Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi last won the day on December 9 2023

Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Location
    Lahore Pakistan
  • Religion
    Shia Islam
  • Mood
  • Favorite Subjects
    Computer Science

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,633 profile views

Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi's Achievements

  1. i grew up listening to these stories but found out almost all of them were made up. My grandfather used to tell us scary stories so did others but admitted long time ago that itt was just to scare kids lol. I do not deny jins as its evident from Quran but I'm not sure about possession by jin etc. Most of the claims of meeting jins etc are fake to be honest.
  2. The person who's jeaelous of you would try to harm you brother. He can do politics i:e office/family or even physically harm you as in being robbed at gun point etc. This is much more logical and that can better explain meaning of evil-eye i believe. Because eyes can't magically cast a spell on someone.
  3. here found some of aqwaal of our scholars https://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-cure-black-magic.html?m=1 i:e Sheikh Tusi, Hilli etc. وأقرب الأقوال الأول، لان كل شئ خرج عن العادة الخارقة، فإنه لا يجوز أن يتأتى من الساحر. ومن جوز للساحر شيئا من هذا، فقد كفر لأنه لا يمكنه مع ذلك العلم بصحة المعجزات الدالة على النبوات، لأنه أجاز مثله من جهة الحيلة والسحر The correct view out of these is the first one (i.e. that magic is just fake trickery and nothing else), because anything that is against the natural order, is beyond the power of a magician. Whoever believes that a magician can perform out of the ordinary acts (such as make someone sick or poor, cause obstacles in a woman getting married or conceiving a child etc) has committed absolute kufr, because with such an assumption it is then not even possible to ascertain the authenticity of the miracles of the prophets as then those miracles could be dismissed as being magic tricks. السرائر - ابن إدريس الحلي - ج ٣ - الصفحة ٥٣٣ ولا حقيقة للسحر، وإنما هو تخيل وشعبذة، وعند بعض المخالفين أن له حقيقة And there is no reality at all of magic, it is just an illusion and trickery, but some mukhalifeen (non shias) believe (foolishly) that it is real. Rest can be read online.
  4. Yes i checked it out honestly there isn't much reliable stuff mentioned regarding the evil-eye. Also the stuff that has been mentioned contains assumptions/speculations of transmitters This verse was revealed when the disbelievers wanted to give the evil eye to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace. Some people from the Quraysh looked once at him and said: “We have never seen anyone like him or like his proofs”. The Banu Asad were renowned for their evil eye. A fat camel or cow would pass by one of them and, after giving it the evil eye, he would say to his slave-girl: “O girl, take a large basket and a silver coin and bring us some of the meat of this!” The camel or cow would fall dead straight after that and would then be hamstrung. Said al-Kalbi: “There was a man from the Arabs who used to abstain from food for two or three days and then raise part of his tent, upon the passing by of cattle, and say: ‘There are no grazing camels or sheep today better than these’, and the cattle would not proceed far before some of them would fall dead. The disbelievers requested this man to give the evil eye to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, but Allah, exalted is He, protected His Prophet and revealed this verse”. (Wahidi - Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi) - The authenticity is unknown. Forexample have a look at this narration. The dying of animal just by looking at it is certainly a metaphor. Also to take its meat, you'd have to act along with evil eye i:e physically harm the animal by killing it with a knife or sword and then taking its meat that i think relates to what i was saying earlier (the one who has evil eye/intentions will try to act in such a way that harms you physically or mentally not magically)
  5. It's really very strange to be honest because simply having an evil wish for someone or being jealous / hasad wouldn't actually make anything happen magically as shias obviously deny existence of magic So, how come this belief fit in? What makes more sense to me is the person, who has evil intentions for you, will try to harm you and that can be a logical meaning of evil-eye and that we should seek protection of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) against the evil. If we deny magic, i find it contradictory to believe in evil-eye as if would magically cause harm to others
  6. As salam o aliakum everyone. All praise belongs to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) whos the most mighty and the most merciful. So there's been alot of exaggeration in subcontinent as i live here, that evil eye affects people like magic and whenever anything goes wrong, people start saying x, y or z got affected due to evil eye or nazar e bad whatever you call it. It'd be beneficial if people here can share their experiences / sayings of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) from the Quran and sayings of Ahlebait (عليه السلام) regarding this matter. Personally, i really doubt if its something that affects like magic. Because we humans at least do not possess super natural powers obviously. So my understanding is that when someone has some evil intention for you, that person would try to or even subconsciously act is such a way that can harm you physically or mentally. What do you say can this be an interpretation of evil-eye because it sounds much more logical to me.
  7. I am surprised that this guy claims to be an aaqil yet says there is no difference between two narrations (of wearing dyed clothes / prophets leaving no inheritence) interms of their importance of who the audience shall be? Why Ali (عليه السلام) needed to confirm is not related by any means to this discussion. When he heard hadith, he went to confirm. Didn't get angry to stopped speaking to Fatimah (عليه السلام) till his death. Two entirely different things not an assumption we have bunch of traditions on merits of Imams (عليه السلام) and this hadith just doesn't fit them also differences in narrations due to taqqiyah is not an assumption rather well established fact in shia hadith.
  8. There is no proof whatsoever that order of verses in Quran is by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). People of tafseer have addmitted this issue regarding order of verses. When we move to tafseer, there are tons of narrations that say this verse was revealed when Ali (عليه السلام) gave sadaqah while offering salah. That's occasion of revelation of this verse so this claim essentially is baseless. secondly, there have been multiple place where meaning of wali is indeed tied to one being appointed as an authority over people by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) rather than having a government. so now, even if you disagree with the interpretation of verse just answer those questions:
  9. well here's a gift إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُۥ وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَهُمْ رَٰكِعُونَ same word 'wali' has been used here. here are my two questions: 1. Where in world Allah is ruling people with a government i want to go there get a job and pay taxes directly to Allah. 2. Before moving to Madinah, was Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) a 'wali' of momineen? (in terms of authority / one who has command). Basically you are finished here.
  10. your understanding is in contradiction with Quran / teachings of Ahlebait (عليه السلام) / and common sense. This hadith is for scholars and in context of ilm there is no base for inheritance of dirhams / dinaar rather its purely knowledge. When it comes to inheritance related to properties, same rules apply as Quran has mentioned and those that are in other ahadith of Ahlebait (عليه السلام) that clearly negate your absurd claim. Ruling of inheritance is aam and includes everyone. Previous prophets had hires too and inherited physical things if we go in tafaseer not just knowledge. I haven't even used `anger` of syeda fatimah (عليه السلام) to prove something against sheikhein yet. that's why i tell you people to read carefully before responding. i am saying, Syeda (عليه السلام) got angry when she heard hadith, it means she denied the hadith and repeatedly members of family came to AbuBakr demanding inheritance from what Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) left proves the never accepted this hadith "we prophets don't leave dirham dinaar as inheritance whatever we leave is sadaqa". Even Umar confimed it in a hadith that both Ali (عليه السلام) & Abbas had a negative view of AbuBakr and him regarding this matter. Again, read properly first, then reply. Now, point is, ruling of Prophets never leaving inheritance is to be told to FAMILY FIRST rather than other people. and if family themselves denied it, got angry and held negative views against people who said this, then its very clear that this hadith is a fabrication. you cannot compare this hadith: Ali came from the Yemen with the sacrificial animals for the Prophet (May peace be upon him) and found Fatimah (Allah be pleased with her) to be one among those who had put-off Ihram and had put on dyed clothes and had applied antimony. He (`Ali) showed disapproval to it, whereupon she said: My father has commanded me to do this To hadeeth of inheritance as they are completely different in terms of significance and importance. Besides Ali (عليه السلام) went back to confirm. Now there are chances of Ali (عليه السلام) not knowing Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) told Fatimah (عليه السلام) something that isn't very important or as significant as ruling on inhteritance. its like comparing apples to oranges. who on earth of deem a ruling given to someone privately to wear some clothes with ruling of no inheritance which family of prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) never knew about? even though it only made sense to tell family clearly this hadeeth as others have nothing to do with this. Now, as for shia view, this hadith surely has been narrated due to taqqiyah because Ahlebait (عليه السلام) are masoom & these kind of traditions are reported by our narrators to save themselves their religion and their lives and to speard shia islam further. in the end this hadith proves nothing to you.
  11. Also if Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) leaves behind everything as charity, then all wives of Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) have usrped charity of ummah by living in house of Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Who allowed them to stay in property that was supposed to be charity?
  12. Even in sunni narrations, people didn't believe in this fabricated tradition see example: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ، وَالْعَبَّاسَ ـ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ ـ أَتَيَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ يَلْتَمِسَانِ مِيرَاثَهُمَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهُمَا حِينَئِذٍ يَطْلُبَانِ أَرْضَيْهِمَا مِنْ فَدَكَ، وَسَهْمَهُمَا مِنْ خَيْبَرَ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَهُمَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ "‏ لاَ نُورَثُ، مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ، إِنَّمَا يَأْكُلُ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْ هَذَا الْمَالِ ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَدَعُ أَمْرًا رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَصْنَعُهُ فِيهِ إِلاَّ صَنَعْتُهُ‏.‏ قَالَ فَهَجَرَتْهُ فَاطِمَةُ، فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ‏.‏ Narrated `Aisha: Fatima and Al `Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and at that time, they were asking for their land at Fadak and their share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said to them, " I have heard from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, 'Our property cannot be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity, but the family of Muhammad may take their provisions from this property." Abu Bakr added, "By Allah, I will not leave the procedure I saw Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) following during his lifetime concerning this property." Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died. Both Syeda (عليه السلام) and Abbas came making claims regarding inheritance and when AbuBakr told them about hadith, Syeda (عليه السلام) got angry and never spoke to him and she died. Proof that she didn't admit hadith rather got angry. And even before that, they came asking for inheritance which no one would've if "we have no inheritance" was such a widespread hadith. it's such a hadith that Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) didn't even teach to his family? Seriously?
  13. that's literally no argument against us. If people don't let someone talk, thats an entirely different thing it has nothing to do with someone being an imperfect guide. Rather, its against you and your imam because its hard to digest implication of denying something to Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) i:e raising voice above prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), making him angry and telling everyone to get lost, then him (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) dying without Umar repenting. I can't say much as i fear being in Pakistan
  14. Hadiths from him are considered authentic and here's chain: (باب 151 - العلة التي من أجلها أمر خالد بن الوليد بقتل أمير المؤمنين " ع ") أبى رحمه الله قال: حدثنا علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير عمن ذكره عن أبي عبد الله " ع " قال Sadooq from his Father from Ali Bin Ibrahim from his Father from Ibn Abu Umair (Ashaab al ijma) whos hadith is authentic by ijma of scholars as said in Ikhteyar Marifatul rijal (rijal al kashi).
  15. Hadeeth specifically mentions `scholars` hence there's no point of having dirham & dinars as `inheritance` for them. Even if you read the name of chapter its coming from you would've known. Hadith doesn't talk about `children`. There is inheritence for `children` in which the parents leave and this ruling comes from Quran.
  • Create New...