Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Yahya2004

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Yahya2004

  • Rank
    burnout
  • Birthday 06/12/1987

Profile Information

  • Religion
    ماكو

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,594 profile views
  1. You do know that your Shari3 definition doesn't fall under the Hadith you quoted as the Sabab of that Hadith was that Khalid b.al-Walid did sabb of Abd al-Rahman b. Auf to which the Prophet Muhammad (s) rebuked Khalid with those words; hence either Khalid was a disbeliever of the context is not as inclusive as the shari3 definition
  2. Purely for the sake of academic integrity- allow me to present a response to the claims of Dr. Ahmed al-Wa'eli which contain evidence to suggest that he was not representing the madhhab himself in his claim presented in this video: The above videos are in Arabic; please note- I do not know enough about 'Abd al-Haleem al-Ghizzi to discuss his credibility or lack of- therefore I am not endorsing him, I am merely presenting his refutation of Dr. Wa'eli.
  3. Your Ahlus Sunnah Faqih Imam al-Sarkhsy didnt view things that way: Your Imam here, actually admits this is tantamount to Tahreef since the Goat ate the ayaat after the Death of the Prophet. I've underlined where he said this, furthermore he states the Shias probably fabricated this hadith, which shows he didnt trust the Science of Rijaal that the Sunnis were peddling. (al-Mabsoot, volume 5, page 134) Imam al-Qurtubi, your Mufassir equally feels just as embarassed and blames this on Shi'as and Mulhids (Atheists) showing he thought it was Tahreef also and probably didnt trust your hadith sciences much. (Tafseer al Qurtubi, vol. 14, page 113) Damn your other Mufassir, al-Alusi, says exactly the same... It's a lie from the Atheists. Showing he was embarassed by it and thought it was tahreef, he also didnt care much for your hadith sciences either. (Ruh al-Ma'ani, vol. 11, p. 140) So, they certainly were ashamed by this..... and viewed it as Tahreef. Also didnt trust your hadith gradings very much.
  4. Response: 1) Najashi states in regards to Aban b. Uthman that he narrated from both Abi Abdullah (ya3ni al-Sadiq as) and Abi al-Hassan (namely Imam Musa b. Jafar as): Thats firstly a bit uncharacteristic of a messianic sect who believes that Imam al-Sadiq (as) was the Mahdi and that Imamate ceased after him. This would lead us to question that he was from the Sect of the Nawusiyyah, as Sayyed al-Khoei articulates in his great work al-Mu'jam (may Allah elevate his station): Mu'jam volume 1, page 146 What may further help us in this are the words of Muhaqiq al-Ardibili (QS) who states in his Majma'a al-Fa'idah: So it seems to me at least that the original and most authentic copy of al-Kashshi stated that he was Qaadsiyyah as opposed to Nawusiyyah, as he is also known to narrated from Imam al-Kadhim (as). Lastly I wish to quote the quote from al-Kashshi about the Nawusiyyah quoted by Brother Yasoob: Yes, its rijaal are thiqah, however lets analyse more closely: Is Ibrahim b. Abi al-Balad's father reliable? hes the entire source of the narration as I underline.
  5. If you are referring to Malangs, then yes to both questions. Secondly anyone who abuses a Shi'a Marja'a (unless the so-called Marja'a has left Tashayyu and been discredited by Ahl al-'Ilm) is most likely a rabble rousing idiot. As for misguiding people, I'd agree that this forum has become a source for misguidance, however I believe that applies also to unqualified statements made from people such as yourself (earlier and now qualified Alhamdulillah) which condemns ALL Akhbaris as a Cult. In Essence, Yes, I believe that Pseudo Akhbaris especially the idiots who have that Akhbari website mislead people and deviate them through their misguidance. My post with the introduction to the book of Muhammad Ameen Al-Astarabadi btw, was not in response to your question about Maraja'a but rather a general post directed to show that even respectable publishers affiliated with 'Ulema in Qom still praise even him.
  6. Orion, I personally don't include Muhammad Ameen al-Astarabadi in the same box as the other greats I mentioned, however, look how our contemporary 'Ulema in Qom praise even him: This is from a published version of his book "al-Fawa'id al-Madaniyyah" It's published by: مؤسسة النشر الإسلامي Thats a renowned publisher based in Qom, To view more of their renowned publications click here: http://www.ketabname.com/main2/lists/from_this_publisher.php?id=386&chlang=ar& Look at the appelation added to the Scholar's name at the end: الفوائد المدنية لفخر المحدثين وقدوة المجددين المولى محمد أمين الأسترآبادي قدس سره (http://lib.ahlolbait.ir/parvan/resource/37525/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B0%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A9/preview/8056/%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%8A-%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A/#page=5) I'd like to think our 'Ulema in Qom are competant enough not to praise Cultists, brother Orion.
  7. Yusuf al-Bahrani goes out his way to defend al-Astarabadi in his Magnus Opum "Hada'iq al-Nadhira", secondly he didnt have to qualify that, its like me saying "CURSE ON ALL RATIONALISTS" (Not something I'm doing, its an example) then someone being like "Dude, why are you cursing Sharif al-Murtada amongst others" then I respond: "Prove to me Sharif al-Murtada belonged to the Nawbakhti school of Rationalism" my colleage would respond: "I don't need to as you cursed all rationalists without clarifying or specifying"
  8. This website really is turning into a cess pit of deviance, we have laypeople like Orion condemning some of our classical 'Ulema and other laypeople attacking the contemporary 'Ulema. Look at how our Maraja'a like Sayyed Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i al-Hakeem (HA) discusses 'Ulema after referring to them as Akhbaris: http://www.alhakeem.com/arabic/rsael/osol/index.htm he praises them with Quds Sirrihim, something one only says for Praised 'Ulema. Now we have this kid Orion calling Akhbaris a Cult, thats disrespectful to the two Majlisis, Hurr al-Amili and Yusuf al-Bahrani (QS) amongst others. Zareen please unregister my account.
  9. Actually he was a Maliki Scholar.... Please don't post inaccurate information about history, as I've observed you have a tendency to do sister.
  10. ......Do you consider the Amman message which accepts Ibadhi Kharijis and people who dont pray such as Aga Khani Isma'ilis as Muslims to be respresentative of the Imams (as)? (Follow up question, so why are you implementing it?)
  11. Salaam 'Alaikum, I truthfully mean no intended harm to Farid (who is very akhlaqi and usually very polite and civil in his dealings with Shias) but Bro, it seems like your hiding with the post I have just quoted, you have insinuated that you are driven by your desire to defend Abu Hurairah al-Dowsi al-Yamani, because you feel Shias have made him the butt of every joke etc. Yet, it seems to me that this is just all secondary to you debating someone on the status on Ibrahim b. Hashim, why hide behind the pretense of your love for Abu Hurairah. Just to give an example, if I would claim that the view of Imam 'Ali (as) amongst Sunnis sickens me, and so as a result I want to debate them on the Historical personality of Umar b. al-Khattab and Imam 'Ali (as), sure that wouldnt be problematic. If I would then say ok, no biggie. I dont have to defend Imam 'Ali but lets debate 'Umar, you wouldnt believe me in my original claim that my motivations were caused by my desire to defend the honour of Amir al-Mo'mineen (as). I request seeing as this is the holy month of Ramadhan, that we are honest and transparent with each other. I believe this post of yours on HCY, summarises that your intentions behind this debate are not particularly the original ones you stipulated: ([url Edited]/index.php?showtopic=14685)
  12. I believe its due to your relatively low post count, they used to have a rule that one requires 25-50 posts taqreeban before they can PM. Mind you they may have just removed PM all together, I'm not too sure. This website goes down and modifies every 2 months approximately.

  13. Yeah well, just trying to promote the site :)

    How come you can't have private correspondence in this forum??

×
×
  • Create New...