The Alchemist

His prominent work?

Who are living experts in the field of Ilm-i-Rijal after Ayatollah Sheikh Asif Mohseni (rahmAllah)? Any prominent personalities of the field in modern era? I'm starting this thread to discuss leading Shi'a experts in Ilm-i-Rijal and their works. Members are requested to share their knowledge.

Please re-read the article, Ayatollahs Their Eminence Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Faḍlullah, Sheikh Ibrahīm Al-Jannati, and Sheikh Nāṣir Makārim Al-Shirazi believe in absolute physical purity of the non-Muslims. Scholars differ on this issue because they derive their fatwa employing ijtihad. There is no Qur'anic verse which explicitly says that non-Muslims are physically impure, and this is not also proven from established Sunnah of Prophet (SAWW).

Delusions!!! Dear @Ashvazdanghe, these are the view of learned Ayatollahs Their Eminence Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Faḍlullah, Sheikh Ibrahīm Al-Jannati, and Sheikh Nāṣir Makārim Al-Shirazi...

these rules mention that an expert can point out who is the most learned mujtahid (that too who appears to him being the most learned)... There is literally no way an ordinary person (by himself alone) can identify who is the most learned. Ordinary person, though, can easily recognise who is the most famous mujtahid. But in no way does it mean that the most famous is the most learned. Second point: Let's suppose, someone is most learned on the earth. Does it mean that all of his fatwa are 100% correct? Since he is a fallible human, some of his fatawa may turn out to be based on fault. So following the most learned (if one is able to identify him with some supernatural science) when it comes to obligatory precaution isn't logical at all. Christian Huygens' theory of light was neglected mainly because he was not as famous as Isaac Newton (his contemporary). But history proved that former's theory was more accurate than that of the latter.

There is nothing like knowledge-meter with which you can measure who is more knowledgable! It is subjective! To you, Albert Einstien may be the most intelligent scientist, but to me it could be Isaac Newton... And how could an ordinary person (with no expertise in Islamic sciences) measure who is the more intelligent marja? So in case of obligatory precaution, it is logical to follow the fatwa that appears to you more logical no matter who gave it. So to me, if they're not Islam-enemies, all zimmi, peace-loving non-Muslims are pure no matter what religion/ideology they follow. Read this too: https://iqraonline.net/human-purity-brief-overview/

This is wonderful. May Allah reward the team for translating this seminal work and making it accessible to all. English translation of Majma Ahadith Mautbar by Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Asif Mohseni (rahmullah) is direly needed. It is humble request to the team to kindly consider translating this great work. It is need of the hour.

The words 'obligatory precaution' are not mentioned in concerned chapter in 'Tauzeeh al-Masail' . Where did you get this reply from? I mean email address, etc?

This seems to be a reasonable/logical approach. Non-Muslims living in Muslim counties adopt Muslim culture. They usually do not go near impure things. It would be fair to assume that they're clean unless proven unclean. AND it is pertinent to mention here that Muslims living Western countries SOMETIMES adopt Western Culture and do all the things non-Muslims do. (I know famous Muslim personalities eating pork, taking wine, etc and doing all the stuff pagans used to do). Is there any verdict deeming them impure as well? @Ashvazdanghe

If I'm not wrong, obligatory precaution means it is opinion of Ayatollah. He has no concrete evidence from Qur'an or Sunnah to support his opinion categorically. Members are requested to correct me if I'm wrong.

Take a look at what shia tafasir say about the verse. Also take a look at how Aima (عليه السلام) dealt with peaceful non-Muslims. What does following quote from Nahjul Balagha imply? Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is reported to have written to Malik al-Ashtar (RA): "A person is either your brother in faith [meaning Muslim], or your equal in humanity [meaning non-Muslim]" [Nahjul Balagha, letter 53] When non-Muslims are equal in humanity with Muslims, why such harsh treatment with them? Considering peaceful non-Muslims as physically najis appears to be against the humanity. It is against the spirit of Islam that attracted non-Muslims in large numbers to the fold of Islam. I assume great Ayatollahs verdicts on physical impurity are about violent, Islam-hating non-Muslims, and we are mistakenly applying them on all non-Muslims. Not all non-Muslims are same. You can't say every non-Muslim is Abu Lahab. Some non-Muslims are also like Mutim ibn Adi who is well-respected throughout Islamic history for his character. Any ways, verdicts of Ayatollah Yusuf Sanae (rahm Allah) & Ayatollah Fadlallah (rahm Allah) are very clear that all peaceful non-Muslims are not physically impure.

Most of the tafasir are of the view that the verse talked about spiritual impurity. As regards banning non-Muslims from entering into Masjid al-Haraam is concerned, it had a particular context & background. You can't take it in absolute terms. Qur'an says in Surah al-Tauba (verse 5) kill mushrikeen wherever you find them. Is it an absolute order? Read context of the verse, it talks about the battlefield and specified group of mushrikeen (who broke the treaties & waged a war against you). Similar is the case here.

The verse is about spiritual impurity. This topic had been discussed at length here, you & brother @VoidVortex had also contributed: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235078214-why-is-sayyed-ali-al-sistani-so-famous/

You're right. It seems against the concept of universal brotherhood. It appears insulting too. Not only that, it also contradicts some well-known sayings of Aima (عليه السلام). Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is reported to have written to Malik al-Ashtar (RA): "A person is either your brother in faith [meaning Muslim], or your equal in humanity [meaning non-Muslim]" [Nahjul Balagha, letter 53] I also read it in Spirit of Islam (by Syed Ameer Ali), he quotes Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as saying "The blood of a zimmi [a non-Muslim citizen] is that of a Muslim". I assume such fatawa of Ayatollah Sistani might be about kafirs (Islam-enemy non-Muslims) not about zimmis (peace-loving friendly non-Muslims). Allah knows the best.

How could someone be physically impure just because of their beliefs!! If pegans, Atheists, Buddhists, etc are deemed physically impure because of their beliefs, why not people of the book? There are some sects of Jews & Christians who indulge in idol worship. Most of the Christians believe in Trinity which is a type of shirk according to Muslims. Yes, some Christians have differing views with others Jehowah's Witness particularly reject the notion of Trinity. They somehow believe in oneness of God. So treating them all alike doesn't seem fine. I literally can't find a reason as to why a Christian doing shirk (Catholic/Protestant) is tahir and at the same time a Christian believing in oneness of God (Unitarian) is also tahir. And a sikh believing in one God is not tahir! A friendly non-Muslim is deemed impure. A hostile Islamophobe non-Muslim is also deemed impure. What kind of justice is this! This is completely illogical. In this regard, views of Ayatollah Yousuf Sanae (rehma Allah) & Ayatollah Muhammad Hussain Fadalallah (rehma Allah) seem to be fine. They consider all non-Muslims physically pure...