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

Follower of Ahlulbayt

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    422
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Propaganda_of_the_Deed in Does looking at explicit images or videos without ejaculating break the fast   
    Probably not, but defeats the purpose of fasting, which includes lowering the gaze and abstaining from the haram. You do not want to be of those who only get hunger and thirst out of fasting. 
  2. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    No issue with saying Harun (a) would have confronted them if his situation was different and the people recognised his authority for example. 
    The question is if Musa (a) was in Harun's (a) position, would Musa (a) have done the same things or different? I'm just not convinced that there is any good evidence that he would have done the same things, or if he would've done different things.
  3. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from farhatsek in What must I know as a Shia?   
    In terms of the difference between us and Sunnis, then mainly it is differences in aqeeda. For example, the predominant sects in Sunnism are Salafis (often referred to as Wahhabis), Asharis, Maturidis, Deobandi and others. In terms of Tawheed, we differ with of all these Sunni sects, especially when it comes to the attributes of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). All of them (with or without actually saying it) believe Allah has parts, Salafis believe that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) literally has hands, feet, shin, a face, a chest, some say Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) jogs, they all say He literally is on top of the throne, but of course they usually follow up these beliefs with the phrase "in a way that befits his majesty". The others believe that Allah has parts because they  say that his attributes such as the attributes of Him being all-knowing, all-powerful are in addition to his essence. Of course, debates on the attributes of Allah have been happening for centuries and these discussions are pretty technical and both Salafis and the others would deny that their belief is that Allah is composite or has a body etc.
    The other main difference between us and Sunnis, and this goes for all Sunnis sects (including Ibadhis), is our specific doctrine of Imamate. We believe in the concept that "the Earth will never be devoid of a hujjah". This principle can be proven both rationally and textually. From this principle, we conclude that after the Prophet (s), there were Imams that came after him. We, the Twelvers, believe that there are 12 Imams after the Prophet (s), and the 12th, Imam al-Mahdi (ajts), is still alive but in occultation (al-ghaybah). Other evidences to prove imamate include the incident of Ghadeer, which we use to prove that the Prophet (s) at least appointed one successor.
    In terms of duas, then there are many. Just go to duas.org to see them. Also, of course go to our canonical works, such as al-Kafi, too see the great du'as  of Ahl al-Bayt (a).
  4. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from zahra.5 in What must I know as a Shia?   
    In terms of the difference between us and Sunnis, then mainly it is differences in aqeeda. For example, the predominant sects in Sunnism are Salafis (often referred to as Wahhabis), Asharis, Maturidis, Deobandi and others. In terms of Tawheed, we differ with of all these Sunni sects, especially when it comes to the attributes of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). All of them (with or without actually saying it) believe Allah has parts, Salafis believe that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) literally has hands, feet, shin, a face, a chest, some say Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) jogs, they all say He literally is on top of the throne, but of course they usually follow up these beliefs with the phrase "in a way that befits his majesty". The others believe that Allah has parts because they  say that his attributes such as the attributes of Him being all-knowing, all-powerful are in addition to his essence. Of course, debates on the attributes of Allah have been happening for centuries and these discussions are pretty technical and both Salafis and the others would deny that their belief is that Allah is composite or has a body etc.
    The other main difference between us and Sunnis, and this goes for all Sunnis sects (including Ibadhis), is our specific doctrine of Imamate. We believe in the concept that "the Earth will never be devoid of a hujjah". This principle can be proven both rationally and textually. From this principle, we conclude that after the Prophet (s), there were Imams that came after him. We, the Twelvers, believe that there are 12 Imams after the Prophet (s), and the 12th, Imam al-Mahdi (ajts), is still alive but in occultation (al-ghaybah). Other evidences to prove imamate include the incident of Ghadeer, which we use to prove that the Prophet (s) at least appointed one successor.
    In terms of duas, then there are many. Just go to duas.org to see them. Also, of course go to our canonical works, such as al-Kafi, too see the great du'as  of Ahl al-Bayt (a).
  5. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from zahra.5 in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    Salam,
    So a theological question which I believe many of us need to ponder over a bit more is the concept that the Imams are all the same person and that each of them would have done exactly the same thing as the other and the only reason that they did different things was due to their situations.
    A usual question that is asked is— Why did Imam Ali (a) not fight the first three caliphs, then when he became caliph he fought Muawiyah and Aisha and the Khawarij, but then how comes Imam Hasan (a) when he was caliph did not fight, and he did the treaty with Mu'awiyah? And then of course is the question of Imam Hussain (a) and why he fought when he wasn't caliph which literally none of the other Imams did.
    I think that maybe these can just about be answered by using the principle that when you don't have sufficient followers, you shouldn't fight:
     
    But one incident which I believe makes the case that the Imams are different people and that they wouldn't have done the same as each other even if they had the same circumstances is the fact that Imam Hussain (a) disagreed with Imam Hassan (a) on the peace treaty with Mu'awiyah. The evidences for this can be read here. 
    After establishing that the Imams are different people and they would have done different things even if they lived in the same circumstances, the next question should be....is this a problem? Does this mean they differed on usul al-deen? Does this mean they are not divinely appointed?
    I think that one example in the Qur'an that sheds light on this matter, is this:
    In this example, we have two infallible (no major or minor sins) Prophets, Harun (a) and Musa (a). However, we see here that after the people went back to idol worshipping and when Musa (a) comes back, he is not pleased with Harun (a) at all to the point where he physically grabs him. However, we know Harun (a) did nothing wrong. It is only rational that if people are going to kill you and take your life, that one practises taqiyyah. However, we see here that Musa (a) disagreed with Harun (a) and he seized him. 
    Both Prophets. Both divinely appointed. Yet they are still different people.
    Now, some may object to this example and say that Musa (a) only seized Harun (a) before Harun (a) gave his explanation. After Harun gave the explanation as to why he did not fight al-Samiri, Musa (a) accepts that what he did was right. To this I would respond with the following
    Even if we were to accept that Musa (a) accepted Harun (a) did the right thing by not rising up after Harun (a) gave the explanation, the point is that it is clear that if Musa (a) was in charge, he would have fought the people and not let them worship the idol.  This proves that they are indeed different people and would have done different things Musa (a) asks Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to forgive him and his brother. Why did he do this? Clearly, if Harun (a) did nothing wrong, Musa (a) wouldn't ask for his forgiveness. This is proof that Musa (a) did indeed feel like Harun (a) made a mistake by not rising up against the people. So, it is proven that two divinely appointed people disagreed with each other, just like Imam Hassan (a) and Imam Hussain (a), but this is not a problem at all and it doesn't mean that they are not divinely appointed.
  6. Completely Agree
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in What must I know as a Shia?   
    In terms of the difference between us and Sunnis, then mainly it is differences in aqeeda. For example, the predominant sects in Sunnism are Salafis (often referred to as Wahhabis), Asharis, Maturidis, Deobandi and others. In terms of Tawheed, we differ with of all these Sunni sects, especially when it comes to the attributes of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). All of them (with or without actually saying it) believe Allah has parts, Salafis believe that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) literally has hands, feet, shin, a face, a chest, some say Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) jogs, they all say He literally is on top of the throne, but of course they usually follow up these beliefs with the phrase "in a way that befits his majesty". The others believe that Allah has parts because they  say that his attributes such as the attributes of Him being all-knowing, all-powerful are in addition to his essence. Of course, debates on the attributes of Allah have been happening for centuries and these discussions are pretty technical and both Salafis and the others would deny that their belief is that Allah is composite or has a body etc.
    The other main difference between us and Sunnis, and this goes for all Sunnis sects (including Ibadhis), is our specific doctrine of Imamate. We believe in the concept that "the Earth will never be devoid of a hujjah". This principle can be proven both rationally and textually. From this principle, we conclude that after the Prophet (s), there were Imams that came after him. We, the Twelvers, believe that there are 12 Imams after the Prophet (s), and the 12th, Imam al-Mahdi (ajts), is still alive but in occultation (al-ghaybah). Other evidences to prove imamate include the incident of Ghadeer, which we use to prove that the Prophet (s) at least appointed one successor.
    In terms of duas, then there are many. Just go to duas.org to see them. Also, of course go to our canonical works, such as al-Kafi, too see the great du'as  of Ahl al-Bayt (a).
  7. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from shia farm girl in God is infinite, but aren’t numbers infinite?   
    This is an argument I heard.
    1 + 1 = 2 is infinite. We did not invent this, rather we discovered it.
    But, in order for this to be infinite, since it is a abstract concept, it must exist in an eternal mind. 
    That eternal mind, is the mind of God, the necessary being. 
  8. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from haideriam in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    Look, let me try and settle things down. We are unnecessarily being confrontational with each other. Its getting too toxic. First, I would like to apologise to brother @Urwatul Wuthqa for the insults. I shouldn't have reacted in that way, and should have just ignored the comments made against me. 
    Brother @Sumerian, I don't know what else I can say, but that I swear on Allah that I am not Mr.. Tawheed. I would like to apologise for saying you don't care about the religion, maybe you think that the way I write or you have seen some of my threads and the topics I discuss, and from this you came to the conclusion that I am that person. 
    Its silly of me to even care about this in the first place, as it doesn't matter who you think I am.  It is a bit annoying though, since you are the third person on this forum that has said I am Mr.. tawheed or had some other account. Insha'Allah I hope you will change your opinion that I am Mr.. Tawheed. If not though and you still think from the evidence that you have that I am some other person, the no problem.
    Yes and with all due respect, I don't think you have been able to provide any concrete evidence. Insha'Allah please continue with your discussion with brother Ibn al-Hussain though, maybe you will provide good evidence and make both of us change our views.
    I would ask you on what your methodology is in establishing a historical event? If you think that we need reliable chains to an infallible to establish a historical event, then I would respectfully disagree with that. But you're right, one can't refute a concrete belief through historical events. If for example historical reports said that the Imams committed sins, we would have to reject those reports or we would have to reinterpret them.  There is nothing wrong with that. But, the difference in this discussion is that the principle of the Imams doing the same thing given the same situation, I don't believe that there is any good evidence for this.
    Brother, calling the argument pathetic and this discussion being a waste of time etc.. I feel like is not needed. Some of the points you made, I looked up verses as well and you alhamdullilah did change two of your positions. But I didn't call your objections pathetic. 
    This is what I wanted in the discussion. I wanted to see if I missed a verse or if there was a narration which I missed or if I missed something else. I wanted to see if the argument held any weight when put against scrutiny. You, masha'Allah, was able to show a verse which showed that this example was not suitable. The discussion wasn't a waste. We were able to come to a conclusion, by back and forth arguments. If we never went back and forth, we would have never have come to this conclusion that the argument was invalid.
    Insha'Allah if you feel like I am being an obstacle to this discussion, then this will be my last response to you. I do agree, we are not doing any good for this discussion by this beef.
    I hope after I have written all of this, we can squash the beef and not hold any grudges against each other. I am eagerly looking forward to your discussion with the respected brother. 
    Wassalam
  9. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    Don't make this into a personal beef guys, and please don't drag me into it either - I have my views and arguments and I know they are not mainstream ideas (as of today anyways).
    Let's just have a good academic discussion on this forum for once.
  10. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    What's wrong with that? They are not doing ijtihad in deriving the hukm, just its application.
    The latter can definitely be inspired, but you need to theologically establish that this was the case for every single decision the Prophet (p) or Imams (a) made - there is no concrete rational evidence for it so you'll have to resort to the traditions to establish it.
    In that case, if an Imam (a) gives an Irshadi command to you (which we have many such reports on), there is no necessity on you to follow it as the Shari'ah and there should be no reason to condemn such a person. Like in the case of Kulayni's uncle 'Allan al-Razi who is from the 'iddatun min ashabina and Najashi says he is thiqa, yet he refused to listen to Imam Mahdi (a) when the Imam told him not to go to Hajj and was killed:
    قتل علان بطريق مكة و كان استأذن الصاحب عليه السلام في الحج فخرج: توقف عنه في هذه السنة فخالف‏
    He was killed on his way to Makkah. He had sought the permission of the Imam (a) regarding whether he should go to Ḥajj. The response came, ‘Do not go to it this year.’ However, he went against it.
    Scholars have explained this away as him going against a hukm irshadi of the Imam, because if it was mawlawi it would have been an instance of sin.
    Wasalam
  11. Thanks
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    Just some traditions where a difference of opinion amongst the Imams (a) is apparently reflected (there are a few more I can think of as well, but I do not have time to translate them) - Shi'I scholars have generally tried to explain these away through different types of ta'weel due to their presumptions about 'Ismah:
    1) Al-Kafi and other works:
    Abu ‘Abd Allah (a) has said, ‘I once visited Abu Ja‘far (a) and said, ‘I like to give a certain amount of asset to so and so to buy for me certain goods from Yemen.’ He (Imam Baqir) said, ‘Do you not know that he drinks wine?’ I (Imam Sadiq) replied, ‘I have heard from believing people who say so.’ He (al-Baqir) said to me, ‘You must believe them because Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, says, “. . . he believes in Allah and in the believing people.”’ He (al-Baqir) then said, ‘If you give a certain amount of assets and it is destroyed or lost, you will not have any reward or compensation for it with Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious'.'
    But I (al-Sadiq) gave him my assets and he lost it, and then prayed to Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, for reward. He (al-Baqir) said, ‘Never, my son, Allah will not reward you or compensate you for such loss.’ He (al-Sadiq) has said, ‘I asked him, ‘Why is it so?’ He (al-Baqir) said to me, ‘Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, says, “Do not give to the dimwitted ones your assets which Allah has given you for your sustenance,” (4:5) do you see anyone more dimwitted than a wine drinker?’ He (al-Sadiq) has said that he (al-Baqir) then said, ‘A servant has a chance before Allah, until he drinks wine. When he drinks wine Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, tears down his covering, then Satan, may Allah condemn him, becomes his guardian and brother, his ears, his eyes, his hands, his legs and he drives him to all misguidance and turns him away from all good things.’”
    In this report Imam Sadiq (a) goes against the command of Imam Baqir (a) and loses his assets. Because of the presumption of 'ismah the scholars have said this command was Irshadi (not Mawlawi) - Irshadi means it is something the intellect itself can ascertain and determine but it is not shar'an obligatory or even recommended to follow (such as, do not trust a liar, it is only intellectually good to abide by this judgement), whereas Mawlawi commands are legislative. As such, Majlisi writes:
    ثم لما كان النهي إرشاديا مخالفته لا تنافي العصمة
    They do not realize that such an explanation makes the situation even worse since you are then saying that the Imam (a) couldn't realize with his intellect what is the better thing to do and that even if he did, he did not abide by his intellectual judgement.
    ----
    2) Al-Kafi:
    Muhammad ibn al-Husayn has narrated from Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Ahmar from ‘Abd Allah ibn Hammad Khattab ibn Salmah who has said the following: “I had a wife who believed (in the divine authority of ‘A’immah) and so also was her father, but she had very bad moral behaviors and I did not like to divorce her because of her belief and the belief of her father. I met Abu al-Hassan, Musa, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, and I wanted to ask him (the Imam) if divorcing her is proper saying, ‘I pray to Allah to keep my soul in service for your cause, I need an answer to a question and I like to ask you.’ He (the Imam) said, ‘Come tomorrow at the time of al-Zuhr Salat (prayer). He (the narrator) has said, ‘After performing al-Zuhr Salat (prayer) I went to see him (the Imam) and I found that he (the Imam) had completed his Salat (prayer) and he was sitting. I went inside and sat in front of him (the Imam). He (the Imam) initiated speaking to me and said, ‘O Khattab, my father made me marry a daughter of my uncle and her moral behaviors were very bad. My father sometimes would close the door on both of us in the hope that I may meet her, instead of climbing the wall to run away. When my father passed away I divorced her.’ I (the narrator) then said to myself, ‘Allah is Greater than can be described, He (the Imam) has answered my question before I could even ask him (the Imam).’”
    ------------
    3) Al-Kafi:
    Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn Faddal from ibn Bukayr from Zurarah who has said the following: “Abu Ja‘far said to me, ‘I wanted to marry a woman but my father disliked it. I went and married her and afterwards I went to see her. I looked at her and did not see anything attractive to me. I stood up to leave but her guard with her went to the door to close it on me. I told her not to do so and she could have what she wanted. When I returned home to my father and informed him about it, he said, ‘You only owe to her half of the mahr (dower).’ He said, ‘You married her during a hot hour.’”
    This tradition shows Imam Baqir (a) marrying a woman who his father (Imam Sajjad) disliked, and on top of that Imam Baqir (a) did not even seem to know the rule for mahr at the time. In addition, the chapter in which this hadith appears is about when it is a good time to get married and that this tradition is showing the reason why this marriage failed is because the Imam married this woman during a hot season.
    Once again some have tried to say the dislike was Irshadi, not Mawlawi, or that Imam Baqir (a) was doing taqiyyah in his presumption about the ruling of having to give the full mahr since some Sunni jurists would say if you take your clothes off and lock the door, the full mahr is established.
    ------------
    4) There is room to contemplate over the many, many traditions in Shi'I and Sunni books regarding Imam Ali (a) discouraging people from getting their daughters married to Imam Hasan (a) because of his many divorces. Shi'a scholars through-out history have tried many ways to explain these traditions, even to the extent that one scholar says Imam Hasan (a) was playing the role of a muhallil.
    Unfortunately, this principle of "each Imam would do the same thing" is not discussed in classical theology and you will not really find a comprehensive academic discussion of it anywhere. 
    Wasalam
  12. Confused
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    Musa (a) would have known beforehand the situation and how many people he had left with Prophet Harun (a) to look after.  When Musa (a) returns, he can only be angry at Harun (a) for two reasons— either he was angry because Musa (a) believed that Harun (a) completely abandoned his duty and didn't care about it, or he disagreed with how Harun (a) handled the situation. I don't think we can accept the first option, because how can we say that a Musa (a) thought that a Prophet of God didn't care about his duty, so that leaves us with the second option. 
    I answered this as well. Musa (a) asked forgiveness because he thought he didn't do enough to stop this from happening. Likewise, he thought that Harun (a) also could have done more to stop the calf incident.
    The Imams making the same decisions as each other all the time has got nothing to do with whether they commit mistakes or not. As in with the peace treaty, if Imam Hasan (a) fought and lost, I wouldn't say that was a mistake, as he fought for Islam and became a martyr. So Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing with Imam Hasan (a) has got nothing to do with mistakes.
    Also, the Imams being able to do mistakes may be shadh amongst the scholars, but it is the view transmitted by the a'immah (a).
  13. Confused
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Ibadah— Pagans of Quraysh   
    Salam,
    In this commentary of Surah al-Kafirum, translated by brother @Ibn al-Hussain, there is a section on what 'Ibadah is. To be completely honest, I found it quite problematic. Let me quote a few of the statements:
    What I understand from these is that the respected Shaykh is saying that the mushrikeen of Quraysh, believed in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) correctly. They did not associate partners with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), meaning they also thought that their idols were created and dependent of Allah. 
    What I find problematic, is that the definition of worship was not actually defined. Is worship just being extremely humble? I believe the very definition of worship is to to shirk in Tawheed of essence. As in, prostrating to someone without the intention of worship (believing that person is God), is not actually worship. This is why prostrating by itself is not shirk. Only when we have the intention of worship and believe that this person has attributes that only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has, does this prostration become worship. 
    So for the respected Shaykh to say that the mushrikeen of Quraysh had tawhid in the essence of Allah seems to be incorrect. That would be tantamount to saying that they had the same belief of Allah as we have (minus the Tawhid of the attributes, since that wasn't even a discussion back then), and that they only messed up because they showed humility to their idols. 
  14. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from AStruggler in Question on the different recitations of the Salwaat and when to say each...   
    Pretty sure first two are correct, doesn't matter which one you say. Second one just has idgham.
    Not sure about the third though.
  15. Confused
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    An assertion like this is pointless without showing how. Quite happy to be proven wrong btw
    Ajeeb. What do you mean by the historical source is non-binding? 
    Do you mean it comes from non-Imami sources? If this is your reasoning, the you might as well reject most of history.  Also, Shi'I sources were given such as Abi Mikhnaf (who is a primary source for the battle of Karbala btw)
    Or do you mean it comes in a non mu'tabar chain? If this is what you mean, then I'll say that this is as equally absurd. History is not looked through the same lens as Fiqh is looked into. If you were going to only accept mu'tabar by sanad reports, then again, most of history would be gone. Many aspects of the battle of Karbala would be gone. You wouldn't be able to prove the martyrdom of Sayeda Fatima (s) with this methodology. 
    I would urge you to look at the evidences again brother.  Around 10 historians (Sunni and Shia) have recorded the incident of Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing initially with Imam Hasan (a) on the treaty. If you were to say that all of this is fabricated and wrong, I would say that we might as well reject the whole incident of Karbala. 
  16. Haha
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Propaganda_of_the_Deed in Dawah Man and Shamsi are "Filthy Liars" according to TSD's Bu Noor   
    So there appears to be an internal rift going on among some well known Salafi Youtubers who frequent Speakers Corner, namely between Shamsi and Brother Hajji (both affectionately referred to as "Rafidi slayers" by their loyal followers for their Speakers Corner debates with some Shias).
    This seems to have been sparked by a discussion about the Salaf and rising up against an oppressive ruler, which has then evolved into Hajji being labelled a Khariji, with Dawah Man stepping in an adding his own rebuttal against Hajji.
    Here are some recent videos.
    Shamsi:
     
    Hajji:
     
     
    Dawah Man:
     
    As you can see these guys are only united in so far as their mutual hatred for Shia. Once you take that out the equation, there is no real unity among them. Both have loyal commentors taking sides too.
    As for the title of the thread, this is courtesy of our unofficial Shiachat user (he may as well be the amount of times he reads our posts), The Sunni Defense's Bu Noor.
    What a mess.

  17. Haha
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Urwatul Wuthqa in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    Now I can understand who is behind this whole thing!!
    Anyway, the so called "evidence" has been refuted if people just see the quoted parts (before & after) by brother @S.M.H.A.
  18. Haha
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from OrthodoxTruth in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    To me, it sounds like their scholars saying that we have an 'ahd due to maslaha is nothing more than taqiyyah.
    Its like when Yasir Qadhi's emails were exposed where he stated that the Qur'an has not been preserved letter for letter, but then due to maslaha/taqiyyah, he made a Facebook post stating that anyone who doesn't believe in the preservation of the Qur'an is not a Muslim. 
  19. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    I don't think there is a contradiction at all, just a misunderstanding of what is meant by silent Imam and talking Imam.
    Imam Hussain (a) never said "oh see my brother Hasan (a) actually isn't the only Imam whose obedience is obligatory and really I am also an Imam, so you should not follow my brother but follow me, so lets go fight Muawiyah."
  20. Haha
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Urwatul Wuthqa in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    Most welcome! and as always you are failed to grasp the message as well the answer in my post. 

    Wassalam.
  21. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    As always you bring traditions that literally don't even prove your point. Where in any of these reports does it mention they are the same person and every decision they made would be exactly the same had they had the same circumstances? Also, answer the point about the fact Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing with Imam Hasan (a) on the treaty.
  22. Confused
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Are the Imams All The Same Person?   
    Salam,
    So a theological question which I believe many of us need to ponder over a bit more is the concept that the Imams are all the same person and that each of them would have done exactly the same thing as the other and the only reason that they did different things was due to their situations.
    A usual question that is asked is— Why did Imam Ali (a) not fight the first three caliphs, then when he became caliph he fought Muawiyah and Aisha and the Khawarij, but then how comes Imam Hasan (a) when he was caliph did not fight, and he did the treaty with Mu'awiyah? And then of course is the question of Imam Hussain (a) and why he fought when he wasn't caliph which literally none of the other Imams did.
    I think that maybe these can just about be answered by using the principle that when you don't have sufficient followers, you shouldn't fight:
     
    But one incident which I believe makes the case that the Imams are different people and that they wouldn't have done the same as each other even if they had the same circumstances is the fact that Imam Hussain (a) disagreed with Imam Hassan (a) on the peace treaty with Mu'awiyah. The evidences for this can be read here. 
    After establishing that the Imams are different people and they would have done different things even if they lived in the same circumstances, the next question should be....is this a problem? Does this mean they differed on usul al-deen? Does this mean they are not divinely appointed?
    I think that one example in the Qur'an that sheds light on this matter, is this:
    In this example, we have two infallible (no major or minor sins) Prophets, Harun (a) and Musa (a). However, we see here that after the people went back to idol worshipping and when Musa (a) comes back, he is not pleased with Harun (a) at all to the point where he physically grabs him. However, we know Harun (a) did nothing wrong. It is only rational that if people are going to kill you and take your life, that one practises taqiyyah. However, we see here that Musa (a) disagreed with Harun (a) and he seized him. 
    Both Prophets. Both divinely appointed. Yet they are still different people.
    Now, some may object to this example and say that Musa (a) only seized Harun (a) before Harun (a) gave his explanation. After Harun gave the explanation as to why he did not fight al-Samiri, Musa (a) accepts that what he did was right. To this I would respond with the following
    Even if we were to accept that Musa (a) accepted Harun (a) did the right thing by not rising up after Harun (a) gave the explanation, the point is that it is clear that if Musa (a) was in charge, he would have fought the people and not let them worship the idol.  This proves that they are indeed different people and would have done different things Musa (a) asks Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to forgive him and his brother. Why did he do this? Clearly, if Harun (a) did nothing wrong, Musa (a) wouldn't ask for his forgiveness. This is proof that Musa (a) did indeed feel like Harun (a) made a mistake by not rising up against the people. So, it is proven that two divinely appointed people disagreed with each other, just like Imam Hassan (a) and Imam Hussain (a), but this is not a problem at all and it doesn't mean that they are not divinely appointed.
  23. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    To me, it sounds like their scholars saying that we have an 'ahd due to maslaha is nothing more than taqiyyah.
    Its like when Yasir Qadhi's emails were exposed where he stated that the Qur'an has not been preserved letter for letter, but then due to maslaha/taqiyyah, he made a Facebook post stating that anyone who doesn't believe in the preservation of the Qur'an is not a Muslim. 
  24. Like
    Follower of Ahlulbayt got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    They replied again, however they literally did their best to try and avoid addressing your points. Pretty much 90% of the points you made were completely ignored:
    I hate how they keep going "oh ibn Taymiyya and our fiqh works aren't infallible"....these fools don't understand the fact that Ibn Taymiyya didn't just come up with this stuff on his own, he got these principles from Qur'an and Sunnah.
    First, do these people actually accept that we have a 'ahd with the western country that we are living in, and as part of this 'ahd, we have agreed (or at the very least, have made no condition) that it is permissible for the Prophet (s) to be insulted and cursed and that these countries are allowed to bomb and wage war against Muslims? This needs to be answered.
    Maybe it would be beneficial to present verses and narrations to these people, and show them that their scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah didn't just get his principles because it came to him in a dream,  and how in reality, a 'ahd doesn't really exist. 
  25. Haha
    Follower of Ahlulbayt reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)   
    There is nothing to respond to, they will end up opening a can of worms for themselves, especially when you start digging deeper. Until then they can keep doing taqiyyah and telling people they are in an 'ahd .
×
×
  • Create New...