Jump to content

Follower of Ahlulbayt

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Are there 13 Imams in Shi'ism?   
    What we also have to consider when looking at these narrations is riwaya bil ma'na. Basically this means that a narrator would not transmit a hadith by the exact wording of the Imam. The Imams permitted narrators to transmit a narration by adding words, subtracting words, using different words than the Imams did, all with the condition that the meaning of the hadith does not change.
    In light of this, I have a few reasons as to why we have some narrations which suggest that there are 13 Imams.
    1) We have an authentic hadith which states that that the meaning of العتره (Prophet's progeny) mentioned in hadith al-thaqalayn is Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, Imam Hussain and the nine sons of Hussain (a). A possible explanation for the ahadith that suggest 13 Imams could be that the Prophet (s)/Imam (a) never said من ولدي اثنا عشر , but rather said,  من عترتي (which would make sense because in the hadith of al-thaqalayn Imam Ali clearly says he is from the 'itra of the Prophet), however the narrator changed the wording to من ولدي. 
    2) Or we could say that the Prophet/Imam never mentioned the words ولدي  in the hadith, however the narrator wanted to emphasise the fact that the successors of the Prophet (s) are (mostly) from his descendants, so he added the words, which is permissible. However, in doing so, he did not realise that the hadith suggested that there were 13 Imams, instead of 12.
    3) Or the Prophet/Imam did use the word ولدي, but the narrator added the number 12. Again, this is permissible, but the narrator did not realise that this would mean 13 Imams. 
    There are also other explanations such as the fact that these ahadith have scribal errors. Because we have so many narrations which suggest 12 Imams, and the fact that (to my knowledge) there was never a sect which called to 13 Imams, I think we can safely conclude that these narrations are most likely the result of mistakes from the transmitters. 
  2. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Are there 13 Imams in Shi'ism?   
    What we also have to consider when looking at these narrations is riwaya bil ma'na. Basically this means that a narrator would not transmit a hadith by the exact wording of the Imam. The Imams permitted narrators to transmit a narration by adding words, subtracting words, using different words than the Imams did, all with the condition that the meaning of the hadith does not change.
    In light of this, I have a few reasons as to why we have some narrations which suggest that there are 13 Imams.
    1) We have an authentic hadith which states that that the meaning of العتره (Prophet's progeny) mentioned in hadith al-thaqalayn is Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, Imam Hussain and the nine sons of Hussain (a). A possible explanation for the ahadith that suggest 13 Imams could be that the Prophet (s)/Imam (a) never said من ولدي اثنا عشر , but rather said,  من عترتي (which would make sense because in the hadith of al-thaqalayn Imam Ali clearly says he is from the 'itra of the Prophet), however the narrator changed the wording to من ولدي. 
    2) Or we could say that the Prophet/Imam never mentioned the words ولدي  in the hadith, however the narrator wanted to emphasise the fact that the successors of the Prophet (s) are (mostly) from his descendants, so he added the words, which is permissible. However, in doing so, he did not realise that the hadith suggested that there were 13 Imams, instead of 12.
    3) Or the Prophet/Imam did use the word ولدي, but the narrator added the number 12. Again, this is permissible, but the narrator did not realise that this would mean 13 Imams. 
    There are also other explanations such as the fact that these ahadith have scribal errors. Because we have so many narrations which suggest 12 Imams, and the fact that (to my knowledge) there was never a sect which called to 13 Imams, I think we can safely conclude that these narrations are most likely the result of mistakes from the transmitters. 
  3. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Propaganda_of_the_Deed in Reliability of Shia Hadith Tradition   
    There are a number of incorrect statements made in the video. 
    First, we do not believe all the companions became kuffar except for three. Here is an article by Islamic Salvation discussing the matter.
    Some key points that we raise against their books were never addressed in the video. For example, the fact that the Sunni hadith corpus mainly relies on a handful of companions whose 'adalah are not established. Yeah, maybe they were contemporaries, but that doesn't prove that they are reliable and the fact that everything they attributed to the Prophet (s) is correct.
    Also, the individual in the video makes it seem as all Sunni hadith critics are objective in their gradings of narrators and the Shia hadith critics are all bias. When you delve into the discussion, the point that Sunni hadith critics were objective is simply not true. For example, you have Sunni Hadith critics that weaken Jabir b. Yazid al-Ju'fi simply because he believed in raj'a. Not that he had weak memory. Or that he made mistakes. They weaken him simply because of the fact that had a belief which they did not like. That is not "objectivity". Also, there is a famous Ahl al-Hadith principle (which ibn Hibban claims that there was a consensus on) that if an innovator narrates things which agree with his innovations, then he is rejected, but if the innovator narrates things which don't agree with his innovations, then he is accepted. So if a narrator was trustworthy, had good memory etc., but he narrated things which disagreed with the 'Sunni' position, he is suddenly a liar. That is not "objectivity". Also the fact that if someone was seen cursing Abu Bakr and Umar and if he had extreme Rafd, then he would be rejected by the Sunni scholars even if he was trustworthy, had a good memory etc., because being a Rafidhi was seen as a sin and your 'adalah would go down the drain. Sounds like some bias "objectivity".
    For more on the bias of the Sunni Hadith critics:
    https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235015707-response-to-narrator-criticism-in-Sunni-rijal/
    https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235017635-jabir-ibn-yazid-al-jufi/
     
    As for the reliability of our literature, then the best way to prove this is by looking at history. These comments are quite insightful:
     
     
     
     
    Brother @Qa'im presents 50 thiqa Shi'I Rafidhi narrators from al-Kafi and Kamal al-deen, then he writes
     
     
  4. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Propaganda_of_the_Deed in Reliability of Shia Hadith Tradition   
    There are a number of incorrect statements made in the video. 
    First, we do not believe all the companions became kuffar except for three. Here is an article by Islamic Salvation discussing the matter.
    Some key points that we raise against their books were never addressed in the video. For example, the fact that the Sunni hadith corpus mainly relies on a handful of companions whose 'adalah are not established. Yeah, maybe they were contemporaries, but that doesn't prove that they are reliable and the fact that everything they attributed to the Prophet (s) is correct.
    Also, the individual in the video makes it seem as all Sunni hadith critics are objective in their gradings of narrators and the Shia hadith critics are all bias. When you delve into the discussion, the point that Sunni hadith critics were objective is simply not true. For example, you have Sunni Hadith critics that weaken Jabir b. Yazid al-Ju'fi simply because he believed in raj'a. Not that he had weak memory. Or that he made mistakes. They weaken him simply because of the fact that had a belief which they did not like. That is not "objectivity". Also, there is a famous Ahl al-Hadith principle (which ibn Hibban claims that there was a consensus on) that if an innovator narrates things which agree with his innovations, then he is rejected, but if the innovator narrates things which don't agree with his innovations, then he is accepted. So if a narrator was trustworthy, had good memory etc., but he narrated things which disagreed with the 'Sunni' position, he is suddenly a liar. That is not "objectivity". Also the fact that if someone was seen cursing Abu Bakr and Umar and if he had extreme Rafd, then he would be rejected by the Sunni scholars even if he was trustworthy, had a good memory etc., because being a Rafidhi was seen as a sin and your 'adalah would go down the drain. Sounds like some bias "objectivity".
    For more on the bias of the Sunni Hadith critics:
    https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235015707-response-to-narrator-criticism-in-Sunni-rijal/
    https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235017635-jabir-ibn-yazid-al-jufi/
     
    As for the reliability of our literature, then the best way to prove this is by looking at history. These comments are quite insightful:
     
     
     
     
    Brother @Qa'im presents 50 thiqa Shi'I Rafidhi narrators from al-Kafi and Kamal al-deen, then he writes
     
     
  5. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Propaganda_of_the_Deed in Reliability of Shia Hadith Tradition   
    There are a number of incorrect statements made in the video. 
    First, we do not believe all the companions became kuffar except for three. Here is an article by Islamic Salvation discussing the matter.
    Some key points that we raise against their books were never addressed in the video. For example, the fact that the Sunni hadith corpus mainly relies on a handful of companions whose 'adalah are not established. Yeah, maybe they were contemporaries, but that doesn't prove that they are reliable and the fact that everything they attributed to the Prophet (s) is correct.
    Also, the individual in the video makes it seem as all Sunni hadith critics are objective in their gradings of narrators and the Shia hadith critics are all bias. When you delve into the discussion, the point that Sunni hadith critics were objective is simply not true. For example, you have Sunni Hadith critics that weaken Jabir b. Yazid al-Ju'fi simply because he believed in raj'a. Not that he had weak memory. Or that he made mistakes. They weaken him simply because of the fact that had a belief which they did not like. That is not "objectivity". Also, there is a famous Ahl al-Hadith principle (which ibn Hibban claims that there was a consensus on) that if an innovator narrates things which agree with his innovations, then he is rejected, but if the innovator narrates things which don't agree with his innovations, then he is accepted. So if a narrator was trustworthy, had good memory etc., but he narrated things which disagreed with the 'Sunni' position, he is suddenly a liar. That is not "objectivity". Also the fact that if someone was seen cursing Abu Bakr and Umar and if he had extreme Rafd, then he would be rejected by the Sunni scholars even if he was trustworthy, had a good memory etc., because being a Rafidhi was seen as a sin and your 'adalah would go down the drain. Sounds like some bias "objectivity".
    For more on the bias of the Sunni Hadith critics:
    https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235015707-response-to-narrator-criticism-in-Sunni-rijal/
    https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235017635-jabir-ibn-yazid-al-jufi/
     
    As for the reliability of our literature, then the best way to prove this is by looking at history. These comments are quite insightful:
     
     
     
     
    Brother @Qa'im presents 50 thiqa Shi'I Rafidhi narrators from al-Kafi and Kamal al-deen, then he writes
     
     
  6. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from shia farm girl in Musa (as) story and infallibility   
    do most scholars differentiate between before prophethood and after?
    Isn't the famous view that they were Prophets from the time they were born?
  7. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from shia farm girl in Musa (as) story and infallibility   
    ok so he mistakenly killed someone.
    That goes against complete infallibility (that Prophets do no major sin, minor sin, or mistakes)
  8. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from shia farm girl in Musa (as) story and infallibility   
    I knew of the points made in this hadith. I addressed why I believe they are wrong in my first post. 
    In addition, I think the hadith causes more problems. The hadith explains ظَلَمۡتُ نَفۡسِ as "I placed myself in the wrong place by entering this city". ok, but that is still a mistake....which goes counter to complete infallibility. 
  9. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from shia farm girl in Musa (as) story and infallibility   
    Salam everyone,
    The story of Musa (as) and him killing an Egyptian is mentioned in Surah al-Qasas, verses 15-16:
    "And he entered the city at a time of inattention by its people and found therein two men fighting: one from his faction and one from among his enemy. And the one from his faction called for help to him against the one from his enemy, so Moses struck him and [unintentionally] killed him. [Moses] said, "This is from the work of Satan. Indeed, he is a manifest, misleading enemy. He said, "My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, so forgive me," and He forgave him. Indeed, He is the Forgiving, the Merciful."
    I would like to see how us Shias can justify our general view of infallibility (no major or minor sins and no mistakes) from this verse. 
    So first, Musa (as) killed somebody. Murder is a major sin. Some may point out that this was unintentional and he did not mean to kill the Egyptian. Although, then we would have to at least admit it was a mistake and that dismisses complete infallibility. Some other people may say that Musa (as) deliberately killed the Egyptian and the Egyptian was an oppressor, so killing him is not a problem. This doesn't make sense though as Musa (as) says that he wronged himself and he does istighfar. 
    Another issue is Musa (as) doing istighfar if he didn't commit a sin. Why did he say faghfirli فَاغۡفِرۡ لِىۡ (forgive me)? Some might argue that the correct translation for فَاغۡفِرۡ لِىۡ is actually "cover me". But that doesn't make sense since the end of the verse reads "He is the Forgiving, the Merciful", which is context for فَاغۡفِرۡ لِىۡ meaning forgive me. Some may say that he is doing istighfar for tark al-Awla but I read somewhere that some scholars do not believe in tark al-Awla. So how do we justify this (besides tark al-Awla)?
     Also, Musa (as)'s statement "This is from the work of Satan" is also problematic. As some can explain the mistake of the Prophet (saw) praying 4 rak'at instead of 2 being from Allah. However, Musa (as) clearly here says this was from Satan. Some may argue that when Musa (as) said "This is from the work of Satan", he was referring to the quarrel between the Egyptian and the slave before, but I find that hard to believe. 
  10. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Martyrdom of al-Zahra- Authentic chain   
    Because he could exaggerate things
  11. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Sirius_Bright in Martyrdom of al-Zahra- Authentic chain   
    Salam,
    Today I will be arguing for the reliability of the following hadith:
    Cursed cursed is the one who oppresses my daughter, Fatima (s), and usurps her right and kills her! (Kanzul Fawa'id, Vol.1, Pg. 150)
    ملعون ملعون من يظلم بعدي فاطمة ابنتي ويغصبها حقها ويقتلها
    The chain of the hadith is as follows:
    ومما حدثنا به الشيخ الفقيه أبو الحسن بن شاذان رحمه الله قال حدثني أبي رضي الله عنه قال حدثنا ابن الوليد محمد بن الحسن قال حدثنا الصفار محمد بن الحسين قال حدثنا محمد بن زياد عن مفضل بن عمر عن يونس بن يعقوب رضي الله عنه قال سمعت الصادق جعفر بن محمد عليهما
    The only person in this chain who can be criticised is Mufadhal b. Umar.
    A summary of Mufadhal's verdict amongst our rijal scholars can be seen here. Additionally, brother Islamic Salvation has summed up the issue quite well here. I recommend everyone to read these before continuing here.
    Basically, Mufadhal seems to have deviated by becoming a Khattabi that called to Ismail. This is also supported by the fact that in one report (589) he seems to view Fajr as non-obligatory, which is a massive indicator that he was a Khattabi, considering that the Khatabiyya were anti-nomian.
    However, there is clear indications that Mufadhal returned to the truth and disassociated from the Khatabiyya. The conclusion is that if Mufadhal reported something during deviance, it cannot be relied upon. If he reported something outside of his deviance, it would be deemed reliable. 
    Now the question is, can we prove that Mufadhal narrated this report outside his period of deviance? I believe we can, here are the reasons:
    1) The main narrator of this report, Yunus b. Ya'qub, a companion of Imam al-Sadiq (a), was ordered by the Imam to send salams to Mufadhal after the passing of Ismail, which was when Mufadhal returned. I feel as though Yunus would not have narrated this highly sensitive report to someone who was a Khattabi who called to Ismail. I feel as though it only makes sense that Yunus would transmit this sensitive hadith to Mufadhal only once he had certainty that he could trust Mufadhal and that Mufadhal returned to the truth. I believe Yunus most likely transmitted this hadith to Mufadhal after he was commanded by the Imam to send salams to Mufadhal, which is when Mufadhal returned to the truth.
    2) The content of the narration itself contains several points that go in complete contradiction to the practises of the Khatabiyya.
    Al-Nawbakhti mentions "One sect (from the Khatabiyya) said that Abu Abdullah, Ja'far b. Muhammed, is Allah, the Exalted - Allah is certainly above that. They permitted, unlawful conduct, like adultery, stealing, and intoxication. They also cancelled the alms, prayers, fasting, and the Hajj, and allowed pleasures for each other....They said, "Whoever knows the Prophet-Imam can do as he pleases."
    However we read in the narration  ملعون ملعون حامل للقرآن مصر على شرب الخمر (Cursed cursed is the one who carries the Holy Qur'aan and insists on drinking intoxicants!). The narration also states ملعون من قال الايمان قول بلا عمل ( Cursed cursed is the one who says that faith is only speech without action!)
    These two statement make it clear that Mufadhal transmitted this narration when he was not a Khattabi. Why? Because, the narration is cursing those that think Islam is just about believing, and not doing good deeds. This is in complete contradiction to Mufadhal's former beliefs and former school, the Khatabiyya.
    3) I believe the person that receives this report from Mufadhal (Muhammed b. Ziyad) is in fact Muhammed b. Abi Umayr, from the ashaab al-Ijmaa. Few scholars have stated that whatever authentically reaches b. Abi Umayr, will be considered authentic. However I will be arguing that someone like b. Abi Umayr, a highly thiqah companion of the Imams, would not receive this narration from Mufadhal if he was still on deviance and if he was still considered a kafir mushrik by the Imams. In light of narrations where Imam al-Kadhim relies and praises Mufadhal, I think it makes more sense to conclude that b. Abi Umayr received this narration from Mufadhal when he was on mustaqeem.
    So it has been proven that it is more likely that this narration was transmitted by Mufadhal when he was not a Khattabi and when he was on truth. The narration will therefore be considered reliable.
    Wallahu 'Alam.
  12. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from shia farm girl in Refuting "From Imāmiyya to Ithnā-ashariyya"   
    Basically argues that the doctrine of Ghaybah was developed later in history and that in our earliest books (Basâ'ir al-darajât and Kitab al-Mahasin) this doctrine is absent. Only do we find in the later books of Saduq this doctrine really taking shape.
    How do we refute the idea that Imamah was a doctrine developed later in history in general? 
  13. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Abu Nur in Ignorance and Perfection   
    I do not think it is correct to say that the Ahl al-Bayt have access to all knowledge. This, in affect, is like saying they have the ability to becoming all-knowing.
    We have explicit hadith that mention how only Allah knows certain things:
     الكافي: محمد بن إسماعيل، عن الفضل بن شاذان، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن ربعي بن عبدالله، عن الفضيل بن يسار قال: سمعت أبا جعفر عليه السلام يقول: العلم علمان: فعلم عند الله مخزون لم يطلع عليه أحدا من خلقه وعلم علمه وملائكته ورسله، فما علمه ملائكته ورسله فإنه سيكون، لا يكذب نفسه ولا ملائكته ولا رسله، وعلم عنده مخزون يقدم منه ما يشاء، ويؤخر منه ما يشاء، ويثبت ما يشاء
    [10/368] al-Kafi: Muhammad b. Ismail from al-Fadhl b. Shadhan from Hammad b. Isa from Rib’I b. Abdallah from al-Fudhayl b. Yasar who said: I heard Aba Ja’far عليه السلامsaying: Knowledge is of two kinds. A knowledge with Allah which is hidden. No one has seen into it among his creation. And a knowledge which He taught His angels and messengers. So as for that which He taught His angels and messengers then it must occur. He does not belie Himself, nor His angels, nor His messengers. As for the the hidden knowledge with Him then He brings forward from it what He wills and puts back from it what He wills, and He establishes what He wills.       
    الكافي: عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن ابن ابي عمير، عن جعفر ابن عثمان، عن سماعة، عن ابي بصير، ووهيب بن حفص، عن ابي بصير، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إن لله علمين: علم مكنون مخزون، لا يعلمه إلا هو، من ذلك يكون البداء وعلم علمه ملائكته ورسله وأنبياءه فنحن نعلمه
    [5/363] al-Kafi: A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from Ibn Abi Umayr from Ja’far b. Uthman from Sama’a from Abi Basir (and Wuhayb b. Hafs from Abi Basir) from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: Allah has two kinds of knowledge. A knowledge which is hidden and stored-up. No one knows it but Him. From that does Bada’ happen. And a knowledge which He taught His angels, messengers and Prophets. So we too do know it.     
    I think the correct way to explain those ahadith about the Imams knowing ('what was, and what will be and what won't be until the day of judgement') are that they are referring to Islamic rulings.
    Shaykh al-Mufid said that the only consensus amongst the Imamiyya is that the Imams have all knowledge of the rulings, but not everything.
  14. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Abu Nur in Ignorance and Perfection   
    I do not think it is correct to say that the Ahl al-Bayt have access to all knowledge. This, in affect, is like saying they have the ability to becoming all-knowing.
    We have explicit hadith that mention how only Allah knows certain things:
     الكافي: محمد بن إسماعيل، عن الفضل بن شاذان، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن ربعي بن عبدالله، عن الفضيل بن يسار قال: سمعت أبا جعفر عليه السلام يقول: العلم علمان: فعلم عند الله مخزون لم يطلع عليه أحدا من خلقه وعلم علمه وملائكته ورسله، فما علمه ملائكته ورسله فإنه سيكون، لا يكذب نفسه ولا ملائكته ولا رسله، وعلم عنده مخزون يقدم منه ما يشاء، ويؤخر منه ما يشاء، ويثبت ما يشاء
    [10/368] al-Kafi: Muhammad b. Ismail from al-Fadhl b. Shadhan from Hammad b. Isa from Rib’I b. Abdallah from al-Fudhayl b. Yasar who said: I heard Aba Ja’far عليه السلامsaying: Knowledge is of two kinds. A knowledge with Allah which is hidden. No one has seen into it among his creation. And a knowledge which He taught His angels and messengers. So as for that which He taught His angels and messengers then it must occur. He does not belie Himself, nor His angels, nor His messengers. As for the the hidden knowledge with Him then He brings forward from it what He wills and puts back from it what He wills, and He establishes what He wills.       
    الكافي: عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن ابن ابي عمير، عن جعفر ابن عثمان، عن سماعة، عن ابي بصير، ووهيب بن حفص، عن ابي بصير، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إن لله علمين: علم مكنون مخزون، لا يعلمه إلا هو، من ذلك يكون البداء وعلم علمه ملائكته ورسله وأنبياءه فنحن نعلمه
    [5/363] al-Kafi: A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from Ibn Abi Umayr from Ja’far b. Uthman from Sama’a from Abi Basir (and Wuhayb b. Hafs from Abi Basir) from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: Allah has two kinds of knowledge. A knowledge which is hidden and stored-up. No one knows it but Him. From that does Bada’ happen. And a knowledge which He taught His angels, messengers and Prophets. So we too do know it.     
    I think the correct way to explain those ahadith about the Imams knowing ('what was, and what will be and what won't be until the day of judgement') are that they are referring to Islamic rulings.
    Shaykh al-Mufid said that the only consensus amongst the Imamiyya is that the Imams have all knowledge of the rulings, but not everything.
  15. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Abu Nur in Ignorance and Perfection   
    I do not think it is correct to say that the Ahl al-Bayt have access to all knowledge. This, in affect, is like saying they have the ability to becoming all-knowing.
    We have explicit hadith that mention how only Allah knows certain things:
     الكافي: محمد بن إسماعيل، عن الفضل بن شاذان، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن ربعي بن عبدالله، عن الفضيل بن يسار قال: سمعت أبا جعفر عليه السلام يقول: العلم علمان: فعلم عند الله مخزون لم يطلع عليه أحدا من خلقه وعلم علمه وملائكته ورسله، فما علمه ملائكته ورسله فإنه سيكون، لا يكذب نفسه ولا ملائكته ولا رسله، وعلم عنده مخزون يقدم منه ما يشاء، ويؤخر منه ما يشاء، ويثبت ما يشاء
    [10/368] al-Kafi: Muhammad b. Ismail from al-Fadhl b. Shadhan from Hammad b. Isa from Rib’I b. Abdallah from al-Fudhayl b. Yasar who said: I heard Aba Ja’far عليه السلامsaying: Knowledge is of two kinds. A knowledge with Allah which is hidden. No one has seen into it among his creation. And a knowledge which He taught His angels and messengers. So as for that which He taught His angels and messengers then it must occur. He does not belie Himself, nor His angels, nor His messengers. As for the the hidden knowledge with Him then He brings forward from it what He wills and puts back from it what He wills, and He establishes what He wills.       
    الكافي: عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن ابن ابي عمير، عن جعفر ابن عثمان، عن سماعة، عن ابي بصير، ووهيب بن حفص، عن ابي بصير، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إن لله علمين: علم مكنون مخزون، لا يعلمه إلا هو، من ذلك يكون البداء وعلم علمه ملائكته ورسله وأنبياءه فنحن نعلمه
    [5/363] al-Kafi: A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from Ibn Abi Umayr from Ja’far b. Uthman from Sama’a from Abi Basir (and Wuhayb b. Hafs from Abi Basir) from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: Allah has two kinds of knowledge. A knowledge which is hidden and stored-up. No one knows it but Him. From that does Bada’ happen. And a knowledge which He taught His angels, messengers and Prophets. So we too do know it.     
    I think the correct way to explain those ahadith about the Imams knowing ('what was, and what will be and what won't be until the day of judgement') are that they are referring to Islamic rulings.
    Shaykh al-Mufid said that the only consensus amongst the Imamiyya is that the Imams have all knowledge of the rulings, but not everything.
  16. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in Legal Age of Bulūgh for Girls   
    Legal Age of Bulūgh for Girls
    What follows is a summary of a number of discussions held by me and three other seminarians, where arguments of numerous jurists on the legal age of maturity (bulūgh) for girls were investigated. Even though we find a classical scholar considering menstruation as the criterion for the obligation of fasting in the month of Ramaḍan, the popular opinion amongst Shīʿī Imāmī jurists has been that the age of bulūgh for girls for all religious duties including fasting is nine lunar years.
    However, there are other jurists who do not believe nine to be an indicator of bulūgh but rather other signs of puberty up until the age of thirteen. If no signs of puberty are seen in a girl beyond thirteen then she is to be considered of legal age at the completion of thirteen years.
    Continue Reading: https://www.iqraonline.net/legal-age-of-bulugh-for-girls/
    Iqra Online | https://t.me/IqraOnline | https://www.facebook.com/IqraOnlineBlog/
  17. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from just a muslim in Definition of Shirk   
    Yes, this is what I meant, .
    I understand people can believe impossibilities such as multiple Gods, but it is rationally impossible for there to be multiple Gods. 
    I was responding to the brother based on other things he has said in the discussion. He said that "If you understand shirk is "rationally impossible", that would mean that the punishment against Shirk is irrational". 
  18. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Waseem162 in [MUST READ] 100% Proof Wives Are Not Ahlulbayt   
    Doubts which Sunnis give and Answer
    One doubts which sunnis bring is the fact that if the verse was already revealed for the five, then why does the prophet once again have to purify them in the event of kisa. The reply is a hadith from the imam:
    Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isa from Yunus and Ali ibn Muhammad  from Sahl ibn Ziyad, abu Sa'id from Muhammad ibn Osa from Yunus from ibn Muskan from  abu Basir who has said that he asked abu 'Abdallah (a.s.) about the following words of Allah,  the Most Holy, the Most High. "Believers, obey God, His Messenger, and your leaders (who  possess Divine authority). . . ." (4:59) The Imam (a.s.) said, "This was sent from heavens  about Ali ibn abu talib al-Hassan and al-Husayn (a.s.)." I then said, "People say, "Why did He  not specify Ali and his family by their names in the book of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most  High?'" The Imam (a.s.) said, "Say to them, 'The command for prayer came to the Messenger  of Allah but He has not specified (the number of the Rak'ats) for them three nor four. It, in  fact, was the Messenger of Allah who explained to them this matter. The command for Zakat  (a form of income tax) came to the Messenger of Allah and there was no specific taxable  number such as one Dirham on every forty Dirham. It was the Messenger of Allah who  explained it for them....(Al kafi, kitab al-hujjah, ch.64, h.1-sahih)
    This is clear. The ayat of purification is general and does not specify who ahlulbayt is. That is why the event of kisa clarifies it for us and after gathering everyone, the prophets says "These are my Ahlulbayt and my special ones". 
  19. Respectfully Disagree
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from skyweb1987 in Grammar Questions Ayat Tatheer   
    Sorry to be crude, but you really are embarrassing yourself. 
     
    Look what you wrote:
    How can people actually take you seriously
    I have never added random statements, but question has been the same from the start.
  20. Haha
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to skyweb1987 in Grammar Questions Ayat Tatheer   
    I already know that your are fond of nitpicking the words for your amusement instead of giving thought on the context of the statements mentioned in posts and OP, I have already quoted the same as above:
    So far you have failed to give thought whats is being presented in the thread as well as in the last post where you have chosen a mistranslated word (being google translation).
    it seem you have neither read a single word from the blue part of last post nor you have read that it is a google translation.
    I just feel sorry for you brother.
  21. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in Questions on Principle "Everything is halaal, until proven haram"   
    This principle is not always explained correctly. The actual principle is basically: everything is permissible, only after we have done exhaustive research, and have not been able to figure out our religious duty with respects to a specific doubt we have regarding a law.
    So for example, this ruling would be applied like this:
    1) If cigarettes were produced today for the first time, and after an exhaustive investigation in the religious sources, we are unable to find any evidence regarding whether it is wajib, haram, makruh, or mustahabb to smoke them, at that point, we apply this principle, which is called bara'at and say it is simply permissible.
    2) In the example you have given, if there was truly a doubt in whether Fajr is 2 rak'at or 3 rak'at, then this discussion is discussed in the topic of 'ilm ijmali (indeterminate knowledge). Just like if you have doubt on the day of Friday whether you have to pray Zuhr or Jumu'ah. In 'ilm ijmali the discussion on how and in which scenario this principle is applied is extremely complicated. In some cases, according to some opinions, this principle would be applicable in the case you mentioned.
    But for the example you gave, since in real life there is no doubt, the principle is not applied.
  22. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Abu Nur in Grammar Questions Ayat Tatheer   
    Salam,
    I have a couple questions regarding ayat tatheer
     
    First:
    اِنَّمَا يُرِيۡدُ اللّٰهُ لِيُذۡهِبَ عَنۡكُمُ الرِّجۡسَ اَهۡلَ الۡبَيۡتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمۡ تَطۡهِيۡرًا
    When it says "Allah only intends to keep away al-rijs...." how do understand this? Surely, Allah intends other things besides purifying Ahl al-Bayt? How can we accept that Allah intends nothing else except purifying Ahlulbayt?
     
    Second:
    اِنَّمَا يُرِيۡدُ اللّٰهُ لِيُذۡهِبَ عَنۡكُمُ الرِّجۡسَ اَهۡلَ الۡبَيۡتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمۡ تَطۡهِيۡرًا
    In the verse, it says "keep away impurities" (Li Yudh Hiba 'Ankum). We know here from the usage of 'Ankum and not minkum, that the incorrect understanding is that impurity was on Ahl al-bayt, then removed. Rather, no impurity was on Ahl al-bayt to begin with, and that the impurities were being kept away. 
    However in this verse (Surah 8:11):
    اِذۡ يُغَشِّيۡكُمُ النُّعَاسَ اَمَنَةً مِّنۡهُ وَيُنَزِّلُ عَلَيۡكُمۡ مِّنَ السَّمَآءِ مَآءً لِّيُطَهِّرَكُمۡ بِهٖ وَيُذۡهِبَ عَنۡكُمۡ رِجۡزَ الشَّيۡطٰنِ وَلِيَرۡبِطَ عَلٰى قُلُوۡبِكُمۡ وَيُثَبِّتَ بِهِ الۡاَقۡدَامَؕ‏ 
    Allah uses Yudh Hiba 'Ankum. However, it makes no sense to translate this verse as "keep away", because we know from the context of this verse that najasah was already on the companions, and Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى was removing the najasah off them. So in this verse, although it has nearly the exact wording of ayat tatheer, Yudh Hiba 'Ankum means remove, and not keep away. What are the grammatical differences in these two verses that can explain why ayat tatheer means "keep away" and this verse means "remove". 
  23. Confused
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from skyweb1987 in Questions on Principle "Everything is halaal, until proven haram"   
    Salam,
    I understand the famous Shia principle "Everything is halaal, until there is evidence that it is haraam".
    From this principle, can we assume that:
    Praying 3 rak'at for Fajr, instead of two, is allowed. Because everything is allowed until proven haraam. Although we do have hadith that say Fajr is 2 rak'at, if i wanted to add an extra unit, am i allowed to base on the principle?
     
  24. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Qa'im in Questions on Principle "Everything is halaal, until proven haram"   
    Since the hadith specifies 8 plus shafi` and witr (11 altogether), that would be the sunna. The rest would be considered voluntary prayers, which are good if the intention is right.
    The classic example of this principle is kangaroo meat. There are no hadiths on kangaroo meat (or potatoes, or tomatoes), and so according to this usuli principle, it would be halal.
    Of course the most extreme application of this fatwa is the famous thighing issue.
  25. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from shia farm girl in Grammar Questions Ayat Tatheer   
    Ok so i've been doing some research. The innama can be explained as brother Toyib (ra) has explained it:
    So, we could understand this verse as not having any restriction, just emphasis (Verily, what).
    Like in the verse قُلۡ يٰۤاَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اِنَّمَاۤ اَنَا لَـكُمۡ نَذِيۡرٌ مُّبِيۡنٌ (Say (O Muhammad): "O people! I have been sent to you only as a plain warner), the meaning is not that the Prophet (saw) is only a warner and nothing else, the اِنَّمَاۤ is just for emphasis. 
    However, brother Toyib also points out that the sentence 
    إن ما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيراً
    would be a very weird sentence formulation.
     
    The other possible interpretation of innama comes from another brother
     
×