia disassociates ourselves from them and absolves us from any affiliation with those oppressors. So in the context of this discussion and its usage in the Shia books and the Shia sect, we will use reject as the correct meaning of tabarra.

لعنة-Lanat: This word is used many times in the Quran and in our Duas, like Ziyarat Ashura for example. In the Al Maany dictionary, the word lanat is translated as curse, however some english speaking scholars like Dr. Ammar Nakshawani, for example, state that a better way to describe lanat is as a Dua to remove mercy from someone. I have also heard many fear the word curse may become mixed up with the arabic word seb, which means to insult, which I will get to. The root word of lanat actually is لعن, and if you look up the definition of لعن in an arabic dictionary, the exact english translation will be to anathematize. If you google the meaning, it will show up as to curse, or to condemn. From this perspective I think we can view the meaning of lanat as two things.

  1. Asking Allah to send lanat upon a person or group of people. For example, allahumma al'anhuma wa ansarahuma (from Dua Saname Quraish), is asking Allah to send lanat upon this person. You are asking Allah to increase his punishment on these individuals, and for him to remove his mercy from them. The correct translation I feel for this article, as I have already shown the distinction between seb and lanat, is curse. We ask Allah to curse them with his punishment and withdrawal of his mercy
  2. Lanat as a form of Tabarra. When the names of certain la'inin (cursed individuals), you will hear the speaker say lanat ullahi ealayh (Upon him be the curse of Allah). While this is a dua against them, it also symbolizes a disassociation and rejection of the cursed individual, which is exactly the definition of tabarra. I think this also corresponds to the second meaning of anathematization, which is to condemn. While I feel the definition of tabarra is rejection, I will refer to lanat done in the way mentioned as condemnation, as in reality that is what we are doing. Openly condemning the enemies of Ahlulbayt (as)

These are the two most important definitions you should be familiar with. Basic knowledge of Islamic history during the era of the Umarayn (3 "caliphs"), because I will be talking about rejecting, condemning and cursing those figures (without breaching SC rules nor using provocative language)

Lanat in the Noble Quran

Surah Hijr Ayat 35:

And indeed, upon you is the curse until the Day of Recompense.

As you guessed, the exact arabic word for curse in this Ayat is al'anat. A similar Ayat is found in Surah Suad Verse 28. Surah Qasas Verse 42, Surah Maidah Verse 13 and many many more include the word curse, and an article on this subject can be found here. So we know, among the many people Allah cursed, are the liars, the unbelievers, Shaitan (la) and the people of Aad. 

Also, the first verse of Surah Taubah I would also like to mention. [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists. Now, the sense of tabarra is a little different in this Ayat. Obviously there were a group of Muslims (deviants) who made treaties with the polytheists (which we can actually consider innovation in Islam, since it was in the name of Allah and his Rasool), This Ayat says they have NOTHING to do with them. They are in NO way associated with them, and reject them completely! When we consider the bid'ah, the crimes agains the family of Hazrat Muhammad (saw), we should want NOTHING to do with the Umarayn and their associates. The ahadith which I wish to mention elaborate more on this. Before I elaborate further, to legitimize my previous point, I wish to quote page 519 of the english translation of Allameh Majlisi (ra)'s work Haqqul Yaqeen, translated by Sayed Akhtar Rizvi

In the same way are the indictments of Muawiyah, Talha, Zubair, Ayesha, Hafasa, Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas Caliphs and all wicked persons, heretics etc. which may also be referred to in Biharul Anwar and books of other reliable authors. 

The Sunni hadith reports do not have any record of the Prophet (saw) cursing the Umarayn, and that may not have happened in his lifetime. However, their record of Fatimah al Zahra cursing the Umarayn, who wronged and oppressed her, along with usurping her property.

Al Imamah wa Al Siyasa by Ibn Qutaybah, Page 14


Ibn Qutaybah, in al-Imamah wal Siyasah, narrates that 'Umar said to Abu Bakr: 'Let's go to Fatimah, for we have made her angry.' So they went together and asked her permission, but she denied it to them. They asked Ali to talk to her, and he did. When they entered and sat, she turned her face to the wall. They greeted her, but she did not answer. Abu Bakr said: 'O you the Messenger of Allah's beloved! I swear by Allah that the kinship of the Messenger of Allah is more beloved to me than my kinship, and you are surely more beloved to me than my daughter 'Ayshah, and I wished the day your father died that I died and did not stay after him... Do you see me, when knowing you and your virtues and honour, denying you your right and inheritance from the Messenger of Allah Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå? Except that I heard your father the Messenger of Allah Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå saying: We, the folk of prophets, do not leave bequests - what we leave is for alms'.

Fatimah (as) did not comment on the inheritance issue, since she has previously dealt with that in detail in her sermon, but she wanted to establish the proof on the two of them regarding the harm, injustice and wrong-doing to which she was subjected. Hence she said: 'Can I see you if I narrate a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (sawa); you know it, will you do according to it?' They replied: 'Yes'; she said: 'I ask you by Allah, haven't you heard the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (sawa): the satisfaction of Fatimah is my satisfaction and the discontent of Fatimah is my discontent?' They said: 'Yes, we heard it from the Messenger of Allah (sawa)'. She said: 'Therefore, I take Allah and his angels as witnesses that you have made me discontented and have not satisfied me, and when I meet the Prophet I shall complain about you to him!'. Abu Bakr said: 'I take refuge in Allah from his discontent and your discontent O Fatimah!'; but she said: 'I swear by Allah that I shall invoke Allah against you in every prayer I do!

So Fatimah (sa) would invoke Allah against Abu Bakr in all her prayers. Imploring Allah against someone. That's the definition of lanat given by scholars like Ammar Nakshawani, asking Allah to remove mercy from a specific person. So Fatimah (as) cursed Abu Bakr and Umar. The explanation given by Sunni scholars isn't that well thought over. For example, Ibn Kathir said that the anger of Fatimah (sa) is just like the anger of any other son of Adam (quoted by Shiapen). That goes contrary to the widely known hadith whoever angers Fatimah has angered me, and whoever angers me has angered Allah. And it's also widely reported in books like Bukhari and Muslim that Fatimah (sa) died angry with Abu Bakr and Umar, most likely for their usurping of the land of Fadak, and them being her killers. 

A great article on cursing in Sunni books is found here and a good website dedicated to exposing the reality of Umar ibn Khattab is here



Now, I want this part to focus on the philosophy behind Tabarra, the meaning of it. Why do we say "Oh Allah Curse so and so." What benefit does this bring? If any? Let me start with a hadith from our 6th Imam (as)\

"What is religion except love and hate?" (Kitab al Kafi Volume 2 Page 125)

Love and hate. This hadith speaks for itself. People always talk about Tawalla (love) for the Ahlulbayt, but ignore hatred towards their enemies. Don't get me wrong, tawalla is very important, but we have to accept ALL aspects of Islam! How can you accept one Usool ud Deen and ignore another! A famous hadith, again from our 6th Imam:

"The halal of Muhammad is an everlasting halal until the Day of Judgement, and the haram of Muhammad is an everlasting Haram until the Day of Judgement."

So, you can not reject an aspect of Islam, as, just like halal and haram, it is everlasting until the day of judgement. We can hide our belief in a certain aspect if needed (I will talk about Taqiyya in my next part Inshallah) but if we reject it, without coercion, then that is obviously wrong. If the Imam says love AND hate are both aspects of Islam, we should consider them aspects of Islam, and respect them. Now, to start really talking about it's philosophy, I want to elaborate on the first ahadith I mentioned by using the words of scholars. I'm quoting from Philosophy of Islamic Laws by Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi and Ayatollah Jafar Sobhani.


Here the topics of discussion are the last two; Tawalla (to love) and Tabarra (to express aloofness). That is we love some and hate some. We should love the friends of Allah, those who desire truth, righteous people and supporters of truth and justice and we should hate the evildoers, oppressors, lovers of enjoyment and enemies of Allah, His Prophet and humanity.

Why shouldn't we love all of them? Why shouldn't we behave nicely with all of them? Can we forgo the method of living with amity in the present age? However, those who are in favor of having friendly relations with all must be asked:

In the world which has oppressors and oppressed, the unjust and the victims of injustice, the tyrants and the weak, the equitable and the usurpers, the pure and the dirty; shall we love all of them? Shall we remain pleased with all of them? Shall we help all of them? Can any human logic permit us to do so? Can the living conscience permit this mixing up?


Now, on the last paragraph. I want to point to a Quranic verse you are probably familiar with, And do not mix up the truth with falsehood.  Let me point, from the same chapter of that book, to the last two paragraphs in that chapter


If instead of acting upon the two principles everyone agrees with every school of thought, every condition is accepted and human society does not get close to useful things and does not keep away from harmful things, the humanity will soon be destroyed.

That is the reason that the Holy Prophet (S) has said: “The strongest support of faith is to love for Allah and to express hatred for the sake of Allah.”


Harmful things. I think we can include, among many harmful things which harm the religion, to be bidah, innovations in the religion. This can drive us down the wrong path. It is wrong to consider figures like, lets say Abu Hurairah, whom we know was a liar, or Sayf ibn Umar, the inventor of "Abdullah ibn Saba," as good, or even to be neutral on these figures. The world, and especially the Ummah, needs to be exposed to the lies of these people. We should make it clear that the Shia reject these figures. Whether it be in books, or whether we openly and publicly say lanat ullahi ealayh after their names (with exceptions of course, which I will elaborate on later), the world should know the reality of these men and women.

But why curse, as in say lanat against them. The easy answer is that the Imams did it. Read Ziyarat Ashura. Allahum al'an awwal adh dhalimi. Who is the first of the oppressors. Along with the innumerable hadith, many of which I mentioned, and I plan to mention more. But that response isn't good enough. Why though? WHY did the Imams curse them? Tell me, when do you curse someone? It is when they have done wrongs to you, when you hate a person, you curse them. Clearly, if our Imams would curse these individuals, then we should hate them as well. If someone wronged a family member, would you have a neutral stance on this individual. The Prophet (saw) is higher than your family. Even in Sunni books there is the famous hadith Fatimah is a part of me. So id Fatimah (sa) was harmed by a certain individual, he has harmed the Prophet. Furthermore, the famous hadith Whoever has angered Fatimah has angered me, and whoever angers me has angered Allah. There is an obvious connection between these hadith and the one quoted by Ayatollah's Makarem Shirazi and Sobhani, 

“The strongest support of faith is to love for Allah and to express hatred for the sake of Allah.”

 Express hatred. Cursing (lanat) is a way to express hatred. On top of that, it is a practice of the Ahlulbayt (as), and can be found in the Quran. So why has it been rejected?  One of the main arguments is that it harms Shia/Sunni unity. It can cause bloodshed, so we should practice Taqiyya in this regard. I will touch on that in Part Three Inshallah.


Ok, so this chapter will be revolving around arguments made in this debate. I want to start with a verse from the Quran

Quran 33:21

Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a great example.

What does that mean? If we are in a situation similar to where the Ma'sumeen AS were, we should do what they did, because they're the best example for us. How is this related to Tabarra? This is somewhat obvious when you look at another aspect of the philosophy behind Tabarra. Think of how the Muslims destroyed the idols of Quraysh. This was symbolic, so people would know the truth about them, that they would know these are no Gods, but manmade tools of corruption. The same could be said about the later "Sanamay Quraish," who corrupted the religion of Islam. We can actually verify how punished they are through a narration mentioned in this lecture quoted from al Khisal Page 399, which mentions the seven most cursed people in hell. These were the heads of corruption from past religions. The narration is pretty long so I'd recommend anyone who wants to know more to watch the lecture, but these individuals continue to corrupt our religion even today! Think of the situation we are in. So much violence happening in the name of Islam, from Al Qaeda, IS and their kinds. I think a good parable, especially considering much of this violence is towards Shia, is after the Battle of Jamal. If you want, in the first debate I mentioned, go to 24:00, so you can verify this hadith. Its from the book of Sulaim ibn Qais RA, who wrote in his book.

After the Battle of Jamal, he (Imam Ali AS) ended the Taqiyya, and the peoples faces were filled with shock.

This is like the Quranic command, And do not mix the truth with falsehood. We can't use narrations for taqiyya as daleel when it could contradict a Quranic command. All famous scholars, including recent scholars like Ayatollah al Khoei RA, say that you should end the taqiyya when you must expose the truth. And all famous scholars have ended the taqiyya at some point! Shaykh al Mufid RA wrote books exposing Abu Bakr and Umar, so did Allamah Majlisi RA. If you want to verify the words of Allameh Majlisi, you can read his book Haqqul Yaqeen (the certain truth) in english, and it will say on page 591, as I actually mentioned earlier:

In the same way are the indictments of Muawiyah, Talha, Zubair, Ayesha, Hafasa, Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas Caliphs and all wicked persons, heretics etc. which may also be referred to in Biharul Anwar and books of other reliable authors. 

What if a Sunni got his hands on this book and killed a Shia because of it? Well, he would be a martyr, to put it bluntly. Quranic commands need to be fulfilled, and doing otherwise is a sin in Islam. Even Sayed Khomeini wrote about Aisha, Hafsa and Muawiya a=in a similar way, though I will not mention that on here. What I'm trying to say is that Taqiyya has a time and place, but so does establishing the truth, and that's something we can't ignore. That's all I want to say, just hoping someone who's unsure on this topic like I was can find some proofs from an Islamic viewpoint that's easier than hours of lectures, debates and reading,



Mansur Bakhtiari

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

اللهم صل علی محمد وال وعجل فرجهم والعن عادائهم

السلام علیکم

Ok, so as you probably know, I started reading Maurice Bucaille's book, The Quran, The Bible and Science about 2 weeks ago. Alhamdulillah I've found it very interesting, I am finished the first 3 parts of the book, with the section on ahadith the only remaining part. However, one of my first observations while reading was that I remembered and someone agreed with the comment of brother @hasanhh on my first blog post on this topic, which criticised the book for being too simplistic. His study on the Torah was only a criticism of the book of Genesis for its scientific flaws in regards to the stages of the creation of the earth and how the authenticity could have been altered over time. Still, I will comment on that part.

Now, on page 2 I think he highlights a fundamental flaw in the thinking of most Christians. Many (though I think SC Christians might be a little more knowledgeable) Christians have no idea that multiple copies of the Torah existed. Around 300 BC (The book l'ancien Testament by Professor Edmund Jacob is quoted on this page) 3 copies eisted of the Hebrew text. Unfortunately it's hard to compare to figure out which text is the original as our oldest Hebrew texts date to around the 9th Century AD (page 3). 

Now here's the thing. The Torah, as a Holy text, has been collected (along with the Gospels) as an oral tradition at first. The Jewish people would sing these traditions which are recorded in the Bible. In Christian theology (and this is also a subject of discussion in Christian-Muslim debates conducted by polemicists such as Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik) that the Bible was not a revealed text. It's a text inspired by the Holy Spirit, to those Prophets who wrote them down. There are also collections of hymn's like the Book of Proverbs. I think it would be beneficial actually for a knowledgeable Christian like @LeftCoastMom to comment on this. Back to the subject of its authenticity, just like ahadith, since it's an oral tradition being passed on to compilers (Priests, in this case) if the compiler or the person passing on this tradition to the compiler is corrupt (like Abu Hurairah for example) then it's not hard for this collection to become a corrupt one.Let's refer to the Quran and see what it says in regards to the Bible, which I'm sure most are familiar with,

Sura 5:68 (Al-Maida)

"Say: 'People of the Book (Christians and Jews), you stand for nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord."

The word used in the Quran is inzila, from the root nzl. Different from the word for inspiration, which is from the root wahy. So the Quran recognizes that the Bible was revealed, just like the Quran, not inspired as Christian theology dictates.

I personally find this an interesting topic, whether or not the Torah is revealed or inspired. If we can get some Christians to engage in discussion with us in the comments that would be great and it would definitely be a good intellectual discussion for this website (happy @Jebreil???). 

So, let us have a discussion on this. Was the Torah revealed or inspired. Bring proofs via verses of the Torah and Gospels, and Inshallah it'll be a good debate in the comments! I will add some of my findings onto my next blog post Inshallah Ta'ala, and also that post will be revolving around the Gospels

note: I will be out of the country from the 18th to 27th of July, so there may not be any update on this for a while. Inshallah I will be able to do some writing though.

Mansur Bakhtiari

Bismillahir rahmanir raheem

salam alaikom wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

allahumma salli ala muhammad wa aale muhammad wa ajjil farajahum wa al'ana adaihum

Now, I know I posted this topic before, however I want to use a new format for this. I'm going to do this in the style that shiapen.com uses, because its easy to read and understand. I debated this topic with a sunni brother about 2 weeks ago, and these points are raised frequently by sunni's debating Shia hadith methodology.

The Imam cursed Zurarah

If you want to see the ahadith quoted by brother @Islamic Salvation, which I will quote at the end. Anyways, the ahadith is Sahih, however Shia scholars have said this hadith was Taqiyya. I will divide this accusation into two parts. 1. Sahih ahadith which are in praise of Zurarah, and 2. The necessity and logic behind using Taqiyya during the rule of Al Mansur.

1. Ahadith praising Zurarah

Among the ahadith that praise Zurarah, is one letter, also quoted by Islamic Salvation, which explains exactly the ijtihad used by our scholars in their explanation in saying the cursing was done in the pretext of taqiyya

[17/172] Rijal al . Kashshi-: Hamduwayh From . B by Muhammad. Isa from Yunus from Abdallah b. Zurara AND Muhammad b. Qulawayh and al-Husayn b. al-Hasan from Sa`d from Harun b . al-Hasan b. Mahbub from Muhammad b. Abdallah b. Zurara and his [Zurara's] two sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn from Abdallah b. Zurara WHO COMPLETE by said : by Abu Abdillah peace be upon him said to me: convey my salutations of peace to your father and say to him: Verily, I only defame you as a way of defending you, for the masses and the enemy hasten to whomever we draw near and praise his station so as to cause harm to the one we love and bring close. They accuse such a one because of our love for him and his closeness and intimacy with us, and they consider causing him harm and even killing him as justified. On the other hand, they praise every one whom we fault even if his affair is not praiseworthy. Thus, I fault you because you have become notorious as a result of your association with us and your inclination towards us, which have caused you to become blamable in the eyes of the people and your works to be looked upon unfavourably, all this because of your love for us and your inclination towards us. So I wished to fault you so that   they can praise your religious stand as a result of my denigrating and diminishing you, and this becomes a way of warding off their evil from you.

there are even more sahih ahadith praising him.


حمدويه قال حدثني محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد ويعقوب بن يزيد عن ابن ابي عمير عن ابي العباس البقباق عني ابي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: أربعة أحب الناس إلى أحياءا وأمواتا ، بريد بن معاوية العجلي ، وزرارة بن اعين ، ومحمد بن مسلم ، وأبوجعفر الأحول ، أحب الناس إلي أحياءا وأمواتا
Imam Jaffar al-Sadiq said: ‘Four people are the most lovable to me during their lives and after their deaths. Buraid bin Mu’awyia al-Ejli, Zurara bin Ayun, Muhammad bin Muslim and Abu Jaffar al-Ahwal, they are the most lovable people to me during their lives and after their deaths.’

Graded as Sahih by Sayed al Khoei in Mu’ajam Rijal al Hadith


So we can obviously see that he was loved by the Imam's. And now onto the validity of his ahadith. That can be based on two things. 1. His reputation among the people and 2. The words of our 6th Imam (as).


Rijal al Tusi Volume 1 Page 123

وروي أن زرارة كان وسيما جسيما أبيض. وكان يخرج إلى الجمعة وعلى رأسه برنس أسود، وبين عينيه سجادة، وفي يده عصا، فيقوم له الناس سماطين ينظرون اليه لحسن هيئته، فربما رجع عن طريقه، وكان خصما جدلا لا يقوم أحد -

It is narrated that Zurarah (ra) was handsome and white, and when he went out on Friday with a burnus (hooded cloak) on his head and a prostration mark between his eyes, and in his hand a stick, and people who would give him gifts just to look at him [sic] and there was no competition against him (meaning nobody was of his rank.


sorry if translation is incorrect

Zurarah (ra) was not only loved by the Imams (as), but by all the people around him, who recognized him as an honorable man. It even says there was no competition for him. Others paled in comparison to him, so who is more trustworthy to rely on for narrations than him?

This speaks for itself. There was NOBODY who was similar in rank to Zurarah (ra). That is one good reason to accept his narrarations as Sahih, Then of course, the clear testification of the Imam (as), that without him the prophetic traditions would be lost. 

Rijal al Kashi
Jami bin Daraj said: ‘I heard Abu Abdullah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã saying ‘Give glad tidings to the humble ones of Paradise, Buraid bin Abi Mu’awyia al-Ejli, Abu Basir Laith bin al-Bakhtari al-Muradi, Muhammad bin Muslim and Zurara, four pious and faithful to Allah in (the matters of) Halal and Haram, without them the prophetic traditions would have been

So now we know that obviously the narrations of Zurarah should be valued greatly. He was recognized as truthful and trustworthy by the infalliable Imam (as). But here is the next point which was raised by the brother.

Why would the Imam need to perform Taqiyya?


The oppression and the harassment that happened towards imam ja3far ÑÍãå Çááøå did not happen until towards the end of his lifetime.. The problem with me accepting whether his narrations were done in taqiyyah or done in truthfulness is that it is mainly guess work at best. obviously in much of his time under Abassid rule he was not oppressed as he was known as a great teacher and was known to have taught many many people including Abu Hanifa Malik ibn Anas and Wasil ibn Ata. how do we know when he said these things and how do we actually know what was done with taqiyyah or not? that is the point we can't really know at the end of the day which has created a big problem for shia scholars and it comes down to guess work. Taqiyyah to the shia was not only limited to "preserving the life of the imam and his shia" rather shia scholars applied it to just about anything as in this example: from as-Sadiq: “Ismail (as) died at 130 years of age”. Al Majlisi said: This news is considered Taqiyya. Source: “Bihar al Anwar” 12/113


I have no problem if someone did taqiyyah in order to save themselves and their students, the problem is when you want me to take them as an infallible imam that I must follow him and whose word is law. I view Imam Ja3far ÑÍãå Çááøå as an exceptionally pious and brilliant friend of Allah filled with wisdom and spiritual insight but still a fallible human who I am not obligated to take my religion from

Now the issue is whether or not oppression of the Imam (as) happened during his earlier days. All of what I am saying can be traced to an Al Islam. The murderous nature of the ruler of that time, Al Mansur, was well known. 


Masa’ibush Shia Volume 5 Page 93

About al-Mansur’s cruel nature, Allama Abdur Rabbah reports, “When al-Mansur sat in his court, the executioners will bring row upon row of people and behead them so mush so that the blood used to flow in the court and splatter on to al-Mansur’s cloak. Al-Mansur then ordered his chaplain to preach to him. When the chaplain preached, al-Mansur used to sit with his head bowed down as if he were ashamed, but in no time another group of persons would be brought and beheaded as before.”

This was the nature of the Abbasid ruler. He would not hesitate to slaughter any of his enemies, and the Shia were definitely among his enemies. Even when the Imam (as) was teaching his students in Medina, he was treated with suspicion, was summoned by Al Mansur who had the intention of killing him, and he wasn't even allowed to travel out of Medina in some cases. That's actually when the Imam's (as) started having Wakeel's, or representatives. The oppression of the Imam occured throughout his lifetime, meaning he would have to perform Taqiyya to save himself and his students. And to be more specific on why he would have to perform taqiyya in regards to Zurarah:


Rijal Sayed Bahrul Uloom:

Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum states that the family of A‘yan, of which Zurarah was a scion, was the largest Shi‘i family of Kufa.

Zurarah (ra) was of the largest Shia family of Kufa, which makes him a high-profile target for the government, especially given his staunch support for the Ahlulbait (as). The Imam (as) obviously had knowledge of this and took the protect measures to protect Zurarah (ra) and his family. Sunnis for some reason can not get their heads around this even when their own scholars like Abu Hanifa approve of Taqiyya when done to save lives.






Mansur Bakhtiari

Bismillahir rahmanir raheem

Assalamu alaikom wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

Ok, so while eating halal pepperoni for the first time in Scarborough (not for any good reason, just kind of was there), I spotted something across the road. I didnt even know these existed, it was an Islamic bookstore. I checked the place out for a bit, and decided to by the book "The Bible, The Quran and Science," by Maurice Bucaille. Im reading it right now, but after @Jebreil's lecture on intellectual rigour in the Ummah, I thought we could have a good discussion on the different parts of the book. It'll also help for this to be out there for all non muslims to see the unparalleled eloquence, beauty and preciseness that not even the prose of all the skilled poets of Arabia could match. It might also be helpful to have the views of some SC resident Christians here, especially on topics surrounding the Bible. Inshallah I will find a PDF format so everyone can read the book, and we can have some healthy discussion on the most important parts of the book. Maybe we'll even come away with a full Shia commentary on the book by the time we're done lol. SO, lets get started. Inshallah I'll put up the first topic of discussion later this week.

http://www.islambasics.com/index.php?act=download&BID=4 is the PDF file for the book.

Mansur Bakhtiari


I've started reading up on sociology and psychology lately, and found an interesting classical work on sociology, which made me raise some questions.

Now, Emile Durkheim believed that suicide was a result of over-individualism in a society. Her proof was that in Catholic countries, suicide rates are much lower (4/100000), compared to protestant (12.6/100000). Numbers have changed over time, however the countries with highest suicide rates tend to be less religious or belong to more individualistic or less "encompassing" religions than the bottom ones. Proof? The WHO says that the top countries for suicide are Guinea and S. Korea, while the bottom one is Saudi Arabia. Islam, as we all know, is the most encompassing religion out there. Our religion covers all topics from philosophy to medicine, from parenting to studying. 

Or take Macedonia and Iran for instance. They are tied for 120th (out of 170) on the list of countries with most suicides. Macedonia is a Christian Orthodox country, with a head of the church, then high and low ranking Bishops and Priests going down, and the higher ones have authority over the lower ones, plus the general population.

In Taqlid, we have our Maraji, then high and low ranking Sheikhs, then people who have passed Muqaadimah, who can propagate Islam to the others. A chain of authority, as the Marja-e-Taqlid is more knowledgeable than the others, meaning everyone follows one source.

Though take away Taqlid. Of the 10 least suicide-prone countries, only Iraq was Shia. Oman, Jordan, Lebanon. These are all SUNNI MAJORITY. But they still have sections of Bukhari telling them the best of foods are things like Thareeb and Dates. They still are told whar is good and bad. There still is some authority coming down from one place. And while they do not have a Marja who is Alim and who we are obliged to follow, they still have their four Imams, they still have Sheikhs in Sufi communities who are followed like Maraji are, and who do plenty of interpretation.

While in S. Korea, with nobody really to judge moral standards, we have an absence of guidance, leading people down a self-destructive path. 

And take Kazakhstan (#9) and Turkmenistan (#13) as what happens when a country loses its religious values. They were both Muslim countries, now have become largely secular, and with this void in a source of guidance, they are now seeking Islam more and more, which has led to dissent and the rise of Salafism, which is unfortunate but true. And since all mosques in the country are Hanafi Sunni, no room for Dawah towards the path of Ahlulbayt (as). So suicide, salafism or self destruction. 

The United States (#50), Iceland (#35) and France (#47) are proof that "freedom" does not make lives necessarily more fulfilling. Sharia ruled countries like Iran (#120), Pakistan (#76), Afghanistan (#113), Yemen (#142), Mauritania (#150) and Iraq (#163) are all below Canada (#70), a "free country," which bears witness to this concept.

There are more indicators to a fulfilling life, but desiring to keep your life is one indicator that you aren't doing so bad. 

Mansur Bakhtiari

Salam. As my interest is in philosophy and irfan, therefore meaning I will be translating mainly on this subject, I thought I should add in a warning. 

These are summaries of the most helpful scholarly views on studying philosophy, found in Falsafa va Irfan by Syed Abul Hasan Esfahani:

Allameh Majlisi: Books of philosophy were written by followers of Bani Abbas on the subject of philosophy to drive people away from the Masumeen (as) and Sharia. Philosophy (philosophical reasoning) has never been part of Sharia and it is only possible with similar minded scholars and little corruption.

Ayatollah Kazim Yazdi: Philosophy isn't studied for reward, it is studied for self-education.

Mohsen Feyz Kashani: Many scholars have forgotten to derive their philosophies from the Quran and Hadith. They simply rely on their own mystical and philosophical books.

Grand Ayatollah Khoei: Philosophy is a part of Osoolul Deen and Osoolul Fiqh. However, it is haram to study if you fear going astray.  

Ayatollah Tabarani: There is nothing good for a deviant person who studies philosophy.

Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi: All philosophy must be in line with the teachings of the Prophet (saw) and the Ahlulbayt (as)


You may proceed.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.