Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Ali Al Kashmiri

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri got a reaction from Northwest in Pakistan   
    After reading this thread, there is one thing that I am sure about, hyper nationalism is a curse on the Ummah. 
    There are 47 Muslim majority countries what's stopping them from getting united against American imperialism ? These countries only care about personal regional and global interests nothing else. There is no such thing as one unified Ummah. The only country that has had some courage to show some resistance, has been Iran. 
    Pakistan a country with a begging bowl, it has been living on mercy of America, KSA & China. They are buying a new credit card to pay of the previous one. All those infrastructure projects that you are bragging about were building by (beekh) given by some foreign nation. You need money to fight a war, where is that money going to come from? 
  2. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri got a reaction from starlight in Your favourite chai/tea or coffee   
    You may be surprised to know that the authentic Kashmiri chai is salty not sweet. 
  3. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    I have left polemics many years ago as it does not heed any results and my energy and time is better spent elsewhere. Most Muslims today could give two damns about these discussions and more fundamental discussions regarding religion, God, metaphysics, spirituality, ethics and law need to focused on - these guys do not have anything substantial to offer in those areas as they are stuck in history and their lives are an inconsistent mess, predicating classical interpretations on the modern world. These guys will comfort the Sunni laity by quoting the theoretical and/or taqiyyah/maslaha-based opinions of their Salafi scholars saying that the disbelievers in the West are in an 'ahd with us and hence the laws of a harbi do not apply on them. However, these things like "you have to follow the law of the land" () are said due to maslaha, to keep people at bay and to be able to live and survive, otherwise they know there is no 'ahd here. An 'ahd is done by a Wali Amr and the Imam of the Muslims on behalf of the Muslims. Who is their Wali Amr who has done such an 'ahd with the disbelievers of the West on behalf of all the Muslims of the world? King Salman? The paradigms have all changed. Are they recognizing modern nation states - democracies or kingdoms - as jurisprudentially justified, let alone be representative of the Muslims? In addition, such an 'ahd cannot occur for more than a number of years (usually a decade) before falling back to the primary ruling of wujub of offensive war, so even if there was any 'ahd it is long expired (please show us where this 'ahd is in the first place and what were the conditions of this 'ahd - an 'ahd cannot even allow certain conditions such as the permissibility of the disbelievers to insult Islam and the Muslims or things which allow them to weaken the Muslims and blaspheme against the Prophet and so on - the West thrives on being able to say and do all these things). Even if we were to agree with them and say there is some sort of hypothetical 'ahd which Shar'an necessitates peace, such an 'ahd has long been broken by many of the Western countries due to their foreign and domestic policies and warfare against Muslims and Islam as a whole (both inside and outside their countries). 
    Ibn Taymiyyah:
     أن ناقض العهد و المرتد المؤذي لا ريب أنه محارب لله و رسوله فإن حقيقة نقض العهد محاربة المسلمين و محاربة المسلمين محاربة لله و رسوله 
    As for one who violates an 'ahd and an apostate who causes disturbance, there is no doubt that they are Muharib against Allah and His Messenger. The mere reality of violating a contract ('ahd) is doing Muharabah against the Muslims and Muharabah against the Muslims is Muharabah against Allah and His Messenger.
    Also they make it sound like as if Da'esh scholars had some different Fiqh revealed to them from the heavens. Da'esh scholars and their Fiqh is primarily based on classical opinions in Sunni Fiqh, derived from the same traditions and verses of the Qur'an. It would be absurd (I.e. taqiyyah) for a Sunni to say that Da'esh ijtihad is not valid, justified and hujjah.
    As for his point about living in the past - yes that is an issue if you bring past opinions of Shi'a scholars as arguments, because Shi'a do not believe in taqleed al-mayyit in jurisprudence, let alone theology (where they generally do not accept taqlid at all). Past opinions are irrelevant if ijtihad has been done and scholars have arrived at new conclusions - both in jurisprudence and theology. For example, I could care less what Majlisi or Ne'matullah Jazairi had to say about the Sunnis - it is very clear their living contexts and as well as Akhbari methodology heavily influenced their opinions and comments on this subject.
    No, I didn't forget - I wasn't trying to explain every single verse in the Qur'an (there are about 26 in total). This has a similar explanation as what I had written earlier. La'inun does not mean someone who just sits there and verbally sends la'nah. Linguistically it means Allah expels and dismisses those who conceal the truth, He removes them from His mercy, and so does a group of creation (we do not know if this is angels, humans, or both) who expel and dismiss such individuals as well. If you want to take it as a verbal pronouncement of "Allahuma-l'an" then you would have to assume the same meaning for both Allah and this group of creation (the meaning is nonsensical in the case of Allah since he does not verbally supplicate for them to be removed from His own mercy).
  4. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    We have a good number of reports to show it was a practice performed by some of the Bani Umayyah loyalists. For example, when Mu'awiyah appointed Mughirah as the governor of Kufa he asks him to not cease insulting 'Ali (a) and his companions, while continuing to praise 'Uthman. My point is that the fact that Mu'awiyah would have even given such orders as the first caliph of the Bani Umayyah - a dynasty that then ruled over the Muslim empire for decades - would have been one of the earliest cases of institutionalized insulting, condemning and cursing of a companion of the Prophet (p). Hence there is a report mentioning 'Umar b. 'Abdul 'Aziz stopped this practice.
    The earliest movements you find of bara'at from the first two caliphs is after Karbala in the city of Kufa, when the whole notion of Rafd began to emerge, initially in a theological context. All of these details and intricacies require a book to be explained properly.
    A seerah is a practice, not an event or a few instances here and there. A seerah would be something like keeping a beard - this was the seerah of the Muslim men, they would keep beards. Or the head covering was a seerah of the Muslim women for example. Or wiping the foot in wudhu was the seerah of the Imamis (a) rather than washing their feet like the Sunnis do. Or it was the seerah of the Imamis to perform the Ziyarat of Imam Husayn (a) or just generally mourn over the Imam. These things are not proven through one or two reports here and there by one or two Imams, rather there are plenty of reports on their subject matter and the practice can be seen performed over the course of time and can traced back to the era of the Imams themselves. 
    You cannot establish the seerah of verbally cursing the first 3 caliphs neither from the historical reports nor the hadith - that such a thing was a regular practice of the Imams or their companions. A few reports here and there, that too when some of them are vague, while others are weak, and some show clear signs of fabrications - cannot be used to say that this was the seerah of the Imamis. For example, there is a report in al-Kafi that is often cited, which says Imam Sadiq (a) would curse 4 men and 4 women after every Salat - and this has been understood by some scholars (because the names do not appear in the actual text itself) to be Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Mu'awiyah; and 'Ayesha, Hafsa, Hind and Umm al-Hakam (sister of Mu'awiyah). A person by the name of al-Khaybari b. Ali al-Tahhan al-Kufi appears in the chain of this report for whom Najashi says:
    ضعيف في مذهبه، ذكر ذلك أحمد بن الحسين، يقال في مذهبه ارتفاع
    Ibn Ghada'iri says: 
    ضَعِيْفُ الحديث، غالي المَذْهَبِ
    What value do such reports with such Kufan narrators have, especially when wanting to prove the claim that verbally cursing the caliphs or the wives of the Prophet was a seerah? 
    The vast majority (if not all) of fire-temples, churches and synagogues in Tehran were built many years before the revolution and often become part of Iranian national heritage. I do not know if there has been any official Sunni mosque (a real masjid, not just a prayer-hall which even exist today) in this area since the Safavid dynasty and once again, I do not see why Tehran - the capital of a Shi'a state - should go out of its way and construct a Sunni masjid. The numerous prayer halls for the Sunnis that do exist are more than sufficient and are more than enough of a good gesture of unity.
  5. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    I also want to mention that we need to revisit some of our understandings of these Arabic terminologies. We are using words like la'n and other terms with a lot of baggage such as jurisprudential changes, socio-political changes, identity changes and so on. We cannot necessarily apply meanings developed later over generations to when we read the Qur'an for example, even though this is a common mistake - even at scholarly levels. People claim the Qur'an has many instances of la'n and hence it is a practice of the Qur'an itself to send la'nah on people, so what more can we ask for.
    This is not valid, because linguistically la'n means to be expelled and dismissed and nothing to do with verbally sending la'nah. When used verbally or as a noun in its creative meaning (insha'), it is then used as a supplication or a request asking one to be expelled and dismissed from something. This later meaning is what we understand today, even though the former meaning of being expelled and dismissed was the dominant meaning being used in the Qur'an. Safavid scholar Muhaqqiq Karaki in his book Nafahat al-Lahut fi La'n al-Jibt wa al-Taghut which was a seminal work in developing this practice of verbally cursing the caliphs and also the wife of the Prophet (p) cites numerous verses of the Qur'an to justify the practice of verbally cursing.
    However you have two set of verses in the Qur'an, first set is where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is sending la'nah on the oppressors and disbelievers. For example:
    إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَعَنَ الْكَافِرِينَ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ سَعِيرًا - 33:64
    يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ آمِنُوا بِمَا نَزَّلْنَا مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا مَعَكُم مِّن قَبْلِ أَن نَّطْمِسَ وُجُوهًا فَنَرُدَّهَا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِهَا أَوْ نَلْعَنَهُمْ كَمَا لَعَنَّا أَصْحَابَ السَّبْتِ ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا - 4:47
    فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم مِّيثَاقَهُمْ لَعَنَّاهُمْ وَجَعَلْنَا قُلُوبَهُمْ قَاسِيَةً ۖ يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ ۙ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ ۚ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَائِنَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِّنْهُمْ ۖ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ - 5:13
    And many other similar verses. What do these verses mean? That Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is verbally pronouncing the la'n on these people? No - la'n in these verses means Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is doing something with them - it is a Divine Act by Allah. He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is expelling them from Him Mercy, He punishes them, or sends them to hell-fire, he turns them into apes etc. These acts are described as Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) doing la'n on such individuals, and the la'nah itself are the punishments and its like.
    The second set of verses speak about angels and humans doing la'nah on oppressors, sinners, disbelievers. Majority of these verses are descriptions of the hereafter, describing exactly what this la'nah will be, the hellfire and punishment. None of these verse legislate or legitimize verbal cursing in this world. This is like saying Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will punish a sinner and do la'n of them in the hereafter, but if your father or mother happen to be instances of these sinners, does that mean you as a son or daughter can do la'n of them in this world or do you still have to maintain respect for your father or mother? The latter is a legislative rule, the verses are descriptions of the hereafter.
    The only verse in the Qur'an where a verbal la'n can possibly be understood is:
    لُعِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ عَلَىٰ لِسَانِ دَاوُودَ وَعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِمَا عَصَوا وَّكَانُوا يَعْتَدُونَ - 5:78
    كَانُوا لَا يَتَنَاهَوْنَ عَن مُّنكَرٍ فَعَلُوهُ ۚ لَبِئْسَ مَا كَانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ - 5:79
    This is an interesting verse because it says some were cursed through the tongues of Dawud and 'Isa. But this could mean two things:
    a) Either that Dawud and 'Isa were actually verbally saying, "Allahuma-l'an fulanan."
    b) Or it could be describing something that Dawud and 'Isa would have said. For example, if I say to someone, "Get out of this room, you are not welcome here in this place of worship," this could be described as a la'nah and it can be said, "Someone was done la'n of through the tongue of @Ibn al-Hussain." So perhaps Dawud and 'Isa would have said something like this regarding the sinners amongst the Bani Isra'il and the Qur'an is saying that they were done la'n of through the tongue of Dawud and 'Isa - meaning they were expelled and dismissed verbally and not just physically. This is something some of the Prophets did do, by for example praying for a punishment to fall upon their nations - that would a clear example of a Prophet doing la'n.
    There is no verse in the Qur'an that has anything to do with proving the legal permissibility of verbally cursing in this world, except one or two verses (one of them being the one above) and the most they can prove - if we try - is the permissibility (not Istihbab, let alone Wujub) of doing la'n of disbelievers (not Muslims), and not anything more than that. For anything more than that you will have to return to the hadith and have to engage in the discussions that exist over there. But even then, you would have to determine that if it says for example, the Imam would do la'n of some individuals, would that necessarily mean verbally saying "Allahumma-l'an" or would it be a description of something else that he would have said such as "O Allah, send your punishment on so and so, or make him taste hellfire" which are instances of la'n.
  6. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    Look at this definition of Taqiyyah amongst the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars as recorded in al-Mawsu'ah al-Fiqhiyyah:
    مَذْهَبُ جُمْهُورُ عُلَمَاءِ أَهْل السُّنَّةِ أَنَّ الأْصْل فِي التَّقِيَّةِ هُوَ الْحَظْرُ ، وَجَوَازُهَا ضَرُورَةٌ ، فَتُبَاحُ بِقَدْرِ الضَّرُورَةِ ، قَال الْقُرْطُبِيُّ : وَالتَّقِيَّةُ لاَ تَحِل إِلاَّ مَعَ خَوْفِ الْقَتْل أَوِ الْقَطْعِ أَوِ الإْيذَاءِ الْعَظِيمِ
    The madhhab of all the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnnah is that the primary ruling in Taqiyyah is prohibition, its permissibility is in times of need and it is permissible to the extent necessary. Qurtubi has said: Taqiyyah is not allowed except when there is fear of death, or being severed, or a great harm.
    Now look at the definition given by Shi'a scholars like Shaykh Ansari:
    التحفظ عن ضرر الغير بموافقته في قول او فعل مخالف للحق
    Taqiyyah is protection against harm inflicted by others by acting in accordance with him in speech and action - while it is against the truth.
    Even for the Shi'as Taqiyyah is a secondary ruling, like the Sunnis. The Sunnis for some reason feel proud that according to their Fiqh they only do Taqiyyah against the disbelievers, but they do not realize that for the Shi'as one of the biggest threat were the non-Shi'a governments and communities. It only makes historical sense that the Shi'as have a lot more traditions and jurisprudential details when it comes to Taqiyyah because our jurists were heavily focused on it, we have thought a lot more about it than the Sunni jurists, we have more detailed discussions on the verses and traditions, since that is the historical backdrop the Shi'as were living in. This is similar to Sunins possessing more jurisprudential discussions on politics, expediency, rules concerning the Wali Amr and so on - because they had remained in power for the vast majority of history and their jurists had to spend time discussing these details. The Shi'as have only begun to have these discussions since the last century, because that is when these discussions became relevant for us. 
    In some eras the Taqiyyah for the Shi'as was so severe, that they had to go out of their way and pretend to pray behind the Sunnis in their local communities, because of fear of being figured out they were Shi'as (if they did not attend the local mosque). Look at how Ibn Babuwayh tells his son Shaykh Saduq to pray behind a Sunni:

    وَ قَالَ أَبِي رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فِي رِسَالَتِهِ إِلَيَّ لَا تُصَلِّ خَلْفَ أَحَدٍ إِلَّا خَلْفَ رَجُلَيْنِ أَحَدُهُمَا مَنْ تَثِقُ بِدِينِهِ وَ وَرَعِهِ وَ آخَرُ تَتَّقِي سَيْفَهُ وَ سَطْوَتَهُ وَ شَنَاعَتَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ وَ صَلِّ خَلْفَهُ عَلَى سَبِيلِ التَّقِيَّةِ وَ الْمُدَارَاةِ وَ أَذِّنْ لِنَفْسِكَ وَ أَقِمْ وَ اقْرَأْ لَهَا غَيْرَ مُؤْتَمٍّ بِهِ فَإِنْ فَرَغْتَ مِنْ قِرَاءَةِ السُّورَةِ قَبْلَهُ فَأَبْقِ مِنْهَا آيَةً وَ مَجِّدِ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ فَإِذَا رَكَعَ الْإِمَامُ فَاقْرَأِ الْآيَةَ وَ ارْكَعْ بِهَا فَإِنْ لَمْ تَلْحَقِ الْقِرَاءَةَ وَ خَشِيتَ أَنْ يَرْكَعَ فَقُلْ مَا حَذَفَهُ‌ الْإِمَامُ مِنَ الْأَذَانِ وَ الْإِقَامَةِ وَ ارْكَعْ وَ إِنْ كُنْتَ فِي صَلَاةٍ نَافِلَةٍ وَ أُقِيمَتِ الصَّلَاةُ فَاقْطَعْهَا وَ صَلِّ الْفَرِيضَةَ وَ إِنْ كُنْتَ فِي الْفَرِيضَةِ فَلَا تَقْطَعْهَا وَ اجْعَلْهَا نَافِلَةً وَ سَلِّمْ فِي الرَّكْعَتَيْنِ ثُمَّ صَلِّ مَعَ الْإِمَامِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ الْإِمَامُ مِمَّنْ يُتَّقَى فَلَا تَقْطَعْ صَلَاتَكَ وَ لَا تَجْعَلْهَا نَافِلَةً وَ لَكِنِ اخْطُ إِلَى الصَّفِّ وَ صَلِّ مَعَهُ فَإِذَا قَامَ الْإِمَامُ إِلَى رَابِعَتِهِ فَقُمْ مَعَهُ وَ تَشَهَّدْ مِنْ قِيَامٍ وَ سَلِّمْ مِنْ قِيَامٍ‌
    My father – May Allah be pleased with him – wrote to me in a letter: Do not pray behind anyone except two people: the first of them being someone whose religious status and piety you trust, and the other being someone whose sword, assault and repulsiveness against religion you fear. Pray behind him (the latter) out of dissimulation, and tolerance, but say the call to prayers for yourself, and stand, and recite for yourself, while not following them in it. So when you are near the end of the recitation of a sūrah before him, then leave one verse, and praise Allah (‘azwj). Once the Imām goes in rukū’, then read the last verse and do the rukū’ with him. If you fear that you will not be able to recite a complete sūrah before the Imām goes into rukū’, then say the adhān and iqāmah with that which the Imām had omitted and then go into rukū’.
    If you are in a supererogatory prayer, and a congregational prayer gets established, then cut your prayers short and join the obligatory prayer, and if you are in an obligatory prayer then do not cut it (if there is a congregation established), but change it into a supererogatory prayer, and say the taslīm after the two units, and then join the congregation prayers with the Imām. If the Imām is not one who one must dissimulate from, then in that case do not cut your prayers, or change it into a supererogatory prayer, but rather move towards the row of prayers and pray alongside him. If the (non-Shī’a) Imām stands up while one is in their fourth unit, then stand up with him and recite the tashahhud, and taslīm while standing up.
    Unfortunately, in polemics all of this historical context is stripped away. People are not told why exactly for example one group has more discussions on Taqiyyah in their Fiqh, why one has more discussions on Bid'ah in their Fiqh, why one has more discussions on expediency-based politics, and so on.
    At least we have Nusus Shar'I to rely on when deriving rulings on Taqiyyah. If the Sunnis were in the position of the Shi'as, they would have arrived at similar conclusions by doing Qiyas, Ilgha al-Khususiyyah, Tanqih al-Manat and so on.
    I believe the Shi'as (especially later generations) have exaggerated a lot in their view regarding the companions of the Prophet (p), and you cannot establish that the cursing (specifically la'n) of the companions was a Seerah of the Imams (a) - even if it may be jurisprudentially permissible to curse some of them for their enmity. Finding a handful of traditions here and there - often times problematic ones - is not enough to say there was such a Seerah amongst the Imams (a) and as well as the early Imami Shi'a. A seerah is something like the Ziyarat of Imam Husayn (a), or the way the Imami Shi'a did Wudhu for example, or prayed in Salat with their hands on the side - where you have ample traditions and can argue that something was done, and that it was done in a certain way. You cannot establish that there was a practice of cursing the companions in this manner.
  7. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    So what? Iran is a Shi'I country with Shi' creed as it's state religion. Why would it give the Sunnis an official masjid in it's capital city and why do we need to even justify this position. The whole of Tehran has one Friday prayer where everyone comes and it is the most politically significant event of the week in the country.
    That's like demanding a Shia mosque in Riyadh despite a significant population of Shias (including many non-Saudi workers). Hell, there are not even official prayer rooms for Shias in Riyadh and they are not given any such recognition. For half a decade while I lived there we had to hide and do programs in people's houses secretly, usually with fear of being caught and sent to jail.
    I will write an article about it in the near future inshallah, but it can include both. Taqiyyah Mudarati is essentially good conduct with others, so to not upset them. Like what Muhammad Hijab is doing here by focusing on things like Mukatabah, freedom for slaves or focusing on slavery in the United States (even though slavery only grew exponentially after Islam and it was only been abolished due to secular law in the last century, not because the jurists prohibited it) just to give it a positive spin - even though the agnostic in front of him is Wajib al-Qatl as per the beliefs of Muhammad Hijab and if his blood is spilled it is of no value. The agnostic hasn't read much on slavery in Islamic law nor can probably read the classical works of Fiqh so his knowledge is not that vast, and Muhmmad Hijab has no plans on increasing his knowledge on the matter either:
    In order to be able to engage in a positive conversation and be able to live in harmony, Muhammad Hijab is not going to lay out all the detailed laws of Islam on these topics. Once people convert to Islam, they can gradually be told about those details. Just like how Islamic law itself was gradually revealed - these are all practical instances of what we call Taqiyyah Mudarati (you can call it whatever else you want).
    They can say these things theoretically, since that is what they have to say under taqiyyah. Otherwise they know there is no real 'ahd left after how Western countries and citizens have been on an onslaught against the Muslim world and Islam for many decades. Only a fool will think there is still an 'ahd that the West has been loyal towards.
  8. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to realizm in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    Respect to IP for the large amount of quality videos btw !
  9. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    I have a few comments (or rather a stream of consciousness) to make:
    The Takfiri/Salafi propaganda against the Shi'as is well-known, their petro-dollar funding and their obsession with attacking Tashayyu' - even over very petty and cultural practices - is very obvious and clear, and more dangerously, them disguising themselves as mainstream Ahl al-Sunnah is a strategy they are well known for. A response to them would be a video showcasing how as a matter of fact there are many Ahl al-Sunnah schools of thought who are very much against the Takfiri/Salafi/Wahhabi mentality, both in the East and as well as in the West - including very reputable and credible Sunni scholars. This should be highlighted very much so in polemics. As a matter of fact, the paradigms of the current world are on our side, and if the views of their scholars are exposed, they can be seriously damaged - the view of Imam Khomeini (q) or even other Shi'a scholars is a joke compared to what they have in their books.
    I am no fan of Shirazi or Yaser Habib type scholarship and neither with their obsession of cursing the companions - it is actually sickening for me to see their arguments, relying on utterly weak and often times fabricated traditions, particularly given the historical backdrop of how the practice of cursing in Proto-Tashayyu' was foremost a reaction to the public cursing initiated by Mu'awiyah (the first to institutionalize cursing of the companions), and then this reaction developed over the centuries, with the Kaysani movement, then during the late Umayyad period and so on (the history of how this practice developed and then got attributed to Shi'I identity is a discussion all on its own). Its epitome was during the Safavid period - where it got real bad - and it then died down from the time of Ayatullah Borojerdi and of course after the Islamic Revolution.
    If you notice, the Salafis live foremost in history. Majority of their quotes from influential Shia scholars go back to what scholars had said centuries ago - particularly the Safavid era (like what Majlisi says, or what Karaki says or Ne'matullah Jaza'iri said, or what Mufid said, or what Saduq said and so on), or at the very earliest they rely on material from the middle of the last century (like this quote from Imam Khomeini). But, because they are engaged in propaganda, they strip these quotes and present them, and the audience has no idea about the different notions that dominated the world at those times or what were the scholarly backgrounds of these scholars (for example if you understand the era and personalities of Majlisi, Ne'matullah Jaza'iri or Karaki you will realize that what they were saying was not absurd at all for their times and the type of interpretation they were doing from the religious texts). You can very easily do the same with their scholarship if the game is being played dirty. This is similar to Islamophobes taking out laws and narrations that talk about slavery and present them - they have to resort to works written centuries ago generally to argue their case. This is polemics for you.
    However, that is the past, even if it was 50-70 years ago, it is still the past. Today there is no doubt that within Iran, Shia Sunni unity is promoted, including in the seminaries and it is the official state position, and there are annual unity conferences held with hundreds of Sunni scholars and influential figures invited to these conferences. There are indeed Sunni mosques in Iran where there is a significant population of Sunnis (for example, like in Shiraz, there are 2-3 mosques, most famous of them being Masjid Rasul Akram). These sort of arguments, whether Iran has mosques or not where Sunnis are leading the congregation, are petty arguments only made to appeal to the viewers emotions. There is no doubt that there are more Sunni mosques in Iran than there are Shia mosques in all of the Middle East put together - Saudi Arabia has a couple where there is a high concentration of Shi'as and that's about it. This is typical of any Muslim country today, and nothing to do with Shia Sunni unity which has been Iran's official stance.
    At the same time, not once did any Shi'a scholar claim that by unity we meant compromising our beliefs. This is also reflected in Iran, for example with the commemoration of Fatimiyyah which marks the attack on the house of Fatima (s). The Shias have their beliefs and they hold on to them, and yes it is not hidden that the Shi'as have issues with certain companions of the Prophet (p) and that the narrative we accept is one of usurpation of the caliphate. However, going on to say that Taqiyyah Mudarati is a type of Nifaq (hypocrisy) is also absurd. Muslims generally and practically do Taqiyya Mudarati all the time when living in the West, when engaging with non-Muslims or even when Salafis have to engage with Shi'as in the West (Taqiyya does not only concern speech, but even actions, and we all know that many Salafis consider the blood of Shi'as to be permissible to be spilled - however they cannot carry this out because of Taqiyya as their lives and the lives of their families will be endangered in the West, and they will face serious consequences if caught, end up in jail, lose their governments benefits and so on). This is specifically true for Salafis, who according to their Fiqh are more severe and aggressive than any other Islamic school of thought (even against other Sunni schools), yet they do Taqiyya Mudarati all the time in front of the disbelievers and even other Muslims who they disagree with, so that they can live in harmony without causing trouble for themselves. Their own fatwas say you cannot befriend polytheists and disbelievers, yet they do Taqiyyah all the time while living in the West pretending to be friends with the disbelievers - otherwise they know very well according to their Fiqh, they are living in Dar al-Harb/Dar al-Kufr, they do not consider the disbelievers to have any sanctity, their women can be taken as slaves, their husbands can be killed and so on and there is actually no problem with that for them. If they are following the law of the land, it is only due to Taqiyyah. These double standards should also be highlighted in polemics.
    As for Imam Khomeini's (q) view, there is no reason to deny what he wrote. However, you can definitely make an argument that scholars alter their opinions all the time during the course of their life. Anyone who has studied a little will see this is a very common phenomenon in scholarship, both Sunni and Shi'a scholarship. At times you can find different contradicting opinions by one scholar in various books, because they had written them over the course of their lifetime, and these opinions changed. We are not talking about a time where there is the internet, where someone could very simply go back and edit their post or article online. This is a book he hand wrote which consists of more than 1200 pages. It was simply not common for a scholar to go back and edit something they had written like that even if they altered their position - this is as I said, is very common in Sunni and Shi'a scholarship. Imam Khomeini's (q) Kitab al-Taharah was written around the 1950s, this is almost 3 decades before the revolution. His comments in al-Makasib al-Muharrama were also from the 1950s. Do we realize how much a person's opinions can change in 30 years? How can you establish that he held the same view three decades later - particularly after all what he went through and with the development and realization of his political views - when you have conflicting comments from him and the fact that he ended up becoming one of the biggest proponents of Sunni Shia unity in the Shi'I world?
    Finally, it should also be mentioned that the Iranian government has nothing to prove to the Sunni world when it comes to giving a lending hand to the oppressed Sunnis - of Palestine) or elsewhere - and the Middle East puppet governments and those being funded by them should die of shame for even making accusations suggesting otherwise. With the kind of connections IP has, they can very easily showcase Sunnis in Iran who have very positive things to say about the Iranian government to counter the propaganda of SDL, or perhaps even attend the annual Shia-Sunni unity conference and highlight or interview influential Sunni scholars to make their case. This I believe would be very much beneficial.
  10. Haha
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Heavenly_Silk in Islamic Jokes and Humor   
  11. Haha
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Haji 2003 in Islamic Jokes and Humor   
  12. Haha
    Ali Al Kashmiri got a reaction from Ruqaya101 in Are you from Australia?   
    @ali_fatheroforphans Is it true that Australians ride kangaroo to work ? 
  13. Haha
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to ali_fatheroforphans in Are you from Australia?   
    Yeah I ride it everywhere. I even take it with me to the library when I study.
  14. Haha
    Ali Al Kashmiri got a reaction from Anonymous2144 in Are you from Australia?   
    @ali_fatheroforphans Is it true that Australians ride kangaroo to work ? 
  15. Haha
    Ali Al Kashmiri got a reaction from ali_fatheroforphans in Are you from Australia?   
    @ali_fatheroforphans Is it true that Australians ride kangaroo to work ? 
  16. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri got a reaction from ali_fatheroforphans in Can any Persians translate this latmiya?   
    I have posted Facebook link of the latmiya with English subtitles.
  17. Completely Agree
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Marbles in Your favourite national anthem?   
    I dislike all national anthems. I can't stand them and I can't stand people who pay respects to them.
    These anthems were invented as surrogates of religious prayers after the onslaught of the European Enlightenment and atheism on the traditional religious society. People needed new modes of association so they created nationalism, nation-states, national anthems, and national flags.
    Yes, I also hate flags and flag-waving nationalists - of each and every country.
  18. Completely Agree
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn Al-Ja'abi in Migration of Imam Hussain (as)   
    I have no idea why you double respond to me in this thread and the other, why you keep quoting old posts as if as soon as you think of something you have to say it, you and your friends could be 28 or 8 in my mind. As I said before I'm done arguing with you, I don't even know if you're so sincerely deluded you had no idea what the Prophet is doing taking oaths of allegiance before going to Medina or you're just backed into a corner and denying anything and everything to ensure your point stands. Your feelings seem to be so hurt over me saying you had a superfluous apostrophe in Batil where there's no need (by the way, yes there are standardized styles to transliterating Arabic which I don't care if you follow, there are also inherited spelling conventions such as "Ali" rather than "ʿAlī", but no conceivable reason, even in casual transliterations, where writing "ba'atil" makes any sense). It wouldn't even be worth addressing beyond the initial mistake if it didn't represent how absolutely moronic and bent on proving everyone wrong you are. I have to ask myself these questions:
    Is it worth trying to discuss with you what it meant to be Shii in the time that Abu Mikhnaf was alive, that it didn't mean you were an Imami or that you even understood what an Imam was as we do? No, it isn't worth it, you don't want to hear it and you wouldn't understand this. Is it worth trying to explain to you that someone protesting to their superior not to write a treaty would still adhere to the treaty, as they clearly did historically, after it is written until it is blatantly violated? No, we'd get into nonsense arguments about what the Imam was doing during Mu'awiya's lifetime and it might be worth it were it that you could actually refer to sources to see the Imam's behavior during this period and you the Imam referencing the treaty in the sermons he gave, if you haven't understood this now you won't. Is it worth trying to explain to you that knowing Arabic and Persian is important here since historical primary sources were compiled in Arabic and to access scholarly discussions in secondary sources you also need to know Persian, and that knowing these doesn't mean you are a Mu'min, but just that you can actually reference what you are talking about and not cite poor translations to prove your point that don't hold up to scrutiny? No, because if you didn't understand that then you really are thick headed and it isn't worth trying to explain something so obvious. Is it worth trying to explain to you what the Prophet was doing going to Medina, breaking down a timeline of events from the first pledge at Aqaba to the establishment of the constitution of Medina? No, these are such basic historical discussions that have been translated into English, and are so off topic from Imam Husayn's migration that it would be a waste of my time. Is any of the above worth doing with someone who has such gaps in his knowledge he thinks I'm saying that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Mu'awiya did nothing to harm the sunnah and Islam during their reigns? No, I have neither the time nor inclination to someone who's having such a hard time understanding anything I'm talking about with the sunnah either because he doesn't want to or he's legitimately slow. Is it worth discussing with people who were dismissive with @Ibn al-Hussain from the first instance he seriously tried to post in a thread about the authenticity of the long sermon attributed to Sayyida Fatima, despite the evidence he brought forth and despite his demeanor, just because he was contradicted by a legal scholar who hadn't done serious research into the speech but was nonetheless an Ayatollah and all that could be seen was his turban and his title? No, and this was the real issue. You, @Salsabeel, and @S.M.H.A. aren't just unaware and ignorant of the subjects that have been discussed between Muharram and now, if that was it we could have still discussed and shared research and thoughts, but you're arrogant and zealous and that's what killed any discussion before it started. You made your mind up and thought you were speaking for haqq and we for batil (/baatil/baatel/batel/bāṭil/باطل, but not ba'atil) and therefore we had to be dismissed and spoken down to. You would hide behind things like being "laymen" and "busy people" but still think you're entitled to just insult someone and dismiss them and be considered justified in this. I'm sorry to say but you all are deluded and pathetic. It wasn't worth the effort to discuss and as such, I have to opt out. My sincere advice to you three is to work on your personalities, you are incredibly rude and difficult people to talk to. Try to broaden your horizons in reading, there's more than just books on al-Islam.org that confirm your opinion (hell, there's books on al-Islam.org that you might even benefit from if you seriously read them). If you want to discuss these things seriously and be taken seriously, try to learn some classical languages. Investing in learning Arabic and Persian is neither hard nor expensive and can be done even if you're a busy person. And try being more open minded in speaking with people. You have read incredibly little to be so convinced about everything. We're not saying to believe what we believe or even abandon what you do, but seriously think about these things beyond what's haqq and what's "ba'atil".
    I can't say that it was a pleasure.
  19. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn Al-Ja'abi in Migration of Imam Hussain (as)   
    I find myself needing to speak to this as it lays out the themes of your replies to me in this thread and the other one, misinformed, angry, and zealous. There are several major misunderstandings about important issues in this post especially, notably:
    The perceived role of the Caliph as being the protector of the Sunnah. What was stipulated in the treaty between Mu'awiya and Imam Hasan, and thus what the Imam expected and what he cited to justify his actions. The varieties of early Islamic literature and the polemical role of hadith literature vs. historical literature. Development of historical narratives and historiography. As you can tell, all of these individual topics require some careful consideration and have been the subjects of entire books. I'm not going to bother to try to break everything down to you here because it's just not possible, you wouldn't want to hear it in the first place because I've been amazingly made out to be some crypto-Sunni, your lack of preliminary knowledge (e.g. a working knowledge of Arabic to access literature and a foundational knowledge of the subjects at hand), and simply because someone as vitriolic and close minded as you've been since the first page of that thread on the sermon of Fadak is not worth any serious investment of my time.
    With that, I'll try one last time to elucidate my points and respond to you briefly.
    This requires one to have a good understanding of how the Caliphs were perceived in the early Islamic period, especially up to this point all having claim to having "witnessed" the Prophet. From the earliest period up into the Umawi dynasty there was an understanding of them having a religious authority as well as a political one. Their authority extended not only to protecting law but also decreeing it (as you may recall with instances of Imam Ali contradicting Umar's judgements). As such they were understood as the pious defenders of the sunnah. Their authority hinged on this especially as they are justified by their protection of religion. When I read God's Caliph by Crone and Hinds, I was referred to the proclamation al-Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi records in his Mir'at al-Zaman (vol.13, pg.368) where al-Ma'mun names Imam al-Ridha his successor in A.H. 201 (their thesis overall demonstrates my point and seems to be a good reading of early Islamic history -- though not completely without its problems, as anyone familiar with Crone will know) which states and expands on this as the understood duty of the caliph within this early Islamic period (ironically said by an Abbasid).
    Furthermore, when you return to the treaty between Imam Hasan and Mu'awiya, there is a stipulation that Mu'awiya protect the Sunnah, further reinforcing this understanding of the Caliphate. Since the Caliph's authority is rooted in his piety and defense of the sunnah Imam Husayn is effectively negating the authority of Yazid as a rightful caliph and instead asserting his own by his mission to restore his grandfather's sunnah. Indeed this is the role of the Imam, the be the representative of God after the demise of the Prophet. When read in context this is clearly him asserting his authority as the Imam, as the successor of his brother (who himself is the successor of his father who is the legitimate successor of the Prophet) and the legitimate successor of Mu'awiya per the treaty Mu'awiya entered into with Imam Hasan. This, therefore, asserts his claim and negates that of the "المدعين" (false claimants -- as he put it). 
    Additionally, the sermon itself seems to be establishing the history of his claim up to this point, that it was legitimately in his family and it was contested with them unable to maintain it without causing great division and being forced to relent (you can read this as the treaty between Imam Hasan and Mu'awiya as well as Imam Ali relenting in the first place to Abu Bakr's authority), if this was him relinquishing his claim then he wouldn't keep reminding the people of the failure of the Umawi's to uphold the sunnah, their illegitimate claim to the throne of the Caliphate, and his family's position and legitimate claim. What would the Imam have done to maintain the sunnah? Would he have taken control of Kufah, used it as a base of operations, overthrown Yazid, and then given the divine government to someone else? And this especially considering that Hadith that says there was supposed to be the establishment of the "Amr" (affair, referring to the divine government which will now be instated by the Qa'im) established in 70 AH which was abrogated and postponed due to the killing of Imam Husayn. This is what @Ibn al-Hussain was referring to about "handing out roses". Was the Imam supposed to defeat Yazid and put in his place someone else or would he have taken the place of his brother's successor as the caliph (who himself was their father's successor, and he the Prophet's successor).
    Actually it did, I'm not sure how well read you are about Arabian Jewry in late antiquity (my presumption as always is not very if it all) and as fascinating as the subject is for me, I'll stick to a rundown. As soon as the Prophet entered Madina and the Aws and Khazraj converted he was the de facto ruler of Madina especially considering he was the one to make a constitution affording the Jews of the city rights. It's doubtful the Jews of the city had any power compared to the Arabs militarily. And in any case, their migrations to save their lives doesn't negate that they also had primary goal to set up a government. It is clear that the Prophet fled Mecca to escape persecution and the Imam fled Medina to save his life and be free from having to pledge allegiance, and similarly they both intended to set up their governments when they arrived at their target cities. I don't think the Imam anticipated the Kufans when he reached Medina, especially considering that he also had received advice to go to Yemen which was more remote but had a more reliable support base, but when the situation presented itself the Imam thought to avail it.
    Nafas al-Mahmum is generally a fine book and I tend to personally believe most of what's in it, but the fact is simply that it is a late source when chronologically compared to al-Tabari, and as such can be subject to an evolving and expanding narrative. I recommend you watch this lecture as it is a good introduction to the historiography of Karbala (though I remember him overlooking some early sources in his case study). I wouldn't identify any individual as the one who introduced an embellishment for sure in any case as I wouldn't know how to prove that, just that that they recorded the embellishment (and that is, if you decide that it is). All of this requires historiographical analysis which I don't think is worth getting into with you. Nevertheless, you really are in no good place to critique Tabari.
    I find myself addressing this because you, @Salsabeel, and @S.M.H.A. seriously seem to think that there's a filtration process going on in what al-Islam.org for the quality of the content beyond that it is generally orthodox Ithna Ashari material. There isn't. They have no scholarly board made of historians verifying the veracity of everything and that is plainly evidenced by some of the resources they have up. So while Nafas al-Mahmum is an alright book, it's not because al-Islam.org put it up, it's because al-Qummi was a qualified muhaddith. 
    In any case, the translation of Nafas al-Mahmum is poor, it was done by someone who didn't have a good grasp of Arabic or of English, possibly both, and wasn't able to render the Arabic text well into English. There doesn't need to be a good English translation for this translation to be bad, it's just bad. I wish with all my heart there was a good translation of this book and all the other Shia books in English, but there isn't and Ansariyan publishers have a habit of having bad translators translate texts for them. While this isn't as laughably bad as their others, this isn't good, and I especially have a problem with the translation you quoted to me and I offered you my reason. IKA Howard has done a better translation of this passage in his translation of al-Tabari's section of Yazid's reign (the aforementioned volume I don't actually believe you've read).
    I really wish you were the man to get into this discussion with, and I know if I tried to do it with you I'd be wasting my time as there's much less on Ibn Saba in English than there is on Karbala, but I wonder what you make of the reports about Imam Ali killing a heretic named Ibn Saba recorded in Rijal al-Kashi.
    That's two different things, he did seem to object to making a truce with Mu'awiya and told his brother not to, as is evidenced in this report from al-TabarI which @Ibn al-Hussain quoted:
    سنه 40 و دخل الناس في طاعه معاويه، و دخل معاويه الكوفه، فبايعه الناس قال زياد بن عبد الله، عن عوانه، و ذكر نحو حديث المسروقى، عن عثمان بن عبد الرحمن هذا، و زاد فيه: و كتب الحسن الى معاويه في الصلح، و طلب الامان، و قال الحسن للحسين و لعبد الله بن جعفر: انى قد كتبت الى معاويه في الصلح و طلب الامان، فقال له الحسين: نشدتك الله ان تصدق احدوثه معاويه، و تكذب احدوثه على! فقال له الحسن: اسكت، فانا اعلم بالأمر منك‏
    But after Imam Hasan's response to him "Shut up! For I know more regarding this issue than you", he isn't recorded as saying anything else likely meaning he accepted this. Disagreeing about having it doesn't mean he never ended up accepting it, and in the end, he seems to have expected to see his end of the agreement fulfilled.
    I just want you to note that there are Shia sources in agreement with what the Sunni sources state and that just because the source is from a Sunni author it doesn't negate the narrative it for that reason alone. Rather a serious analysis must be done of the author's sources, and analysis of the content of their report, and to look for corroboration. You thinking I'm a crypto-Sunni who reads al-Bukhari has nothing to do with it, and conflating a hadith work with a historical work has nothing to do with it. I haven't flat out accepted Tarikh al-Tabari and everything therein, but stated it as an important historical source which is invaluable for providing us with information about early Islam. And as it seems, in this case he is corroborated with Shia reports, both historical and hadith. In any case, I'm quite frankly amazed you have any knowledge of the discussions regarding Abu Mikhnaf's madhhab. Suffice it to say that he seemed to have had Shi'I leanings, in the sense that Sunni rijal uses tashayyu' having had some proclivity to if not preference of Aal Muhammad, and moved within Shi'I intellectual circles. However any presumption I had of you having read up on the topic falls apart right after that. The famous text which was attributed to Abu Mikhnaf for centuries (whose only printed edition I'm aware of is the Kuwait edition) is undoubtedly not by him (as Shaykh al-Gharawi decisively proves), however he did write a book on the Maqtal of Imam Husayn called Waq'at al-Taff and this is largely preserved in Tarikh al-Tabari's section on the incident of Karbala. The work that was by him has also been partially reconstructed based on the report from al-Tabari by Shaykh Yusuf al-Gharawi. Any references made to Abu Mikhnaf's Maqtal here are made to him as he is cited in al-Tabari and not to the work of dubious authorship falsely attributed to him.
    Thank you for offering me as much nuance as you offered yourself. This nonsense is among the fallacious argumentative behavior I referred to in the thread by Reza, you can't help yourself. You're not just zealous, angry, and misinformed, you're small minded and a silly person. If someone has an unorthodox view about some matter, or even a view that is orthodox but contrary to your's, they have to also have an ulterior motive. That's why it isn't just not worth discussing with you, but it's impossible.
    By the way, there's no عين or همزة in "باطل", you can just say "baatil".
    No need brother, I read about it in the epic poems.
  20. Completely Agree
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn Al-Ja'abi in Sermon of Fadak - is it reliable?   
    My sincere advice to you, just stop talking to these guys. With his last post I really have to evaluate how valuable my time is. This is especially reflected in our attempts to try to bring quality research in our discussions, whether they be primary sources or secondary sources, or it is referring to expert treatment of the materials, or it is trying to analyze the Arabic text seriously to see what conclusion is best derived. We have seen nothing like that from their side, just self congratulating and insulting, which would be fine if they at least referred to something beyond translations from al-Islam.org. A list of better uses of your time:
    Reading al-Tabari, whether in English (since the translation is so good) or in Arabic. Reading expert scholarly treatments of Fadak, Karbala, and the event of the door. Studying Arabic, Farsi, or even Polish. Hitting your head on a wall. I've thrown in the towel cause I have better things to do, you could even go to their methodology of bringing quotes from "grand ayatollahs" and I don't think these guys would care. They're just not worth the time and effort.
  21. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn Al-Ja'abi in Sermon of Fadak - is it reliable?   
    It speaks to the quality of your proof if it's traditions whose chains are problematic, if its books whose authors are notably unknown, if there are gaps between the narrators making verification of the transmission of a tradition difficult, and if your translations are demonstrably bad but you can't do anything other than rely on them because you can't actually read primary sources in the original language yourself. In such a scenario perhaps consider you aren't bringing good proof and the other person isn't just attempting to do anything to get out of having to accept maybe you're justified in your belief. And that if you're saying there's no point discussing because your proofs are demonstrably poor and you can't verify things yourself because you lack the evidence, but instead choose to dismiss people as unorthodox and arguing aimlessly when they show problems with what you bring, that you're just willing to do anything to keep believing what you believe uncritically.
    This is hilarious coming from the guy quoting nohas and Ziyarat Ashura instead of addressing anything anyone says properly.
    Perhaps you should consider that someone can sincerely disagree with you and not see the strength in what you're arguing if there's no strength to it rather than presuming nonsense like this.
  22. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to haideriam in Migration of Imam Hussain (as)   
    S.M.H.A my brother
    You do not bury your head in the sand and you have to be brave enough to face these questions. 
    So let us face them like grown ups..
  23. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to haideriam in Refuting "From Imāmiyya to Ithnā-ashariyya"   
    Thank you sister for cutting out some junk.
    It is because there is lack of knowledge and answers. 
    You all feel these things are nice for us to hear far less form an opinion on them, but because they are in the books well authenticated, so we have to deal with them with a knowledge perspective and hopefully improve our understanding on many perspectives.
    Look at the proliferation of jahil zakirs in Pakistan and their blind listeners and adherents who are all semi nusaries(ghuloo) or believe in what is the word them being one with Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) etc. 
    Disappointed @Salsabeel
  24. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in Refuting "From Imāmiyya to Ithnā-ashariyya"   
    Brother, why are you making yourself look like a fool? Seriously. I'm trying to share proper research with you and trying to show you how to critically engage with views you've just been told since you were a kid and you have a few al-Islam books translated that you can access. That isn't how scholarship works. I showed you the irrelevancy of three traditions you brought and their weakness, and even encouraged you to read further research on the topic (Dr.. Mustafa Azami's research was one of the most significant books written in the 20th century on this topic) yet you are telling me that you are going to prove a historical fact that hadith writing and transmission was banned as a political law for 90-odd years based on that? lol
    I purchased and read Shahristani's book when I was 19 years old, and believed the same thing as it was famously said about the caliphs. However, once you read more extensive research and come out of your dogmatic comfort zone, it becomes clear that Shahristani's book and arguments have a lot of problems. Why is it so troublesome for you to consider changing your views? 
  25. Like
    Ali Al Kashmiri reacted to Mahdavist in Sermon of Fadak - is it reliable?   
    I think the discussion is getting a little ridiculous now with due respect. You argued that al Jahiz couldn't have fabricated the sermon because it was too eloquently written (you made this claim without even having a basic understanding of Arabic grammar, let alone prose) When it was pointed out to you that his linguistic skills and study of the Qur'an were at a level that allowed him to potentially fabricate such a sermon, your reaction was to somehow portray people as being followers of al Jahiz. This point is not only completely irrelevant, it is also dishonest. 
    At the end of the day you do yourself an injustice and lose credibility when you do something like this.
    Instead of insisting on debating points which are outside of your knowledge and capabilities it would perhaps be more adequate to simply admit that the discussion is out of your depth and to politely step aside. It is more honourable to simply admit that you don’t know, rather than to bluff. 
    You don't have to agree with what the brothers are saying if it doesn't convince you, but you don't do yourself any favours when you try to debate topics for which you simply lack the basic and fundamental tools. 
    I am not posting this just to single you out, but rather because there is an obsession among people in our religious community to rush into debates and polemics without always taking the time to develop the required skills and knowledge. This has resulted in people being destroyed in debates, not because their position was wrong but simply because they lacked the knowledge to prove their point correctly. 
    Wallahu a'lam 
  • Create New...