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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About learner

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. As I said this Juwayni is not the famous ibn al-Juwayni of the fifth century as the article in wikepedia makes out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Juwayni. The article clearly mixes the two people up. There is some discrepency of the shia leaning of this Ibrahim al-Juwayni. Anyway he comes centuries too late for recording hadith. Is there any sources from classical texts not after these ideas already existed and were circulating? If it was so clear why did some side with Zayd ibn Ali? Why did others not accept Musa al-Kadhim? Why was evidence not provided then to support this view? There are
  2. Faraid al-Simtayn is not by the famous Shafii and Ash'arite Abu l-Ma'ali Abd al-Malik ibn Abu Muhammad Abd Allah al-Juwayni from the fifth century. It is by Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-Hamawi al-Juwayni from the eighth century - the wikepedia article on al-Juwayni has the wrong name, which clearly shows it was written by a shiite, especially since the main book accredited to him is the Faraid al-Simtayn. Although the above dishonestly attempts to make it as though they are the same two persons, see: http://ww.al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/Nar8-14.htm where in listing the narrations of al-Thaqalayn
  3. Quick question: what do shias say about why Abu Bakr (ra) converted? Was he sincere when he converted in Makka? If not what gain was there in converting?
  4. He did not take the caliphate himself. It was Umar (ra) who convinced the people of Abu Bakr's unrivalled greatness as he was the one appointed to lead the prayer. Abu Bakr (ra) himself chose Umar or Abu Ubaydah as potential caliphs but both declined. But the main difference between the cake and caliphate is: after the cake is eaten it cannot be taken back from the monkey; whereas the caliphate was given to Abu Bakr and it could have lead to disunity and disagreement because it could have been taken away, but everybody including Ali (ra) accepted his caliphate. Ali said "the best after the pro
  5. Saying "ya Ali madad" is not shirk in itself. Sunni scholars have allowed the call "ya Shaykh such and such". The ahlelbayt article is wrong and does not represent the sunni view. That does not mean it can't be used in regards to other issues. Something doesn't have to be perfect to be employed and benefited from. That is the problem the shia have - they think only a perfect thing can be beneficial and therefore they idealised a model of successorship of twelve infallible imams.
  6. Say we agree Ali (ra) was born in the Ka'bah and that was unique to him. What does that prove? Perhaps a virtue, yes, but not greatness beyond all else. Ali (ra) or anybody else is not worth the dust on the feet of our Messenger (saw) and he (saw) was not born in the Ka'bah. Therefore being born in the Ka'bah may be a distinction but not a mark of superioroty, and certainly not of successorship to the Prophet (saw). There is no (authentic) proof the prophet (saw) appointed Ali (ra).
  7. Where is the proof for this? i have shown gf Haddad's verdict that this is a weak a report. It certainly is not "almost unanimous", although some Sunnis may have accepted it. It is not mentioned only in Sahih Muslim. It is narrated in the Mustadrak of Imam al-Hakim also through Ali ibn Ghinam al-Amiri.
  8. That's like saying the Prophet appointed Ali (ra) therefore the 11 after him should not be followed. Nope. The believers accepted him. the Prophet (saw) knew it was inevitable the people will elect him. Abu Bakr did not intentionally set up a meeting at Saqifah; the Ansarites had gathered there and Abu Bakr (ra) was told to go, being a senior Companion, to sort it out. He did give bay'ah to him.
  9. The hadith is not clear and the scholars who hold the opposing minority view (e.g. al-Layth) say this hadith means suckling directly from the breast, whereas drinking from a container will make prohibition of marriag. See fath al-Bari: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display...=4712&doc=0
  10. The hadith of Muslim has been discussed here: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=...06&CATE=120 The majority of Ahl al-Sunnah (excepting Aishah (ra), al-Layth ibn Sa'd, the Zahiris and a few other personalities) considers the drinking of breast milk a cause of prohibition of marriage to be only at the first stages of childhood i.e. only when the child craves for the milk (al-rida'ah min al-maja'ah). The majority respond to the hadith in Muslim saying it is specific to Sahla and/or was abrogated. Regarding the other view (the view of Aishah), the milk is not drunk from the breast its
  11. None of these really prove anything except Ali (ra)'s virtues. The question is: did the Prophet (saw) appoint Ali (ra) explicitly or implicity? 1. if it was explicit, which case was explicit? and if a particular case is explicit then why the need of the other incidents? 2. if it was implicit, does that not mean it is subjective and depends on the actual outcome of things? How can the first three be called usurpers if it was not absolutely clear? Either way, Ali (ra) himself did not claim the caliphate. this has not been authentically proven. If it was the case, he was not unique. Hakim ibn h
  12. The incident of ghadir is grossly misinterpreted and put out of context. People attacked Ali (ra) for a decision he had made after a campaign about some clothing. The Prophet (saw) attempted to abate their anger but when it didn't work he gathered the people and declared "am I not closer to each one of you then his ownself" and when they replied in the affirmative, he said "to whom I am closest, Ali is closest" (Ling's translation)... "O Allah! Befriend/love those who befriend/love him and oppose those who oppose him". There is no indication of leadership anywhere in this incident. If it was a
  13. It is not for me to prove. Kaniz claimed Umm Salamah went under the cloak with a non-mahram. However it is possible this was before the verses of hijab. Therefore you have to prove that it did happen after the verses of hijab. For Kaniz's claim to be valid it is preconditioned with the idea that these laws were already in place. Therefore he/she has to show that this was the case. I posted the above to show that he/she needed to prove his/her sentiments i.e. that Umm Salamah went under the cloak with a non-Mahram - was this haram then? Also note the verse of hijab (33:59) comes after this this
  14. Perhaps this was before the verses of hijab?
  • Create New...