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

Jondab_Azdi

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    3,310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Jondab_Azdi

  1. How do you understand this one: áÇ ÊÕáøí ÇáãÑÃÉ ÚØáÇð ? w/s
  2. Looks like that ruling is derived from these narrations: http://www.rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-4/v23.html#176 We have a sahih chain in al-Kafi for the second hadith (mursal) in this chapter. w/s
  3. Amr b. Khalid is no-doubt thiqa but he was Zaydi and not Imami Ithna Asheri. Shaykh al-Shahroudi relied on weak narrations to prove that Amr b. Khalid was Imami Ithna Asheri. From his book al-Mustadrikaat Ilm Rijal al-Hadith: روى الصدوق بإسناده ، عن الحسين بن علوان ، عنه ، عن سعد بن طريف ، عن ابن نباته ، عن ابن عباس قال : سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يقول : أنا وعلي والحسن والحسين وتسعة من ولد الحسين مطهرون معصومون . كمبا ج 9 / 140 ، وجد 36 / 286 ، وك باب 24 ح 28 . وروى الصدوق بإسناده ، عنه قال : قال زيد بن علي بن الحسين عليه السلام : في كل زمان رجل منا أهل البيت يحتج الله به على خلق
  4. Already been discussed many times that there are some flaws in the sanad. See: This riwayah is mursal and therefore can't be taken as hujjah. w/s
  5. Aren't there doubts about the reliability of al-Minhal b. Amr too? w/s
  6. ^Yes the second one is daif sanadan. However in the first narration the only question mark is Ali b. Abi Hamza. From the tabaqa it seems that it can either be Ali b. Abi Hamza al-Bataini (daif) or Ali b. Abi Hamza al-Thumali (thiqa). It seems that Syed Muhammad Saeed al-Hakeem thinks that it's Ali b. Abi Hamza al-Thumali may be that's the reason he considered it mutabar. . . ففي معتبرة أبي بصير: " سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام فقلت له: إن الرجل ربما أشبه أخواله وربما أشبه أباه وربما أشبه عمومته. فقال: إن نطفة الرجل بيضاء غليظة ونطفة المرأة صفراء رقيقة، فإن غلبت نطفة الرجل نطفة المرأة أشبه الرج
  7. It does says that its permissible for people to imitate him. . . فأما من كان من الفقهاء صائنا لنفسه ، حافظا لدينه ، مخالفا على هواه ، مطيعا لامر مولاه ، فللعوام أن يقلدوه ^But the narration is mursal/weak. Syed al-Khoei said: إلاّ أنها رواية مرسلة غير قابلة للاعتماد عليها w/s
  8. I haven't checked the authenticity of all but there are similar narrations in Ilal al-Sharai. . . ÚáÉ ÇáäÓíÇä æÇáÐßÑ¡ æÚáÉ ÔÈå ÇáÑÌá ÈÃÚãÇãå æÃÎæÇáå ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈì ÑÖì Çááå Úäå ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå¡ Úä ÇÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì¡ Úä Úáí Èä ÇáÍßã¡ Úä Úáí Èä ÃÈí ÍãÒÉ¡ Úä ÃÈì ÈÕíÑ¡ ÞÇá: ÓÃáÊ ÃÈÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå " Ú " ÝÞáÊ áå: Çä ÇáÑÌá ÑÈãÇ ÃÔÈå ÃÎæÇáå æÑÈãÇ ÃÔÈå ÃÈÇå æÑÈãÇ ÃÔÈå ÚãæãÊå¡ ÝÞÇá: Çä äØÝÉ ÇáÑÌá ÈíÖÇÁ ÛáíÙÉ æäØÝÉ ÇáãÑÃÉ ÕÝÑÇÁ ÑÞíÞÉ¡ ÝÇä ÛáÈÊ äØÝÉ ÇáÑÌá äØÝÉ ÇáãÑÃÉ ÔÈå ÇáÑÌá ÃÈÇå æÚãæãÊå¡ æÇä ÛáÈÊ äØÝÉ ÇáãÑÃÉ äØÝÉ ÇáÑÌá ÇÔÈå ÇáÑÌá ÃÎæÇáå. ÃÎÈÑäí Úáí Èä ÍÇÊã ÑÖì Çááå Úäå¡ ÝíãÇ ßÊÈ Åáí ÞÇá: ÃÎÈÑäí Ç
  9. This is not really a convincing interpretation of Shaykh al-Mufeed's words. From the context its clear that Shaykh al-Mufeed is speaking about non-degradable minor sins and not just Tark al-Awla. Just to maintain the present-day or post-Majlisi "ijma" of (عدم صدور الصغائر والكبائر مطلقا), Zanjani is interpreting this way. w/s
  10. Not even a issue in this thread. But we have clear sahih hadith about Prophet's sahw in al-Faqih. Instead of quoting irrelevant quote would you tell me what do you understand by the following red-quoted parts: إن جميع أنبياء الله - صلوات الله عليهم - معصومون من الكبائر قبل النبوة وبعدها وما يستخف فاعله من الصغائر كلها، وأما ما كان من صغير لا يستخف فاعله فجائز وقوعه منهم قبل النبوة وعلى غير تعمد وممتنع منهم بعدها على كل حال، وهذا مذهب جمهور الإمامية، والمعتزلة بأسرها تخالف فيه إن الأئمة القائمين مقام الأنبياء (ص) في تنفيذ الأحكام وإقامة الحدود وحفظ الشرائع وتأديب الأنام (1) معصومون كعصمة الأ
  11. Yes it's irrelevant b/c its nothing to do with what I quoted in the post of this thread i.e. Again, you are posting irrelevant quotes. My point is not about major/ minor sins or sahw. Its specifically about non-degradable minor sins before the time of nabuwah/Imamah. FYI, Awail al-Maqalat is the book of Shaykh al-Mufeed, so your label of muqassir would apply to him too and not only him but the majority of Imamaiyah of his time as he said (وهذا مذهب جمهور الإمامية) w/s
  12. What you have quoted from al-Khoei is irrelevant here. The quote I've posted from Shaykh Mufeed's book isn't about sahw. And instead of calling Shaykh al-Mufeed and Jamhur of Imamiyah of his time 'muqassir', read yourself what Shaykh al-Mufeed said: إن جميع أنبياء الله - صلوات الله عليهم - معصومون من الكبائر قبل النبوة وبعدها وما يستخف فاعله من الصغائر كلها، وأما ما كان من صغير لا يستخف فاعله فجائز وقوعه منهم قبل النبوة وعلى غير تعمد وممتنع منهم بعدها على كل حال، وهذا مذهب جمهور الإمامية، والمعتزلة بأسرها تخالف فيه Ref: Awail al-Maqalat, Pg. 62, http://www.alkadhum.org/other/mktba/aqaed/avael_
  13. What Shaykh al-Saduq has said cannot be inferred as tawtheeq because what Shaykh did was just say which one is more sahih i.e strongest of the weakest narrations (since the other chain is clearly weak). It does shows his preference of one chain over the other but his statement is not explicit about adalah of the two individuals in the chain. w/s
  14. ^I think he has added you to his ignored list as many of us have.
  15. There is some difference in the examples. In the first case, Shaykh Saduq and his Shaykh Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Waleed used explicit words to weaken Muhammad b. Musa al-Hamdani i.e. وكان كذابا غير ثقة But in the other narration, Shaykh Saduq didn't mention any explicit words of tawthiq for individuals i.e. Abd al-Wahid and Ali b. Qutaiba. Shaykh is speaking about hadith as a whole and not tawthiq for individuals. Since its known that Shaykh did relied on many weak narrations and here he isn't speaking explicitly about tawthiq of individuals, may be that's the reason Syed al-Khoei and other sc
  16. True and we have clear sahih hadith proving that they are muslim. w/s
  17. This one. . . ? ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä ÈÅÓäÇÏå Úä ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÈÇÈæíå ¡ Úä ÚÈÏÇáæÇÍÏ ÇÈä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏæÓ ÇáäíÓÇÈæÑí ¡ Úä Úáí Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÞÊíÈÉ ¡ Úä ÍãÏÇä Èä ÓáíãÇä ¡ Úä ÚÈÏÇáÓáÇã Èä ÕÇáÍ ÇáåÑæí ÞÇá : ÞáÊ ááÑÖÇ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) : íÇ Èä ÑÓæá Çááå ÞÏ Ñæí Úä ÂÈÇÆß ( Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã ) Ýíãä ÌÇãÚ Ýí ÔåÑ ÑãÖÇä Ãæ ÃÝØÑ Ýíå ËáÇË ßÝÇÑÇÊ ¡ æÑæí Úäåã ÃíÖÇ ßÝÇÑÉ æÇÍÏÉ ¡ ÝÈÃí ÇáÍÏíËíä äÃÎÐ ¿ ÞÇá : ÈåãÇ ÌãíÚÇ ¡ ãÊì ÌÇãÚ ÇáÑÌá ÍÑÇãÇ Çæ ÇÝØÑ Úáì ÍÑÇã Ýí ÔåÑ ÑãÖÇä ÝÚáíå ËáÇË ßÝÇÑÇÊ : ÚÊÞ ÑÞÈÉ ¡ æÕíÇã ÔåÑíä ãÊÊÇÈÚíä ¡ æÅØÚÇã ÓÊíä ãÓßíäÇð ¡ æÞÖÇÁ Ðáß Çáíæã ¡ æÅä ßÇä äßÍ ÍáÇáÇ Ãæ ÃÝØÑ Úáì ÍáÇá ÝÚáíå ßÝÇÑÉ æÇÍÏÉ ¡ æÅä
  18. Did I quote you in my reply on that thread? You are stupid if you think that my post in that thread was targeted at you. I don't even care to read most of your posts. You and your posts are useless not only a/c to me but most of the members I know. And its time that I should act on their advice and put you on my ignore list. so tc.
  19. It's your ignorance which makes you think that I haven't given the honest view. From Syed al-Khoei. . . ثم إن الصدوق ذكر في العيون بعد أن روى هذه الرواية بطريق آخر مع اختلاف ماهذا نصه : وحديث عبدالواحد بن محمد بن عبدوس رضي الله عنه عندي اصح ، ولا قوة الا بالله . أقول : كلام الصدوق قدس سره لايدل على توثيق عبدالواحد ، بل ولا على حسنه ، فان تصحيح الصدوق خبره غايته انه يدل على حجيته عنده لاصالة العدالة التي بنى عليها غير واحد ، وأما التوثيق أو المدح فلا يستفاد من كلامه . ومن ذلك يظهر ان تصحيح العلامة في التحرير ، رواية عبدالواحد بن محمد ابن عبدوس الواردة في لزوم كفارة الجمع على من أفطر في شهر ر
  20. See: http://www.*******.org/hadiths/hudud/rape w/s
  21. ^Is it true that his narrations are accepted by Ibn Hajr? ( Ãäø ÇáÊÔíÚ Èá ÇáÑÝÖ áÇ íÖÑ ÈÇáæËÇÞÉ ) w/s
  22. The one you have posted from Salafi site is not sahih. Also, the sahih version and the hadith mentioned in Tanbih al-Kwatir doesn't have this part "other than shias or new shia". æ Úäå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) : ÞÇá ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáã) ÅÐÇ ÑÃíÊã Ãåá ÇáÑíÈ æ ÇáÈÏÚ ãä ÈÚÏí ÝÃÙåÑæÇ ÇáÈÑÇÁÉ ãäåã æ ÃßËÑæÇ ãä ÓÈåã æ ÇáÞæá Ýíåã æ ÇáæÞíÚÉ æ äÇåÈæåã ßíáÇ íØãÚæÇ Ýí ÇáÝÓÇÏ Ýí ÇáÅÓáÇã æ ÊÍÐÑåã ÇáäÇÓ æ áÇ íÊÚáãæÇ ãä ÈÏÚåã íßÊÈ Çááå áßã ÈÐáß ÇáÍÓäÇÊ æ ÊÑÝÚ áßã ÈåÇ ÇáÏÑÌÇÊ Ýí ÇáÂÎÑÉ http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-akhlagh/shaban-05/06.htm w/s
  23. Yes it's sahih and it's permissible a/c to Syed Fadhlallah too. See: http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/marjaa/qa.aspx?id=193 (First question: ÓÈÍÇä ÑÈí ÇáÃÚáì æÈÍãÏå Çááåã Õáí Úáì ãÍãÏ æÂá ãÍãÏ is recited in sujood and the salat is sahih a/c to Syed) w/s
×
×
  • Create New...