Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
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

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from lotfilms in Prophet (saw) and Sahv   
    Shaykh Saduq(ar) in Uyun Akhbar al-Reda states . . .


    æóÇáÅãÇã íõæáóÏõ æóíóáöÏõ¡ æóíóÕöÍøõ æóíóãÑóÖõ¡ æóíóÃúßõáõ æóíóÔúÑóÈõ æóíóÈõæáõ æóíóÊóÛóæøóØ¡ æóíóäßöÍõ æóíóäÇãõ æóíóäÓìþ æóíóÓåõæ¡ æóíóÝÑóÍõ æóíóÍÒõäõ¡ æóíóÖÍóßõ æóíóÈúßí æóíóÍúíóì æóíóãõæÊõ æóíõÞÈóÑõ æóíóÒÇÑõ¡ æóíõÍÔóÑõ æóíõæÞóÝõ¡ æóíõÚÑóÖõ æóíõÓÃóáõ


    "The Imam is born. He also has children. He gets ill and he gets cured. He eats and drinks. He urinates and defecates. He gets married. He sleeps. He forgets and he makes mistakes. He gets happy and sad. He laughs and cries. He lives and then dies. He is buried and the people go to visit his shrine. He is resurrected and questioned."
    In 'Man La Yadharul Faqih' he mentions an authentic hadith regarding Prophet's Sahv. . .
    æÑæì ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍÈæÈ Úä ÇáÑÈÇØí¡ Úä ÓÚíÏ ÇáÇÚÑÌ ÞÇá: " ÓãÚÊ ÃÈÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã íÞæá: Åä Çááå ÊÈÇÑß æÊÚÇáì ÃäÇã ÑÓæáå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå Úä ÕáÇÉ ÇáÝÌÑ ÍÊì ØáÚÊ ÇáÔãÓ¡ Ëã ÞÇã ÝÈÏà ÝÕáì ÇáÑßÚÊíä ÇááÊíä ÞÈá ÇáÝÌÑ¡ Ëã Õáì ÇáÝÌÑ¡ æÃÓåÇå Ýí ÕáÇÊå ÝÓáã Ýí ÑßÚÊíä Ëã æÕÝ ãÇ ÞÇáå Ðæ ÇáÔãÇáíä. (2) æÅäãÇ ÝÚá Ðáß Èå ÑÍãÉ áåÐå ÇáÇãÉ áÆáÇ íÚíÑ ÇáÑÌá ÇáãÓáã ÅÐÇ åæ äÇã Úä ÕáÇÊå Ãæ ÓåÇ ÝíåÇ ÝíÞÇá: ÞÏ ÃÕÇÈ Ðáß ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå
    Then Shaykh Saduq(ar) says:
    ÞÇá ãÕäÝ åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈ ÑÍãå Çááå: Åä ÇáÛáÇÉ æÇáãÝæÖÉ áÚäåã Çááå íäßÑæä Óåæ ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå
    ---
    Narrators. . .
    ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍÈæÈ ÇáÓÑÇÏ¡ æíÞÇá ÇáÒÑÇÏ¡ íßäì ÇÈÇ Úáí ãæáì ÈÌíáÉ ßæÝí ËÞÉ Úíä Ñæì Úä ÇáÑÖÇ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã æßÇä Ìáíá ÇáÞÏÑ íÚÏ Ýí ÇáÇÑßÇä ÇáÇÑÈÚÉ Ýí ÚÕÑå
    Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÑÈÇØ ÈÇáÑÇÁ ÊÍÊåÇ äÞØÉ æÇÍÏÉ æÇáØÇÁ ÇáãåãáÉ ÃÎíÑÇ " ÇáÈÌáì ÇÈæÇáÍÓä ßæÝí ËÞÉ íÚæá Úáíå. ÞÇá ÇáßÔí: Çäå ãä ÃÕÍÇÈ ÇáÑÖÇ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã
    ÓÚíÏ Èä ÚíÏ ÇáÑÍãÇä. æÞíá: ÇÈä ÚÈÏÇááå ÇáÇÚÑÌ ÇáÓãÇä ÃÈæÚÈÏÇááå ÇáÊãíãí ãæáÇåã ßæÝí ËÞÉ Ñæì Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã¡ ÐßÑå ÇÈä ÚÞÏÉ æÇÈä äæÍ
    w/s
  2. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Mashariq al-Anwar / Rajab Bursi   
    I don't understand why you consider it 'sahih'. Wasn't Waheb b. Hafs a waqifi?
    w/s
  3. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Mashariq al-Anwar / Rajab Bursi   
    The one after him is 12305 i.e. Al-Abadi. Is it 'Arabe' in your book? :unsure:
    And as you said above that Masada b. Sadakah is same as 'Arabe', then why in Hilli and Tafrishi rijal, Masada b. Sadakah is mentioned as Aami/Batri?
    w/s
  4. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Mashariq al-Anwar / Rajab Bursi   
    Can you please be more specific here? Didn't they both(arabe & Abdi) narrated from Haroon b. Muslim? :unsure:
    w/s
  5. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Mashariq al-Anwar / Rajab Bursi   
    How do you know the one in the chain is Arabe? :unsure:
    and BTW, A/c to Hilli(ar). . .
    ãÓÚÏ Èä ÕÏÞÉ ÞÇá ÇáÔíÎ ÑÍãå Çááå Çäå ÚÇãí æÞÇá ÇáßÔí Çäå ÈÊÑí
    Actually you choose what you want to. That's why you choose NOT to quote the opinion of Hilli(ar) regarding Hannan b. Sadeer in your cursing thread.
    w/s
  6. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Mashariq al-Anwar / Rajab Bursi   
    ãÓÚÏÉ Èä ãÕÏÞÉ (1) ÇáÓÚíÏí (2): íßäì ÃÈÇ ãÍãÏ¡ ÞÇáå ÇÈä ÝÖÇá¡ æÞíá: íßäì ÃÈÇ ÈÔÑ¡ Ñæì Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå æÃÈí ÇáÍÓä ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã¡ áå ßÊÈ¡ Ñæì Úäå: åÇÑæä Èä ãÓáã¡ ÑÌÇá ÇáäÌÇÔí (3). æÞÇá ÇáßÔí ÚäÏ ÊÑÌãÉ ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓÍÇÞ: Åä ãÓÚÏÉ Èä ÕÏÞÉ ÈÊÑí (4). æÞÇá ÇáÔíÎ Ýí ÇáÑÌÇá (5): ãä ÃÕÍÇÈ ÇáÈÇÞÑ æÇáÕÇÏÞ ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã¡ ÚÇãí
    w/s
  7. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Mashariq al-Anwar / Rajab Bursi   
    What has all this to do with Fadhlallah (ha)? :blink: Mujam ar-Rijal is Khui's (ar) book not Fadhlallah's (ha).
    w/s
  8. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Mashariq al-Anwar / Rajab Bursi   
    ^And are these hadith 'sahih'? Please post the complete sanad for the above narrations.
    w/s
  9. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Mashariq al-Anwar / Rajab Bursi   
    ^This is not a refutation. It's just his own view. It's clear from that quote from Mujam Rijal that Bursi's book is full of exaggerations and weak narrations. Only 'sahih' / reliable sanad narrations(if any?) can be accepted from his book.
    w/s
  10. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Mashariq al-Anwar / Rajab Bursi   
    ^Thanks for the translation bro.
    w/s
  11. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Mashariq al-Anwar / Rajab Bursi   
    ÞÇá ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÍÑ Ýí ÊÐßÑÉ ÇáãÊÈÍÑíä ( 329 ) : " ÇáÔíÎ ÑÌÈ ÇáÍÇÝÙ ÇáÈÑÓí : ßÇä ÝÇÖáÇ ãÍÏËÇ ÔÇÚÑÇ ãäÔÆÇ ÃÏíÈÇ ¡ áå ßÊÇÈ ãÔÇÑÞ ÃäæÇÑ ÇáíÞíä Ýí ÍÞÇÆÞ ÃÓÑÇÑ ÃãíÑÇáãÄãäíä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ¡ æáå ÑÓÇÆá Ýí ÇáÊæÍíÏ æÛíÑå ¡ æÝí ßÊÇÈå ÅÝÑÇØ æÑÈãÇ äÓÈ Åáì ÇáÛáæ !
    ...
    ÞÇá ÇáãÍÏË ÇáÔåíÑ ÇáãÌáÓí Ýí ÇáÝÕá ÇáÇæá ãä ãÞÏãÉ ßÊÇÈ ÇáÈÍÇÑ : " æßÊÇÈ ãÔÇÑÞ ÇáÇäæÇÑ ¡ æßÊÇÈ ÇáÇáÝíä ááÍÇÝÙ ÑÌÈ ÇáÈÑÓí ¡ æáÇ ÃÚÊãÏ Úáì ãÇ íÊÝÑÏ ÈäÞáå ¡ áÇÔÊãÇá ßÊÇÈíå Úáì ãÇíæåã ÇáÎÈØ æÇáÎáØ æÇáÇÑÊÝÇÚ ¡ æÅäãÇ ÃÎÑÌäÇ ãäåãÇ ãÇ íæÇÝÞ ÇáÇÎÈÇÑ ÇáãÃÎæÐÉ ãä ÇáÇÕæá ÇáãÚÊÈÑÉ

    Ref: Mujam Rijal, al-Khoei.
    w/s
  12. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in 'Sahih' Hadith Needed   
    Ibn Dawood mentioned the opinion of Aqeeqi along with Najashi & Kashi. This clearly shows the importance of Aqeeqi's opinion here.
    And you ignored all the quotes which says that they were `Aami.
    This hadith is not even qawi.
    w/s
  13. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in 'Sahih' Hadith Needed   
    From Ibn Dawood . . .
    ÓÏíÑ Èä Íßíã¡ ÈÇáÝÊÍ¡ ÃÈæ ÇáÝÖá ÞÑ¡ Þ (ÌÔ¡ ßÔ) ããÏæÍ æÞÇá Úáí Èä ÃÍãÏ ÇáÚÞíÞí: ÕÏíÑ ÇáÕíÑÝí ÇÓãå ÓáãÉ ßÇä ãÎáØÇ.
    Bro, I am looking for a sahih hadith whose narrators are not controversial.
    Did you check Mujam Rijal for these two narrators? Aren't they mentioned as `Aami ?
    w/s
  14. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in 'Sahih' Hadith Needed   
    I've checked this one already and it's not sahih. Btw, where did you read that Muhammad b. Ahmed b. Ubaidullah b. Mansur and Isa b. Ahmed b. Isa are Imamis ?
    w/s
  15. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in 'Sahih' Hadith Needed   
    (salam)
    I am looking for a 'sahih' hadith which says that Muhammad(saw) and Ali(a) were created from the Noor of Allah(swt).
    Please post a 'sahih' hadith with complete sanad.
    Jazakallah Khayr,
    w/s
  16. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Imam's Source Of Knowledge   
    I found the exact quote from the book, al-Idah. . .


    æÃäÊã ÊÒÚãæä Ãä ÇáÔíÚÉ íÞæáæä 1: Çä Âá ãÍãÏ íáåãæä ÇáÚáã ÇáåÇãÇ ÈÛíÑ ÊÚáíã ÝÃäÊã ÇáÐíä ÊÑææä Ðáß ÅÐ 2 ÑæíÊã Ãä ÇÈä ÚãÑ ÞÇá: Çäåã Þæã ãÝåãæä æÃä ÚáíÇ " ÞÇá: ãÇ ÚäÏí Óæì ÇáæÍì ÇáÇ Ãä íÚØì Çááå ÝåãÇ " 3 Ýåá ÇáÝåã ÇáÇ ÇáåÇã íáåãå Çááå ÇáÚÈÏ 1 ¿ æÃäÊã ÊÒÚãæä Ãä ÇáÑÃì ãÈÇÍ áßã ÅÐÇ æÑÏ Úáíßã ãÇ áÇ ÊÌÏæäå Ýí ÇáßÊÇÈ æáÇ - Ýí ÇáÓäÉ Ýåá ÇáÑÃì ÇáÇ ÇáåÇã íáÞíå Çááå Ýí ÞáÈ ÇáÑÌá ÝíÞæá Èå ¿ ! æßÐáß ÇáÇáåÇã íáåãå Çááå ÇáÑÌá ÝíÞæá Èå. ãÚ Ãä ÇáÔíÚÉ áÇ ÊÞæá ÈÐáß 2 æáÇ ÊÄãä ÈãÇ ÊÞæáæä Èå 3 ãä ÇáÑÃì æÇáÇáåÇã æÇáÏáíá Úáì Ðáß Þæá Úáì Èä ÃÈì ØÇáÈ - ÕáæÇÊ Çááå Úáíå -¡ ãÇ ÚäÏäÇ ÇáÇ ãÇ Ýí ßÊÇÈ Çááå Ãæ 4 ãÇ Ýí ÇáÕÍíÝÉ æÕÏÞ Úáì - Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã - ãÇ ßÇä ÚäÏå ÇáÇ ãÇ Ýí ßÊÇÈ Çááå áÃä ßÊÇÈ Çááå íÌãÚ ÇáÚáã ßáå ÇáÐì íÍÊÇÌ Åáíå ÇáäÇÓ Ýí ÃãÑ Ïíäåã Ýßá ãÇ ßÇä Ýí ÇáÕÍíÝÉ Ýåæ ÊÝÓíÑ áãÇ Ýí ßÊÇÈ Çááå. æÃäÊã ÊäÝÑæä 5 Ãä íÞÇá: ÚäÏ Âá ãÍãÏ ÕÍíÝÉ ÝíåÇ Úáã ÇáÍáÇá æÇáÍÑÇã ÈÎØ Úáì æÇãáÇÁ ÑÓæá Çááå 6 - Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå - ÝÇä ßÇä ãÇ Ñææå Úäåã ÍÞÇ " Çäåã ÞÇáæÇ Ðáß ÝáíÓ ÈÚÙíã æáÇ ãäßÑ Ãä íßæä Úáì Èä ÃÈì ØÇáÈ - ÕáæÇÊ Çááå Úáíå - ßÊÈ ãÇ ÓãÚ ãä ÑÓæá Çááå ÝÃËÈÊå ææÑË ÇáÚáã æáÏå æÃäÊã ÇáÝÞíå ãäßã íæÑË æáÏå ÇáãÇÆÉ

    http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m013/11/no1117.html
    w/s
  17. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Imam's Source Of Knowledge   
    (salam)
    Fadl b. Shadhan was the companion of Imam al-Hadi(a) and Imam Hasan Askari(a). He died after the birth of Imam Mahdi(aj). He was famous for his refutations against ghulats.
    He did not believe that Imam receives any special knowledge through ilham. He was of the opinion that ilham is something open to all mankind and is comparable to fahm and ray. In his book al-idah, addressing Sunni sect he says:
    "And you allege that the Shia maintain that Aal Muhammad are inspired with 'ilm without learning (yulhamuna al-'ilma ilhdman bi-ghayri ta'lim). But then it is you who are of this opinion (tarawna instead of text's tarwuna) since you have related that Ibn 'Umar said: 'They (Aal Muhammad) are mufahhamun and that 'Ali said: 'I do not have anything except al-wahy', (the Quran) unless God grants understanding (fahm)'.
    Is fahm anything but ilham which God inspires man with (yulhimahu)? And you claim that ra'y is permissible to you if you come across something that you do not find in the Book or the Sunna. Is ra'y anything but ilham which God casts in man's heart so he speaks 'with it (yaqulu bihi)? And likewise ilham, God inspires man with it so he speaks with it.
    The Shia though do not maintain that and do not believe in what you maintain concerning ra'y and ilham. And the proof for this is the statement of 'Ali b. Abl Talib: 'We do not have anything except that which is in the Book of God or (aw) in the sahifa'. And 'Ali spoke the truth; he did not have anything except that which is in the Book of God; for the Book of God contains all the 'ilm that people need for their religion, and everything in the sahifa is interpretation (tafsir) of that which is in the Book of God.
    And you are averse to the claim that Aal Muhammad have a sahifa in which there is knowledge of the halal and the harim, in 'Ali's handwriting and dictated by the Apostle of God. If what is reported from them (Aal Muhammad) concerning that (the sahifa) is true, then it is not grave or reprehensible that 'Ali should have written down what he had heard from the Apostle of God, and so confirmed it (athbatahu) and bequeathed the 'ilm to his descendants. As for you, the faqih among you bequeathes to his descendants a hundred, or more or less, pages of what he heard and wrote down, but you do not disapprove that of each other."
    w/s
  18. Like
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Rohani in Pakistan vs New Zealand live streaming   
    Younis praises Afridi after big win
    http://www.cricinfo.com/pakvnz2009/content/current/story/432868.html



    :wub:
    w/s
  19. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from dingdong. in We want peace but with dignity!   
    This was posted by Marvi Memon [Member National Assembly, Pakistan] on her blog.

    Let there be no confusion that we condemn terrorism in all its forms and support joint resolution signed by political leadership regarding Mumbai blasts. Let there also be no confusion that India has launched a diplomatic offensive on Pakistan at the international level. In view of this Pakistan should also launch a diplomatic offensive rather than a defensive on India and provide the world with details of India’s efforts to destabilize the region and Indian human rights excesses. It is because of the government’s appeasement of Indian aggression of last 8 months that India is today in a position to launch this attack on Pakistan. Had the government followed dignified foreign policy as demanded by us the opposition today we would not be in the middle of a national security crisis.
    US support for India is obvious. President elect Obama’s statement that India will be in its rights to attack Pakistan in retaliation of militants hiding in Pakistan is not a pro Pak stance. Nor is Rice’s order that absolute cooperation needs to be given by Pak to India or that we should follow the evidence and act on it. We already know that and our government will do that as responsible state. Madeline Albright has called Pakistan an international migraine. Condy Rice is blessing us with a 5 hour visit only for what arm twisting bully purpose? US media is also singing same tune as Indian media and is naming LT as the organization behind attack without proof. US intelligence had warned India of attacks from the sea in October and despite this there was a systemic failure of entire Indian security apparatus as is noted by the Indian navy. The way to handle such joint US-Indian offensive is not by exposing the President to an Indian talkshow host grilling our president (bad move by his media team) or by expressing delayed gratitude to Hillary for receiving Mohtarma at White House. Nor is it by having loose statements of Interior Ministry saying Lashkar Jhangvi exists in Karachi meaning we know about it and we cant control it, thus giving excuse to Indians to identify Karachi as attack originator. Nor is it by giving away first nuclear strike usage? Instead it requires demanding from India answers on how it has increased regional instability on following occasions. Infact the regional security organizations and international community need to resolve following outstanding issues in the region:

    Why has India increased military presence in Afghanistan? Why has India started work on Ladakkh airbase? Why did India invite foreign military chiefs to Siachen which is disputed territory? Why is India trying to change IHK demography by transferring land illegally to Hindu Shrine Board? Why is India continuing to block Pakistan’s water and making illegal structures against Indus water Treaty? Why are Indian organizations doing anti Christian and Muslim genocide activities and Indian government allowing such organizations to exist? Why is India building military might in region, impacting regional balance? Why is India encircling Pakistan and China at the behest of US? Why is India deploying nuke warheads near Srinagar? Why are Indian human rights excesses in IHK including unmarked graves issues going unchecked? Why is India deploying extra 5 battalions in IHK? Why is India imposing economic blockade in IHK and no international community coming to Kashmiri help? Why are Kashmiri leaders killed and no action taken against perpetrators? Why is India blaming Pakistan for LOC violations which it creates itself? Why is India getting away with accusing Pak of all blasts in India including Mumbai with no evidence? Why is India and US media attacking our state institutions like ISI and putting threats of attack on our territory linked to alleged terror camps getting away with it? Why is India building bases/ consulates around Pak in neighbouring Iran and Afghanistan with no real need other than encirclement? Why does India get away postponing composite dialogue process every time tempers get raised over blasts? Why is India not being taken to task over its 100 homegrown separatist organizations which are result of Indian policies of marginalization? Why is India maintaining 700,000 troops in IHK who have killed over 90,000 Kashmiris? Why does India keep presenting same old list of wanted men without realizing Pak has already given response on them? Why does the Indian High Commissioner meet Nawaz Sharif minus other important opposition leaders?
    We have to strengthen government’s hands by insisting on India’s accountability through diplomatic offensive and through regional security organizations like Shanghai cooperation organization and others. If we want peace in the region then the mentality in Indian youth that we are one big nation that got split in 1947 and should get back together needs to end. We are proud of fact that we are independent nation and we intend staying independent. They should stop dreaming of larger India. We have to insist that national security advisors of both countries head joint probe. That is best suggestion given by my leadership and we need to make India agree to it. If it doesn’t it is not being transparent. We are patriots who will not take India’s bullying. We are the new leadership of Pakistan. We want all outstanding issues resolved with India including core issue of Kashmir without which regional stability is not realistic. We want peace but with dignity.
    _______
  20. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    ^If you have read the paper 'THE AKHBARI/USULI DISPUTE IN LATE SAFAWID IRAN', it also shows that this usul has been used by Usulis and not Akhbaris. . .

    The mujtahids maintain the basic state in [legal] questions is permissibility. [This is] based on the statement of the Imam, on Him be peace, " Everything is unrestricted until prohibition comes down concerning it ", and on the basis of the universality of the Almighty's statement "He made for you all that is on the earth" (Qur'an, 2:29).
    The Akhbaris hesitate on this. Rather, according to them where something does not have a text permitting it there is no means to permitting or forbidding it. Rather it is in the category of uncertainty. [Legal] issues are of three [sorts]: [that] wherein lawfulness is clear, [that] wherein prohibition is clear, and between that [categorization there are] uncertainties.
    And this is what they(Akhbaris) says about third category i.e. uncertainity. . .
    [The third comprises] uncertainties between these.32 Whoever follows a course based on uncertainties is doing what is forbidden. He will perish because he has no knowledge. Caution is obligatory with regard to every issue on which there is no text transmitted on Their authority, on Them be peace.

    w/s
  21. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    Can you name some Akhbari scholars who believed in this usul? AFAIK, majority of Akhbari scholars didn't believe in this. See post no. 13 for the arguments of Shaykh Yusuf Bahrani.
    And this is what Shaykh Hurr al-Amili says:


    ÃÞæá: åÐÇ íÍÊãá æÌæåÇ. ÃÍÏåÇ - ÇáÍãá Úáì ÇáÊÞíÉ¡ ÝÇä ÇáÚÇãÉ íÞæáæä ÈÍÌíÉ ÇáÃÕá¡ ÝíÖÚÝ Úä ãÞÇæãÉ ãÇ ÓÈÞ¡ ãÖÇÝÇ Åáì ßæäå ÎÈÑÇ æÇÍÏÇ áÇ íÚÇÑÖ ÇáãÊæÇÊÑ. æËÇäíåÇ - ÇáÍãá Úáì ÇáÎØÇÈ ÇáÔÑÚí ÎÇÕÉ¡ ÈãÚäì Ãä ßá ÔÆ ãä ÇáÎØÇÈÇÊ ÇáÔÑÚíÉ íÊÚíä Íãáå Úáì ÇØáÇÞå æÚãæãå¡ ÍÊì íÑÏ Ýíå äåí íÎÕ ÈÚÖ ÇáÃÝÑÇÏ¡ æíÎÑÌå ãä ÇáÇØáÇÞ¡ ãËÇáå: Þæáåã (Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã): ßá ãÇÁ ØÇåÑ ÍÊì ÊÚáã Ãäå ÞÐÑ¡ ÝÃäå ãÍãæá Úáì ÅØáÇÞå¡ ÝáãÇ æÑÏ Çáäåí Úä ÇÓÊÚãÇá ßá æÇÍÏ ãä ÇáÇäÇÁíä ÅÐÇ äÌÓ ÃÍÏåãÇ æÇÔÊÈåÇ¡ ÊÚíä ÊÞííÏå ÈÛíÑ åÐå ÇáÕæÑÉ¡ æáÐáß ÇÓÊÏá Èå ÇáÕÏæÞ Úáì ÌæÇÒ ÇáÞäæÊ ÈÇáÝÇÑÓíÉ¡ áÃä ÇáÇæÇãÑ ÈÇáÞäæÊ ãØáÞÉ ÚÇãå¡ æáã íÑÏ äåí Úä ÇáÞäæÊ ÈÇáÝÇÑÓíÉ íÎÑÌå ãä ÅØáÇÞåÇ. æËÇáËåÇ - ÇáÊÎÕíÕ ÈãÇ áíÓ ãä äÝÓ ÇáÃÍßÇã ÇáÔÑÚíÉ¡ æÅä ßÇä ãä ãæÖæÚÇÊåÇ æãÊÚáÞÇÊåÇ¡ ßãÇ ÅÐÇ Ôß Ýí ÌæÇÆÒ ÇáÙÇáã ÃäåÇ ãÛÕæÈÉ Ãã áÇ. æÑÇÈÚÇ - Ãä Çáäåí íÔãá Çáäåí ÇáÚÇã æÇáÎÇÕ¡ æÇáäåí ÇáÚÇã ÈáÛäÇ æåæ Çáäåí Úä ÇÑÊßÇÈ ÇáÔÈåÇÊ Ýí äÝÓ ÇáÇÍßÇã¡ æÇáÇãÑ ÈÇáÊæÞÝ æÇáÇÍÊíÇØ ÝíåÇ æÝí ßá ãÇ áÇ äÕ Ýíå. æÎÇãÓåÇ - Ãä íßæä ãÎÕæÕÇ ÈãÇ ÞÈá ßãÇá ÇáÔÑíÚÉ æÊãÇãåÇ¡ ÝÃãÇ ÈÚÏ Ðáß Ýáã íÈÞ ÔÆ Úáì Íßã ÇáÈÑÇÁÉ ÇáÃÕíáÉ. æÓÇÏÓåÇ - Ãä íßæä ãÎÕæÕÇ Èãä áã ÊÈáÛå ÃÍÇÏíË Çáäåí Úä ÇÑÊßÇÈ ÇáÔÈåÇÊ æÇáÃãÑ ÈÇáÇÍÊíÇØ áãÇ ãÑ (1)¡ æáÇÓÊÍÇáÉ ÊßáíÝ ÇáÛÇÝá ÚÞáÇ æäÞáÇ.
    æÓÇÈÚåÇ - Ãä íßæä ãÎÕæÕÇ ÈãÇ áÇ íÍÊãá ÇáÊÍÑíã¡ Èá ÚáãÊ ÇÈÇÍÊå æÍÕá ÇáÔß Ýí æÌæÈå¡ Ýåæ ãØáÞ ÍÊì íÑÏ Ýíå äåí Úä ÊÑßå¡ áÃä ÇáãÓÊÝÇÏ ãä ÇáÃÍÇÏíË åäÇ ÚÏã æÌæÈ ÇáÇÍÊíÇØ ÈãÌÑÏ ÇÍÊãÇá ÇáæÌæÈ æÅä ßÇä ÑÇÌÍÇ¡ ÍíË áÇ íÍÊãá ÇáÊÍÑíã. æËÇãäåÇ - Ãä íßæä ãÎÕæÕÇ ÈÇáÃÔíÇÁ ÇáãåãÉ ÇáÊí ÊÚã ÈåÇ ÇáÈáæì æíÚáã Ãäå áæ ßÇä ÝíåÇ Íßã ãÎÇáÝ ááÃÕá áäÞá¡ ßãÇ íÝåã ãä Þæá Úáí (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã): íÇ Èäí Ãäå áæ ßÇä Åáå ÂÎÑ áÃÊÊß ÑÓáå¡ æáÑÃíÊ ÂËÇÑ ããáßÊå¡ æÞÏ ÕÑÍ ÈäÍæ Ðáß ÇáãÍÞÞ Ýí ÇáãÚÊÈÑ æÛíÑå.

    w/s
  22. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    The argument of Shaykh Yusuf Bahrani on this usul. . .

  23. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    Not sure if it's relevant here but there's a verse (2:286) . . .

    Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability; for it is (the benefit of) what it has earned, and upon it (the evil of) what it has wrought; "Our Lord! do not punish us if we forget or do a mistake; Our Lord! do not lay on us a burden as Thou didst lay on those before us; Our Lord! do not im­pose upon us that which we have not the strength to bear; and pardon us and forgive us and have mercy on us; Thou art our Guardian, so help us against the unbelieving people" (286).

    A very good tafsir of this verse by Allama Tabatabai > http://www.almizan.org/Tafseer/Volume4/Baqarah72.asp
    w/s
  24. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    ßá ÔÆ ãØáÞ ÍÊì íÑÏ Ýíå äåí
    Rough translation:
    Everything is unrestricted unless there's prohibition.
    The word for unrestricted is (ãØáÞ).
    w/s
  25. Disagree
    Jondab_Azdi got a reaction from Syed Demanding in The Usul of 'Everything is permissible. . .'   
    1) I'm looking for an authentic hadith which proves this usul: 'Everything is permissible unless prohibition comes down concerning it.'
    I've found few hadiths, but they are mursal.
    ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓíä ÞÇá: ÞÇá ÇáÕÇÏÞ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã): ßá ÔÆ ãØáÞ ÍÊì íÑÏ Ýíå äåí
    Ref: Wasail Shia, v. 27, pg. 173-4 http://yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/10/no1065.html
    Úä ÇáÕÇÏÞ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã Ãäå ÞÇá: " ßá ÔÆ ãØáÞ ÍÊì íÑÏ Ýíå äåí
    Ref: al-Faqih v. 1 http://yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0991.html
    2) From 'The Nature of the Akhbārī/Uṣūlī Dispute in Late Ṣafawid Iran. 'Abdallāh al-Samāhijī's "Munyat al-Mumārisīn':
    The Akhbaris hesitate on this. Rather, according to them where something does not have a text permitting it there is no means to permitting or forbidding it. Rather it is in the category of uncertainty. [Legal] issues are of three [sorts]: [that] wherein lawfulness is clear, [that] wherein prohibition is clear, and between that [categorization there are] uncertainties.
    Anyone knows the reasons why Akhbaris don't believe in this usul? How do they interpret the hadiths I mentioned above.
    w/s
×
×
  • Create New...