Isa Abdullah

The difference between the four madhhabs is that they have different Usul. Things such as where to place one's arms in salat are of a secondary nature and is only on preferences.

In Madina during the time of the Imams, the recitation that was the norm was from Nafi'. From Nafi' we have two narrations, Warsh and Qaloon, of which Warsh is the most popular and is used in Morocco etc.

Haideriam, I do not understand what you are getting at. When we do tayammum we do not wife nor wash our feet. If you are going to proceed to say that that which is done in tayyamym is what we wash, and we leave what is normally wiped, then know that this is a QIYAS - rather weak if you ask me! Saved: How is that nonsense? You send me an internet link, I make a statement which is agreed by concensus of the Ummah. These qira'at are all Tawatur - and you call it NONSENSE? If you have a narration saying that the Prophet (pbuh) wiped, know that there are loads of narrations that are authentic according to Sunni standards that say that he washed them. There is also a narration from Imam Ali (as) that says that if you do not wash them properly including the heel your wudu is not valid. Our Deen is first and foremost based on what is generally conveyed in the Ahadith, not an isolated report.

As far as the Quran goes, whether it wash or wipe depends on the different qira'at. For example Hafs from Asim and Warsh from Nafi say wash. This is while Hamzah says wipe. So both Sunnis and Imamis need to look towards the ahadith to solve this one. Dont play games!

Husn al-Thann is from our Deen, and we should exercise it as much as possible. There are Hadiths and statements from the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt to show that one should always make excuses for their brothers. Surely those who sacrificed their lives for Islam would be deserving of this. But I guess then again according to you the vast majority of Sahaba were Munafiqin? It is really sad, why did they even suffer just to be Muslims in the first place?

Going against the Khalifa, rightly guided or not, does not constitute disbelief according to Ahlus Sunnah. Sayyidina Abdallah ibn Umar(ra) was neutral in these conflicts. As for the issue of Yazid, this was early in Yazids rule, and it is thought that Ibn Umar didn't know how horrible Yazid was yet. Ibn Umar generally wanted to stay out of fitna, as he believed it brought about more harm than good. However we have narrations to show that he expressed regret for not supporting Ahlul Bayt(as).

(salam) Sorry I havn't contributed much to my own thread yet. What other narrations of Fiqh do we find in the Musannafs? Is there for example anything on the wiping of the feet? Other controversial or not so controversial issues?

(salam) How safe is it to travel from Europe(as a European non-Iraqi) to Iraq, especially Najaf, Karbala, and Baghdad.

Do you then believe that the Prophet (pbuh), and Imam Ali and Imam Hasan during their Caliphates, established only 3 Jama'ahs?

(salam) Interesting thoughts, although i believe you have already expressed them in regards to these narrations before. I think some conclusions are a bit hasty, but of course that comes with being subjective (which we all are to some extent). Keep them coming though, as it will give us a better picture of the Imams according to non-Imami sources. If that leads someone to Imami Shi'ism, then so be it. However if it does not, it gives the Sunnis and other non-Imamis a better chance at following the Imams, and a glimpse into their ideas and opinions. wa salam

(salam) Sister Zaida While it is good to be critical and to seek knowledge and understanding, there is the danger of drowning in the sea of narrations and opinions, unless we go about it in the right way. You have some misunderstandings when it comes to some basic principles of the different schools, and i believe it leads you to make judgements that are far from the truth. One example is abrogation, and you brought the example of stoning the married adulterer. Know that there are three categories of abrogation. One is that which is abrogated in both recitation and ruling, the second one is that which is abrogated in ruling, but recitation remains. The third is that which has been abrogated in recitation but ruling remains. The issue of stoning belongs to the latter category. This was an ayah in the Quran, which was later abrogated in recitation but not in hukm. That the 4 schools of Ahlus Sunnah(Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi'i and Hanbali), Hadawis(Yemeni Zaydi), and the Maraji' of the Imami Shi'a all agree on this ruling carries a lot of weight. Secondly, the Zaydis don't base their fiqh solely on Quran, logic and Mutawater Hadith. Firstly, a Mutawater Hadith cannot be rejected, and all 4 schools of Ahlus Sunnah are in agreement on this. An Imami could explain their own views on this better. So this is something that we all agree on. Other than that, the Hadawis accept khabar al-wahid(single report), not just that which reached tawatur. So for you to go against the ruling of stoning, you first need to be qualified, and it needs to be based on a proper Usul(principles), not whims and desires. You need to realise that we accept the Quran as authentic because it has come down to us in Tawatur. So the mutawater ahadith have a similar authenticity. It is fully established that the Prophet (salawatullah wassalamu 'alayh), just as it is established that Allah says something in the Quran. So the full-blown Hadith rejectors are considered non-Muslims by consensus. wa salam

According to at least a couple of Ayatollah's offices one may recite any of the mass-transmitted qira'at, with Hafs from 'Asim being the most common. After that the most common is Warsh from Nafi'(mostly used in traditionally Maliki countries). I know in Libya some recite Qalun from Nafi', and in Sudan Abu 'Amr. The rest are usually confined to the experts within the field.

As-salamu alaykum, I thought it was long overdue to open a thread with the narrations from Ahlul Bayt Imams in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah and Abdurrazzaq As-Sanani. wa salam

Aladdin (salam) This was not my reasoning, but the reasoning of those who say that chess is permissible. To make chess makruh due to the reasons you gave would be rather farfetched. It is not in line with the generally accepted Usul al-Fiqh. And if you are going to propogate the idea that only Quran makes something Haram, and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam) and rulings of Imams (alayhim as-salam) only makes it makruh, the least you could do is provide some sources for such an understanding. The reason why I am saying this is because it goes against the Usul that is followed by the Imami Ayatollahs, not to mention Imams.

Aladdin First of all, where did you get the idea from that it's only Haram is the Quran says so, and it can only be Makruh if the prohibition comes from the Hadiths? This is simply not true at all. As for some of the Imami Ayatollahs viewing chess as mubah, it's not because the narrations from the Imams(as) didn't prohibit it, but that they see it as conditional prohibition. According to their reasoning chess was haram because it was a gambling tool, and as it is not generally a gamling tool today, the prohibition is lifted. Other scholars stick to the sayings of the Imams(as) and submit, as saying that the reason for something being haram is such and such is speculation at best. Therefore these scholars uphold the prohibition of chess. As you might know, i am not an Imami, so I believe very well that the Imams fatawa were conditional unless based on an explicit Hadith by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam).