Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SoRoUsH

Verse 21:30, Big Bang, Imam Baqir's Hadith

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Nonsense. There is no such requirement to "produce the proof of the origin of the Universe". You have just made that up.

I have just made that up? :wacko:

I am hopelessly aghast at your notion that Allah does not have to produce proof. Maybe we are reading a different Quran. Mine states:

[shakir 4:174] O people! surely there has come to you manifest proof from your Lord and We have sent to you clear light.

[Yusufali 4:174] O mankind! verily there hath come to you a convincing proof from your Lord: For We have sent unto you a light (that is) manifest.

[Pickthal 4:174] O mankind! Now hath a proof from your Lord come unto you, and We have sent down unto you a clear light;

Religion is a competitive environment. If Islam is competing with other Religions on Creation then surely, Allah has to prove that He is indeed the Creator of the Universe and of all things therein, including mankind and it would be incumbent upon Allah to deliver proof of the Origin of the Universe.

Oh and the Casimir Effect is the validation of the 21.30. If you break the down the verse in stages, you will understand.

[shakir 35:3] O men! call to mind the favor of Allah on you; is there any creator besides Allah who gives you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? There is no god but He; whence are you then turned away?

[Yusufali 35:3] O men! Call to mind the grace of Allah unto you! is there a creator, other than Allah, to give you sustenance from heaven or earth? There is no god but He: how then are ye deluded away from the Truth?

[Pickthal 35:3] O mankind! Remember Allah's grace toward you! Is there any creator other than Allah who provideth for you from the sky and the earth? There is no Allah save Him. Whither then are ye turned?

Salaams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are using the M Asad translation, which is blatantly wrong. No other translation uses the word "universe" as a translation of 'samaa', and none mention any "expanding" either:

[shakir 51:47] And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

[Yusufali 51:47] With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.

[Pickthal 51:47] We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

M Asad is also one of those Muslims who try to twist Quranic ayah to make them fit with modern science. The verse explicitly says samaa, which means 'heavens' or 'skies', not "universe".

Are Ayatullah Shirazi and Ayatullah Subhani also of those who try to twist Qur`anic ayah then ?

Lit., "the sky" or "the heaven", which in the Qur`an often has the connotation of "universe" or, in the plural ("the heavens"), of "cosmic systems".(Quran Ref: 51:46 )

Utterly irrelevant. Says nothing about the expansion of the universe.

You mean you really don't see the link when Allah [sWT] compares the universe to that of a scroll being opened & closed up ?

No, it doesn't. It refers to the Earth and its sky being joined together so that rain wasn't possible.

No, it doesn't. I quote the objection to which you happily conceded to last time: It says skies, not sky. Now you are twisting the ayah altogether.

The point I was making was that the separation of the earth and the heaven mentioned in the Qur'an does not necessarily imply the expansion of the universe as stated in the Big Bang theory. As I mentioned earlier, this could be referring to the separation of the dense early earth atmosphere into the sky and earth that we have today. Quite often in the Qur'an the word "heaven" means the sky around the earth (including clouds and all), not the rest of the universe itself. For example:

[2:164] - the water which
Allah
sendeth down from the sky (Heaven - the Arabic word is the same)

[16:65] -
Allah
sendeth down water from the sky (Heaven) and therewith reviveth the earth after her death

[30:24] - and sendeth down water from the sky (heaven), and thereby quickeneth the earth after her death

So I don't see how the verse about the separation of the earth and the heaven can accurately be pinned down to the Big Bang, since it could also refer to other physical phenomenon that have occurred in the past.
You made two points here (bold):

1) Seperation =/= Expansion. Whilst this is true, I also said that seperation is a better description of the data we have, than expansion.

2) A different intepretation of "sky". You quoted verses which do intend the more apparent meaning of the word sky, however this is not necessarily the case in this verse, as I could just as easily quote verses which portray the meaning of sky to be other than this. Above all, it says skies and not sky, which means this interpretation of yours [of the word sky] goes out the window.
Yeah, that's true. It's only when the reference is to a single sky that the Qur'an speaks of the clouds and rain. The plural term cannot be attributed to this same "sky".

I thought you already accepted this view, but now you are going back on. So please explain what exactly has changed since then..

Nonsense. I never said it described the origin of the universe.

Read through where we discuss that it highlights some aspects of the Big Bang, but not all of them.

That is exactly what I'm saying. There is no relationship. You haven't even tried to understand what I wrote and are just wasting my time.

:lol:. I strongly suggest you try reading that argument again..

That is not what you are saying. You are saying the opposite: There is a necessary relationship between sky as utilised by the scientists, and that which is employed by the Qur`an.

Look at what I quoted:

How many skies are there according to science? Just one. So if this verse speaks of multiple skies, then it is referring to those skies as well that are not physically detectable. This would make them metaphysical.

Your assuming it has the same meaning as the scientific one, whereas this is not true, as is clear from it's literal defintion.

You contradict yourself, but at least I'm glad you agree with me on this point :)..

If you had read the article yourself, you would have seen the corroboration of what I was saying. It states:

" We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars,[47]

With this verse it is known that, all the stars are in the first heaven. "

So, yes, dismissal of the rest of the skies as metaphysical is valid.

Did you read the entire article ? After listing several views, this proof is provided for view 4:

4.
Still, according to the views of some great intellectuals, those small stars, galaxies and Milky Way, which are seen,
all are part of the first heaven
and beyond that six still bigger worlds are there. And by seven heavens the Holy Quran means all those seven worlds, which exist in the Universe.
May be man's present age of scientific knowledge and wisdom has raised the curtain from only one of it, still it is quite possible that in future, as a result of gaining more knowledge, on the back of present perceptible world six great worlds are discovered.
Favoring this view
we present the following verse as
proof
.

We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars,[47]

With this verse it is known that, all the stars are in the first heaven. (It should be remembered that in Arabic the word 'Duniya' means 'lower' and near.)

This completely contradicts your view (To begin with, he even explicitly says what it refers to: those small stars, galaxies and Milky Way, which are seen, all are part of the first heaven). I'm suprised how you try and take the ayah and use it as proof for your own view without even thinking about it. You said:

How many skies are there according to science?
Just one.

So quite clearly you are referring to the blue sky formed by the atmosphere that every living person can see, not that "which is adorned with stars".

Then you say

So if this verse speaks of multiple skies, then it is referring to those skies as well that are not physically detectable.
This would make them metaphysical.

Whereas the Ayatullahs are saying that it is [currently in this day and age] beyond the power of the scientists to see past the first sky. When you say the other skies are not physically detectable, you assume that the scientists can see everything.

More nonsense. I never said this hadith was not applicable to the ayah. You're just making stuff up now.

Echoing the previous objection which you accepted, but now deny:

At the end of this section where he quotes ahadith, the hadith he quotes to elaborate on this section of the verse is taken from al-Ihtijaj, where Umro bin Ubayd asks Imam Sadiq [a] what the "joined" and "separated" (rataq and fataq) mean in that verse. Imam Sadiq [a] replies: If the sky was joined with the earth, then there could never have been any rain, and if the earth had been joined with the sky, no plants would have been able to grow. So Allah separated the sky through rain and the earth through plants.

But in this hadith, the Imam is only speaking about the separation of the one sky from the earth, not all the skies. So this hadith does not really explain that verse in the manner that we want. The Imams always spoke to their followers according to the level of their understanding, so I'm guessing that Imam Sadiq [a] felt that this explanation was enough for Umro bin Ubayd.

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just made that up?

Yes.

Maybe we are reading a different Quran.

I'm sure we're not. You're just making up your own false conclusions from reading it.

[shakir 4:174] O people! surely there has come to you manifest proof from your Lord and We have sent to you clear light.

[Yusufali 4:174] O mankind! verily there hath come to you a convincing proof from your Lord: For We have sent unto you a light (that is) manifest.

[Pickthal 4:174] O mankind! Now hath a proof from your Lord come unto you, and We have sent down unto you a clear light;

Absolutely irrelevant.

it would be incumbent upon Allah to deliver proof of the Origin of the Universe.

Nonsense. There is no such incumbency.

Oh and the Casimir Effect is the validation of the 21.30.

More nonsense that you have deluded yourself into believing.

Are Ayatullah Shirazi and Ayatullah Subhani also of those who try to twist Qur`anic ayah then ?

Lit., "the sky" or "the heaven", which in the Qur`an often has the connotation of "universe" or, in the plural ("the heavens"), of "cosmic systems".(Quran Ref: 51:46 )

Where have they said this? It is simply an absurd suggestion. The Quran always refers to 'samaa wal ard', i.e. it refers to 'ard' separately from the heavens. If samaa was the entire universe, then ard would not be referred to separately, since it would be included. Read that reference that you have stated (it is actually 51:47, not 51:46):

[51:47] With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.

[51:48] And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!

The earth ('ard') is always distinct from the heavens. Even in that very reference that you used. That is very clear from the Qur'an. I don't think the Ayatullah's have said this. Maybe the translator messed this up.

You mean you really don't see the link when Allah [sWT] compares the universe to that of a scroll being opened & closed up ?

First, the "universe" is not compared. The sky is.

Second, there is no mention of opening up, only of closing.

I thought you already accepted this view, but now you are going back on. So please explain what exactly has changed since then..

That was before I read the hadith in al-Mizan. And the very next part of that same verse talks about water, so it makes more sense if the separation was referring to the atmosphere so that rain is possible.

Read through where we discuss that it highlights some aspects of the Big Bang, but not all of them.

It doesn't highlight any aspect of the Big Bang. Only if you assume that it is referring to the expansion of the universe then can it be said that it does. But that is exactly the matter of contention.

That is not what you are saying. You are saying the opposite: There is a necessary relationship between sky as utilised by the scientists, and that which is employed by the Qur`an.

Look at what I quoted:

Your assuming it has the same meaning as the scientific one, whereas this is not true, as is clear from it's literal defintion.

You contradict yourself, but at least I'm glad you agree with me on this point :)..

Okay, my bad. I misunderstood what you were saying earlier. My point was that this verse is metaphysical since it speaks of multiple skies. Only the first sky is part of this physical universe according to the Qur'an, so the reference to multiple skies makes this verse metaphysical.

Did you read the entire article ? After listing several views, this proof is provided for view 4:

4.
Still, according to the views of some great intellectuals, those small stars, galaxies and Milky Way, which are seen,
all are part of the first heaven
and beyond that six still bigger worlds are there. And by seven heavens the Holy Quran means all those seven worlds, which exist in the Universe.
May be man's present age of scientific knowledge and wisdom has raised the curtain from only one of it, still it is quite possible that in future, as a result of gaining more knowledge, on the back of present perceptible world six great worlds are discovered.
Favoring this view
we present the following verse as
proof
.

We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars,[47]

With this verse it is known that, all the stars are in the first heaven. (It should be remembered that in Arabic the word 'Duniya' means 'lower' and near.)

This completely contradicts your view (To begin with, he even explicitly says what it refers to: those small stars, galaxies and Milky Way, which are seen, all are part of the first heaven). I'm suprised how you try and take the ayah and use it as proof for your own view without even thinking about it. You said:

How many skies are there according to science?
Just one.

So quite clearly you are referring to the blue sky formed by the atmosphere that every living person can see, not that "which is adorned with stars".

Then you say

So if this verse speaks of multiple skies, then it is referring to those skies as well that are not physically detectable.
This would make them metaphysical.

Whereas the Ayatullahs are saying that it is [currently in this day and age] beyond the power of the scientists to see past the first sky. When you say the other skies are not physically detectable, you assume that the scientists can see everything.

You make too many false assumptions. No, I was not referring to the blue sky when I asked "How many skies are there according to science?". I was indeed referring to the atmosphere and space combined. There is only one of these according to science. But the scientific and Islamic definition of sky is different so this is moot. But the point that you have completely skipped over is this: Only the first sky is physically detectable. The rest are all metaphysical. The Qur'an is explicit that the lowest sky is the one with the stars. As you clearly agree, we cannot reject the literal meaning of the Qur'anic verses. So there is no option but to conclude that the remaining six skies are not part of this physical universe as described through science. Hence the remaining skies are metaphysical.

Echoing the previous objection which you accepted, but now deny:

Where did I say that this hadith is not applicable to the ayah? You're making things up. I'm clearly agreeing that this hadith is applicable to the ayah, I just don't see how it explains the rest of the skies separating from the earth. I said "this hadith does not really explain that verse in the manner that we want". I did not say that this hadith is "not applicable" to the ayah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why were you "shocked" ?

[(Al-Kulayni reports) with his isnad from Zurarah that he said, "I heard Abu Ja'far and Abu 'Abd Allah, may peace be upon them, say: `Verily, God, the Almighty and the Glorious, has delegated the affair of His creatures to His Prophet, to see how they obey him' Then he recited this verse: Take whatever the Messenger brings you and refrain from whatever he forbids you. "

In al-Kafi [al-Kulayni reports] with his isnad from Muhammad ibn Sinan that he said: "I was with Abu Ja'far, the Second, may peace be upon him, when I mentioned before him the disagreement amongst the Shi'ah. Thereat he said, 'O Muhammad, verily God, the Blessed and the Exalted, is ever unique in His Unity. Then He created Muhammad, 'Ali and Fatimah. They remained for a thousand eons, then He created all the things and made them witness their creation and decreed them to obey them, delegating their affairs (i.e. of the creatures) to them. Hence they permit whatever they will and forbid whatever they will and they will not anything except what God, the Exalted, wills.' Then he said, 'O Muhammad, whoever goes beyond this creed transgresses the bounds [of right doctrine] and whoever lags behind perishes, and whoever adheres to it attains [to the truth]. So hold on to it, O Muhammad!' "

http://www.al-islam.org/fortyhadith/32.htm

It seems that Ahle Bait (as) were in control over the management of the universe, they would know such matters as the age of that which they were managing and the number of that which they were managing and so on. By the way, this seems to be Ayatollah Khomeini's opinion unless I've misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if u are seeking an understanding about the creation of universe, I think u should brle reading the book Tawheed al Mufadhal.

Imam Sadiq a.s has praised mufadhal and he a.s said: if all our Shias become like Mufafhal there would be no dispute among them.

Ya Ali Madad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[(Al-Kulayni reports) with his isnad from Zurarah that he said, "I heard Abu Ja'far and Abu 'Abd Allah, may peace be upon them, say: `Verily, God, the Almighty and the Glorious, has delegated the affair of His creatures to His Prophet, to see how they obey him' Then he recited this verse: Take whatever the Messenger brings you and refrain from whatever he forbids you. "

In al-Kafi [al-Kulayni reports] with his isnad from Muhammad ibn Sinan that he said: "I was with Abu Ja'far, the Second, may peace be upon him, when I mentioned before him the disagreement amongst the Shi'ah. Thereat he said, 'O Muhammad, verily God, the Blessed and the Exalted, is ever unique in His Unity. Then He created Muhammad, 'Ali and Fatimah. They remained for a thousand eons, then He created all the things and made them witness their creation and decreed them to obey them, delegating their affairs (i.e. of the creatures) to them. Hence they permit whatever they will and forbid whatever they will and they will not anything except what God, the Exalted, wills.' Then he said, 'O Muhammad, whoever goes beyond this creed transgresses the bounds [of right doctrine] and whoever lags behind perishes, and whoever adheres to it attains [to the truth]. So hold on to it, O Muhammad!' "

http://www.al-islam.org/fortyhadith/32.htm

It seems that Ahle Bait (as) were in control over the management of the universe, they would know such matters as the age of that which they were managing and the number of that which they were managing and so on. By the way, this seems to be Ayatollah Khomeini's opinion unless I've misunderstood.

Old post by an unregistered account I know, but just in case anyone reads this and gets the wrong idea.... What a horribly skewed translation and interpretation of these ahadith! They are referring to tafwid al-amr, delegation of the command, which is the one type of tafwid our ta'ifa believes in. That is, that if the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited or commanded something then that became recognized Shari`a. For instance, the salat were revealed as two rak`at each, but the Prophet (pbuh) increased them to four rak`at for zhuhr, `asr and `isha and three rak`at for maghrib, which is thus binding on us. There are a number of hadiths that talk about this.

The tafwid which is not true though, and is in fact shirk, is tafwid ar-rizq wa 'l-khalq, delegation of sustenance and creation. That is, the mufawwida ghulat believed that Allah created the Ma`sumeen (as) and then delegated to them the creating of the universe and providing sustenance to the creation (sort of like considering them to be demiurges). This is as said though, shirk.

[ 34907 ] 4 ـ وعن تميم بن عبدالله بن تميم ، عن أبيه ، عن أحمد بن علي الأنصاري ، عن يزيد بن عمر الشامي ، عن الرضا ( عليه السلام ) ـ في حديث ـ قال : من زعم أن الله يفعل أفعالنا ثم يعذبنا عليها ، فقد قال بالجبر ، ومن زعم أن الله فوض أمر الخلق والرزق إلى حججه ، فقد قال بالتفويض ، والقائل بالجبر كافر ، والقائل بالتفويض مشرك .

4 – And from Tamim b. `Abdullah b. Tamim from his father from Ahmad b. `Ali al-Ansari from Yazid b. `Umar ash-Shami [Burayd b. `Umayr b. Mu`awiya and ash-Shami – in `Uyun] from ar-Rida عليه السلام in a hadith wherein he said: One who claims that Allah does our acts then punishes us upon them, then he has believed in (lit. spoken by) jabr. And one who claims that Allah delegated (fawwada) the command (or, affair) of creation (al-khalq) and sustenance (ar-rizq) to His Hujja, then he has believed in tafwid. And the one who believes in jabr is a kafir. And the one who believes in tafwid is a mushrik.

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/hudud/apostasy/aggregate-of-what-establishes-kufr-and-apostasy

Shaykh Saduq explains these in his book of i`tiqad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old post by an unregistered account I know, but just in case anyone reads this and gets the wrong idea.... What a horribly skewed translation and interpretation of these ahadith! They are referring to tafwid al-amr, delegation of the command, which is the one type of tafwid our ta'ifa believes in. That is, that if the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited or commanded something then that became recognized Shari`a. For instance, the salat were revealed as two rak`at each, but the Prophet (pbuh) increased them to four rak`at for zhuhr, `asr and `isha and three rak`at for maghrib, which is thus binding on us. There are a number of hadiths that talk about this.

The tafwid which is not true though, and is in fact shirk, is tafwid ar-rizq wa 'l-khalq, delegation of sustenance and creation. That is, the mufawwida ghulat believed that Allah created the Ma`sumeen (as) and then delegated to them the creating of the universe and providing sustenance to the creation (sort of like considering them to be demiurges). This is as said though, shirk.

[ 34907 ] 4 Ü æÚä Êãíã Èä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä Êãíã ¡ Úä ÃÈíå ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä Úáí ÇáÃäÕÇÑí ¡ Úä íÒíÏ Èä ÚãÑ ÇáÔÇãí ¡ Úä ÇáÑÖÇ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) Ü Ýí ÍÏíË Ü ÞÇá : ãä ÒÚã Ãä Çááå íÝÚá ÃÝÚÇáäÇ Ëã íÚÐÈäÇ ÚáíåÇ ¡ ÝÞÏ ÞÇá ÈÇáÌÈÑ ¡ æãä ÒÚã Ãä Çááå ÝæÖ ÃãÑ ÇáÎáÞ æÇáÑÒÞ Åáì ÍÌÌå ¡ ÝÞÏ ÞÇá ÈÇáÊÝæíÖ ¡ æÇáÞÇÆá ÈÇáÌÈÑ ßÇÝÑ ¡ æÇáÞÇÆá ÈÇáÊÝæíÖ ãÔÑß .

4 – And from Tamim b. `Abdullah b. Tamim from his father from Ahmad b. `Ali al-Ansari from Yazid b. `Umar ash-Shami [burayd b. `Umayr b. Mu`awiya and ash-Shami – in `Uyun] from ar-Rida Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã in a hadith wherein he said: One who claims that Allah does our acts then punishes us upon them, then he has believed in (lit. spoken by) jabr. And one who claims that Allah delegated (fawwada) the command (or, affair) of creation (al-khalq) and sustenance (ar-rizq) to His Hujja, then he has believed in tafwid. And the one who believes in jabr is a kafir. And the one who believes in tafwid is a mushrik.

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/hudud/apostasy/aggregate-of-what-establishes-kufr-and-apostasy

Shaykh Saduq explains these in his book of i`tiqad.

Mash'Allah. Jazzakum Allah Khair for the tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ 34907 ] 4 Ü æÚä Êãíã Èä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä Êãíã ¡ Úä ÃÈíå ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä Úáí ÇáÃäÕÇÑí ¡ Úä íÒíÏ Èä ÚãÑ ÇáÔÇãí ¡ Úä ÇáÑÖÇ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) Ü Ýí ÍÏíË Ü ÞÇá : ãä ÒÚã Ãä Çááå íÝÚá ÃÝÚÇáäÇ Ëã íÚÐÈäÇ ÚáíåÇ ¡ ÝÞÏ ÞÇá ÈÇáÌÈÑ ¡ æãä ÒÚã Ãä Çááå ÝæÖ ÃãÑ ÇáÎáÞ æÇáÑÒÞ Åáì ÍÌÌå ¡ ÝÞÏ ÞÇá ÈÇáÊÝæíÖ ¡ æÇáÞÇÆá ÈÇáÌÈÑ ßÇÝÑ ¡ æÇáÞÇÆá ÈÇáÊÝæíÖ ãÔÑß .

4 – And from Tamim b. `Abdullah b. Tamim from his father from Ahmad b. `Ali al-Ansari from Yazid b. `Umar ash-Shami [burayd b. `Umayr b. Mu`awiya and ash-Shami – in `Uyun] from ar-Rida Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã in a hadith wherein he said: One who claims that Allah does our acts then punishes us upon them, then he has believed in (lit. spoken by) jabr. And one who claims that Allah delegated (fawwada) the command (or, affair) of creation (al-khalq) and sustenance (ar-rizq) to His Hujja, then he has believed in tafwid. And the one who believes in jabr is a kafir. And the one who believes in tafwid is a mushrik.

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/hudud/apostasy/aggregate-of-what-establishes-kufr-and-apostasy

Shaykh Saduq explains these in his book of i`tiqad.

this means all those sunni ulama who believed in this are kaffir? the hadith is relied upon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

this means all those sunni ulama who believed in this are kaffir? the hadith is relied upon?

Some of their ulema have other problems:

[ 34911 ] 8 ـ وفي ( الخصال ) عن أبيه ، عن سعد بن عبدالله ، عن علي بن إسماعيل الأشعري ، عن محمد بن سنان ، عن أبي مالك الجهني ، قال : سمعت أبا عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) يقول : ثلاثة لا يكلمهم الله يوم القيامة ولا ينظر إليهم ولا يزكيهم ، ولهم عذاب أليم : من ادعى إماما ليست إمامته من الله ، ومن جحد إماما إمامته من عند الله ، ومن زعم أن لهما في الاسلام نصيبا .

8 – And in al-Khisal from his father from Sa`d b. `Abdullah from `Ali b. Isma`il al-Ash`ari from Muhammad b. Sinan from Abu Malik al-Juhani. He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام saying: Three whom Allah will not speak to them on the day of the resurrection, and not look to them, and not purify them, and for them is a painful punishment: One who claims an imam whose Imamate is not from Allah, and one who denies an Imam whose Imamate is from Allah, and one who claims that (either of) them have a share in Islam.

====================

[ 34930 ] 27 ـ علي بن محمد الخزاز في ( الكفاية ) عن محمد بن علي ابن الحسين بن بابويه ، عن علي بن أحمد بن عمران ، عن محمد بن أبي عبدالله ، عن موسى بن عمران ، عن الحسين بن يزيد ، عن الحسن بن علي ابن أبي حمزة ، عن أبيه ، عن يحيى بن القاسم ، عن جعفر بن محمد ، عن آبائه ، عن النبي ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) قال : الأئمة بعدي اثنا عشر : أوّلهم علي بن أبي طالب ، وآخرهم القائم ـ إلى أن قال : ـ المقر بهم مؤمن ، والمنكر لهم كافر .

ورواه الصدوق بإسناده عن محمد بن أبي عبدالله الكوفي .

ورواه في ( عيون الأخبار ) مثله .

27 - `Ali b. Muhammad the silk dealer in al-Kifaya from Muhammad b. `Ali b. al-Husayn b. Babuwayh from `Ali b. Ahmad b. `Imran [`Ali b. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. `Imran the flour merchant – in al-Kifaya] from Muhammad b. Abi `Abdillah from Musa b. `Imran from al-Husayn b. Yazid from al-Hasan b. `Ali b. Abi Hamza [al-Husayn b. `Ali b. Abi Hamza – in al-Kifaya] from his father from Yahya b. al-Qasim [Yahya b. Abi ‘l-Qasim – in al-Kifaya] from Ja`far b. Muhammad from his fathers from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله. He said: The Imams after me are twelve. The first of them is `Ali b. Abi Talib and the last of them is the Qa’im –until he said: The one who is settled (?) with them is a believer, and the deniar of them is a kafir.

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/hudud/apostasy/aggregate-of-what-establishes-kufr-and-apostasy

And there's many other hadiths like this.

wa salam

Edited by lotfilms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • @Fakeha Not sure what your problem is. Can you please explain more?
    • Quran says: "it is no wrong for a Momin to keep the wish to marry a woman but do not keep secret friendship". 1st point allows to wish for marriage and wish comes when you want some person to be with you and that's love. 2nd point forbids from girl friend / boy friend relationship.  @Waseem162 and @Islandsandmirrors Make peace 
    • Allow me to go through the thought process with you,   So there is a universe with a huge complexity in it, it seems you want to know where and how it came into existence. We know it came, and there was nothing before it so if God created the Universe then how did he come/exist prior to something that wasn't there? Scientifically, space and time are bound, if you live in space you are bound by time, but time isn't absolute so it would be very much possible that if you were of no matter at all and 'existed' outside the realm of space then time isn't something that applies for you. The best way I imagine it is as imagine a train travelling across the earth, the universe is that train, it is moving and the movement is time, everything outside the train, the earth itself is 'God' he can see the train move but doesn't matter where it moves it is still within his grasp, it makes no difference it's position to his existence, he is just there. So due to space-time link, it is very much possible for God to exist given his nature which is thoroughly explained in the Quran. Now how can I be so sure God created the Universe? Think about the laws of the Universe. They are absolute and doesn't matter where you are, you cannot change them, e.g. you cannot destroy or create matter for example. And before your atheist friends attack you with this, you can change some things like the boiling point of water for example, but that isn't one of the natural laws that's just a property. So for the Universe to exist something had to happen, a reaction, matter + anti-matter, blast of energy whatever you want you can choose. However, whatever it was it would have to still follow a set of rules, like for matter and anti-matter to react, there are laws of nature that dictate they will react. So where did the foundation rules of the Universe come from? If there was nothing prior how could they have existed? All you need to do it look into the complexity of nature and you will know something is up. Now here's an 'offence' question for you, if God doesn't exist wouldn't it be all about survival then? Why don't we look up to thieves, rapists, murderers etc. who live only for themselves? they are going to disappear into a void at the end of life, so no matter what you do it has no impact and you will never feel anybody else's pain because you can't switch bodies, no accountability so why don't we go mad? even better, why don't we all just commit suicide? If your life is a struggle and you're not rich enjoying all the pleasures of the world, it would make perfect sense to just kill all ourselves. But what about life and experiencing it? Well, it makes no difference whether you lived 1 year or 100 years if it is all going to perish. Imagine I told you to build a castle as glorious as you can, once you're done I will destroy it all, would you bother? If you knew it will perish immediately is there a point? Would you buy a house if you knew it would be knocked down? Nope, so why invest time and pain into a life that will soon terminate and you don't even know when! Plus nobody can argue with you about morality because it would have no foundation, seize to exist if there is no 'purpose' for anything. This is the reality of the atheist position it, to me seems a lot worse than one with hope in something greater.  So as a challenge, can you prove to me it is bad to kill someone I don't like if I knew I would never be caught, punished or held accountable? Although there are many more points, I will leave it there. for the time being.
    • When the ground is slippery,the chances of slipping increase exponentially. Although Ahle kitab i.e Christians,Jews etc are pak according to Ayatollah Sistani.(But you cannot eat meat cooked by them unless you are sure that it is halal) http://www.sistani.org/english/qa/01120/ If you can find another place to live then it is better for you else you can check the above link and act accordingly.If you feel that you will fall in to sinning that you MUST look for other accomodations.  
    • That's the point. That there wasn't anything for his enemies to say that you were weak before how could you now say that you are a Prophet while it can be your obsession right now. But those people took those things seriously. They took it serious and you yourself admitted that none can be like him in this present age and now you believe that he wasn't ordinary but extraordinary. You seem to reject your views bro and that's a good sign. You think that God is not wise to let loopholes in prophethood that anyone may come and claim in such way?  You should learn the story of Hazrat Ibrahim a.s who said that weak is not God while implying towards setting sun, moon and heavenly bodies. No one could pass the seive of Prophet and Imamate except those who are Prophets and Imams. Anyone who does so will be humiliated and die a miserable life.  The weaknesses which sunni aqeedah has let Ghulam Ahmed to claim Prophethood and Imamate. While he failed in the infallibility test of shia faith. If anyone who turns back from shia belief to claim imamate, he would seek help from sunni aqeedah because shia aqeedah cannot be tempered or violated.   
×