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

Sumerian

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    10,958
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by Sumerian

  1. The ruling is that Muslim men are allowed to marry kitabi women, that's all. The girl in question can perhaps be a non kitabi that's closer to Islam than a kitabi, but it doesn't matter., because that's not the standard. The standard is whether she is a kitabi or not, not whether she is close to Islam.
  2. There is no proof he would have confronted them if he was in Harun's position and authority either, because 1) there is no proof he would have gained anything had he done so, other than potentially getting himself killed 2) there is no proof he was not happy about his brother's decision after it was explained to him I'm saying what Harun did was the ONLY correct option. That's all.
  3. They are treated as Muslim according to the mainstream opinion today but they will end up in Hell due to their disbelief in the usool and dharooriyat of the religion. That is the opinion amongst the fuqaha today. Some fuqaha back in the days ruled them as kafir and najis in this world and the afterlife.
  4. The most authentic of our hadiths imply that most likely Laylatul Qadr falls on the 21st and/or 23rd - and a reliable hadith also mentions a role for 19th, which is the reason why people say 19, 21 and 23. Here are some reliable traditions om this: Muḥammad b. Yaḥya from Aḥmad b. Muḥammad from al-Ḥussayn b. Sa`īd from al-Ḥasan from Sulaymān al-Ja`farī said, Abū al-Ḥasan (عليه السلام) said: [bp“Pray on the twenty-first (21st) and the twenty-third (23rd)[/b] a one hundred rak`ah (salāh), and recite (after al-Fātiḥah) in every rak`ah – Sūrah al-Ikhlās (Sūrah # 112) ten times.” Source: Al-Kafi by Kulayni, Vol 4, Pg 155, H 4 Grading: Majlisi: "Apparently Saheeh" (Mirat ul Uqool 16/379) A group of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad from `Ali b. al-Hakam from Sayf b. `Umayra from Hassan b. Mihran from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: I asked him about the Night of Qadr. So he said: Seek it [in] the twenty first night or the twenty third night. Source:Al-Kafi by Kulayni, Vol 4,Pg 156,H 1 Grading:Majlisi: "Saheeh" (Mirat ul Uqool 16/380) And this is possibly the most used tradition to indicate the three nights of Qadr, that most Shi'as tend to believe; A group of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad from `Ali b. al-Hakam from Ibn Bukayr from Zurara. He said: Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام said: The allocation (at-taqdeer) is in the nineteenth night, and the confirmation (al-ibram) is in the twenty-first night, and the execution (al-imda) is in the twenty-third night. Source:Al-Kafi by Kulayni,Vol 4,Pg 159,H 9 Grading: Majlisi: "Muwaththaq Like saheeh" (Mirat ul Uqool 16/388) Hadi Najafi:"Muwaththaq Sanad" (Mawsu'at Ahadith Ahl al-Bayt 10/99) This hadith seems to be the most specific and descriptive regarding the days. However, there is a hadith that mentions the last ten days of Ramadan theory: Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from `Umar b. Udhayna from al-Fudayl and Zurara and Muhammad b. Muslim from Hamran that he asked about Ja`far عليه السلام about the saying of Allah `azza wa jalla “Verily We sent it down in a blessed night” (44:3) He said: Yes, the Night of Qadr, and it is in every year in the month of Ramadan in the last ten (nights). So, the Qur'an was not revealed except for in the Night of Qadr. Allah `azza wa jalla said “In it is distinguished every wise command.” (44:4) He said: In the Night of Qadr the destiny (al-qadr) of every thing that will be in that year to its like is ordained, from the next (year’s) good and evil, and obedience and sinning, and born and due (? ajal) or sustenance. So what is ordained in that year and decreed, then it is inevitable (mahtum), and for Allah `azza wa jalla is the will (al-mashiyya) in it. He said: I said: “The Night of Qadr is better than a thousand month”, (97:3) what thing was meant by that? So he said: The righteous act in it of salat, and zakat, and the types of good, is better than the act in a thousand months wherein there is not the Night of Qadr. And were it not, Allah tabaraka wa ta`ala would not multiply for the believers what they have reached. However, Allah multiplies their good deeds for them [by our love]. Source:Al-Kafi by Kulayni,Vol 4,Pg 157,H 6 Grading: Majlisi: "Hasan" ( Mirat ul Uqool 16/385) Hadi Najafi:"Mo'tabar Sanad" (Mawsu'at Ahadith Ahl al-Bayt 10/97) Credit to: http://discovershiaislam.blogspot.com/2012/08/laylatul-qadr-night-of-power.html?m=1 for translation
  5. I don't believe there is a Verse proving any disagreement, for one. Two, we had already established different authority, power and clout among the Israelities between the two Prophets, now, do you believe if Harun (عليه السلام) had the same level of influence as his brother he wouldn't have confronted them just like his brother did? Rather he would be obligated to, because it is nahi an al munkar.
  6. I have no problem with matters of irshaad and regular non-religious related disagreements. My issue is merely with hukm - which me and you agree would be the same no doubt because the source of it is Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and its application - which mean and you seemingly disagree, and also what falls under mawlawi. I have not seen clear cut evidence which hasn't been explained by scholars, where two Imams apparently have a different approach in application of hukm, with the exception of this historical report. What I mean is in the matters of application of ahkaam, not in irshadi matters - note - I haven't yet accepted that this was a political decision. However, I find it interesting what I read in the quote from Al-Tabataba'I, where he says akhd al wahi wal 3amal bihi العمل به , isn't that exactly what I'm arguing for in terms of application? As for general societal matters not connected to revelation, then I agree,and the wujoob of obeying the ma'soom on such matters is proven, and irshadi matters are more like personal recommendations, like business etc.. and this is supported by the Ayah regarding istikthaar of khayr. As for the hadith, it is saying that they (Al-Hasan in this case) was predestined to rise, and it was necessiated beyond his control, and in fact he had knowledge of it. How then can it be a political decision, when it is based on wahi? Or will you say that his rising up was based on a command from Allah, but the treaty wasn't?
  7. So then we have an issue here. Is the Imam in authority always the correct one - as it seems to be in the alleged disagreement of Husayn (عليه السلام) with his brother, or is it not the case? And, had Imam Al-Husayn (عليه السلام) been in his brother's position, and chosen war instead of treaty, would that mean an Imam is capable of a wrong decision (and regretting it) - since you yourself said that Al-Husayn (عليه السلام) realised he was incorrect. Wait, so the fatwa, for lack of better term, of an Imam (عليه السلام) on a situation concerning a legal matter - which is the conditions and limitations of treaties (something which has precedent in the Sunnah) - is not a mawlawi command, rather a command of the ruler? How is that reconciled with the various hadiths that say or imply that obedience to the Imam is like the obedience to the Prophet, which is essentially obedience to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? The only way you can solve this is if you claim that even the Prophet, in terms of his commandments, - they were not all mawlawi, and in fact some were based on his own tashkheesat. Furthermore I would like to know your opinion on this hadith;
  8. lol stop hiding Lol so whose memory failed who? At least you admit it Lol, see you go back and forth and up and down. Glad you saw how weak your evidences are. The onus is on me giving evidence to support this principle, which I am continuing to discuss on this thread. You are the disrupter, not me. The topic is still ongoing, but you're crying. I don't have to accept this report even if I didn't believe in this principle. It is non-binding at all. Just like other historical reports. Certainly wouldn't build a aqeeda on it (as you backtracked on). Lol, because that's how we judge how pathetic an argument is. The reason why I call your argument pathetic is because it took a 5 minutes research on the Verses related to this event and it was my mistake that I hadn't done that earlier, otherwise we wouldn't have wasted 3 pages with me arguing with someone like you. His evidence is convincing but is being challenged, he hasn't refuted this principle at all, in my opinion, which is why the discussion with him is ongoing and you are just being a disrupter right now. No, he is not using the same evidence, LOL. He is citing various hadith, scholarly quotes, Fiqhi arguments and rational arguments. All you came up with in your O.P was a now proven to be pathetic attempt at a Qur'anic argument. I'd say you have nothing left to offer, so it is best you sit this one out after you were proven wrong, and that you don't keep wasting my precious time on someone like you. Humble yourself and know your place in these matters. Loooooooooooooool go sit down somewhere else
  9. So can one Imam be more right than another, assuming they are in the exact same position, yet we can still maintain ta3a to both? Meaning if we say Imam Al-Hasan (عليه السلام) made that decision, and Imam Al-Husayn (عليه السلام) disagreed with it and reacted angrily, - since it is a mawlawi issue - would that not constitute disagreeing with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? Or do you believe that not every mawlawi command is based on divine inspiration?
  10. Lol is it as pathetic as your attempts to disguise yourself? Lol, the one with the memory problems is the one that can't even remember the first comment he made and what he said in comparison to what he is saying now. You said: Which means, you genius, you are hanging onto this historical report as solid evidence in a matter of aqeeda, after your pathetic attempt at a Qur'anic argument was destroyed. And to claim that the onus is on me to "prove" this principle is simply nonsense, it is the onus on people on both sides to prove their stance, otherwise tawaqquf is necessary. Your attempt at refuting this belief was a joke. You clearly tried to use this historical report as evidence for this aqeeda, don't even lie. You took it upon yourself to refute this belief and your pathetic attempt at a Qur'anic argument failed lol. What a joke. So the onus is on you to refute this belief. Lol yes because the number of pages matter when it comes to how pathetic an argument is. Well done Lol, and what does that mean that the 'most knowledgable' brother believes in this? Unlike you he is actually presenting some quite convincing (yet still, so far, questionable) evidence to prove his stance. And him making that comment means nothing in this bahth. Humble yourself, accept you are wrong, and stop crying about mistreatment. And the rest of your joke of a post is just crying. Won't even respond to that. Lol a man said indirect takfir
  11. Lol why is it hilarious? Since when is it wajib to accept a historical source and since when is it wajib to build a aqeeda on it? I would rather build a aqeeda on a dha'eef hadith from Al-Kafi than this historical report. No one uses historical sources to prove a aqeeda, in fact some ulama went as far as to say that to accept a aqeeda it should be proven through tawatur. But you wouldn't know that. This report is not ultimate unquestionable proof from which we can then build a aqeeda upon. You had the Qur'anic argument but that was proven to be pathetic, and now you are hanging on to stuff like this. Humble yourself. And don't imply others are not religious when you insult people and then cry when others do the same to you.
  12. lol alright whatever you say Not getting involved in this anymore, I did my job which was prove you wrong. lool
  13. At least you admitted I refuted your Harun-Musa argument. Alhamdulillah, there is some insaaf.
  14. And you reap what you sow. I never insulted you, but I believed it is best to engage with you in a matter you understand very well. And you know who you are. So half your thread has gone to waste. I'm glad you can agree when you are proven wrong. lol
  15. In the event that two people have different tashkhees, can they be both right and correct in the eyes of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? I would say the story of Yusuf (عليه السلام) and Yaqub (عليه السلام) seems to be good proof. But I see what you mean brother. Yes, but is it not a lack of imaan, if we say that it is from an Imam (عليه السلام) in a mawlawi issue because ultimately the source is Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), or do you believe that not every mawlawi issue is inspired by Divine?
  16. Says the one who was insulting other believers in this month earlier on this thread. You have no leg to stand on, humble yourself, Mr..Tawheed313. I will concede to you that he did confront them, but as it turns out (after I did some research), the situation was NOT the same and the reaction will not have been the same had Harun (عليه السلام) confronted them because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) They said, "We will never cease being devoted to the calf until Moses returns to us." (Taha, 91) Which means although Bani Israel disbelieved in Harun (عليه السلام), they still believed in the authority of the Prophet (saww), similar to how some of the sahaba would take the Prophet (saww) but not Imam Ali (عليه السلام). Therefore, your claim that Musa (عليه السلام) and Harun (عليه السلام) were in the exact same position was an incorrect assertion. So it seems you left out a very important piece to the story. NOW, what do you say to this? No, it implies that had he confronted them, and they disunited, he feared he would be blamed. Perfectly fine. He certainly didn't intend to disagree or disobey his brother, which is the point of this thread. No, you seem very sensitive.
  17. It is completely relevant, because the person who knew of Musa's (عليه السلام) wasiyya is in fact, shocker, Harun (عليه السلام). 1) Why haven't you anwered why Musa (عليه السلام) never confronted them after? 2) If you believe Musa (عليه السلام) still maintained his brother didn't fulfill his wasiyya, as he was instructed, then did he err? And I agree this is going nowhere. This is what happens when you argue for the sake of arguing. You go nowhere. Have a nice day. The example you brought forth brother does not seem to support your case, what I meant by reality is that this is in accordance with how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wanted it. For example, if I pray 5 rak'aat instead of 4 rak'aat for isha, this is an invalid salaat, as this is not in accordance with what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) prescribed. Perhaps I should have used the word "in accordance" instead of "reality". So my question is, how do we know that what the Imam's (عليه السلام) application of the law is in accordance with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) - if we accept the theory of different types of applications? And would it make sense to believe in the wujoob of something that would not be in accordance with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? The only way to answer this would be to say there are numerous ways of applying the hukm and they are all in accordance with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Prophets Ishaaq (عليه السلام) and Isma'il (عليه السلام)? Yaqub (عليه السلام) and Yusuf (عليه السلام)? Would this not contradict fardh al-ta3a lil Imam, and how obedience to the Imam (عليه السلام) is essentially obedience to the Prophet (saww), which is essentially an obedience of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?
  18. Lol. Maybe due to the fact that when the incident happened, Musa (عليه السلام) was not there, and he only came in after the fact? Again, this is evidence, unlike your unbacked statements. What Harun (عليه السلام) did was not with the intention of opposing or disagreeing with his brother, he believed what he did was correct and not contradictory to the wasiya of his brother who is his authority. Add to the fact, where is the proof that Musa (عليه السلام) confronted them after he knew what they had done?
  19. The situation of Harun and Musa mean nothing to this discussion, because the context and situation was different between them, hence the misunderstanding. This isn't the same as two people in the exact same context, would they react different or not? Entirely different question. His reasoning is based on the fact that he feared Musa's reaction had he confronted them. So was Musa pro or anti confrontation? It is clear he didn't want them to apostate, but also it is clear from his brother's words he wouldn't have been happy with division either. Otherwise why would he fear a reaction from his brother if he did exactly what his brother wanted him to do? Again, 2+2=4 logic.
  20. Right, but following a judge and wali al amr like you said is based on maintaining social order and prevention of chaos. But it has nothing to do with correctness of a'maal and correctness of viewpoints. How can we be certain that we will be rewarded for a amal originally based on speculation? Notice I said "originally", because this cannot be compared to maraje who can only work with what was given to them by the Imams (عليه السلام). So if the original amal is incorrect, where is the reward? Or do you believe that all the ijtihadaat of the Imams (عليه السلام) are correct and rewarding, and that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) allows for this? So two Prophets of similar authority have never existed together at once in the entire history of Prophethood? This doesn't answer whether it would be a sin, even if he turned back from his earlier position, supposedly.
  21. This is different from saying that that Imams would react different in exactly the same context. I'm not sure if you are being contrarion on purpose, but I'm pretty sure I showed you that Harun (عليه السلام) was fearful that if he did confront them, then Musa (عليه السلام) would say he caused division among the Israelites. This implies that Musa (عليه السلام) would not have supported a confrontation with them, if he knew their will be divide. This is a 2+2=4 matter I am not sure why you are still arguing.
  22. I can see why there is an ishkal but I don't find the view that only following the Imams (عليه السلام) in tableegh and ahkam as controversial. I don't know if it is correct, but I don't have an issue with it.
×
×
  • Create New...