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

mansab.jafri

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    3,100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mansab.jafri

  • Rank
    Level 6 Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Rafidhastan

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,091 profile views
  1. Al-Salaamu `alaykum. In light of all the UMAA bashing, I would like to inform you all about my experience at this conference. I am currently at the UMAA Convention 2015. This years convention was great. I recommend people go to this conference and attend it in earnest before passing judgment. I think that everyone who complains about UMAA without actually having been to the event in recent years is highly distorted in their viewpoints, and is being uncouth. There are two types of events at UMAA, main sessions and workshops. I didn't get to go to all of the sessions, but from what I attended, I think it was plainly obvious that a few things are true: 1. Hijab was observed by more than 99% of the sisters who were in attendance. Anyone who says otherwise is uncouth. "Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful." (Quran 2:111) 2. Every speech was about serving the 14 Masoomeen and honoring Imam Husain. No one was uncouth enough to diverge from this topic. While other religious groups, no matter how uncouth, were respected, there was no deviation from the holy teachings of the infallibles. 3. I feel that a larger amount of Sunnis were present in this year's convention. They left the convention with a new understanding of Shiaism and a newfound respect for our belief. i was quite pleased to see that Sunni leaders were even on the stage. 4. Nadeem Sarwar. His introduction video 5. There was NOTHING about inappropriate or uncouth political theories. Every time politics was mentioned, it was done so in the vein of supporting shia in our countries abroad, particularly bahrain, iraq, pakistan and others. 6. Reza Aslan is doing a great job for our community, and those who are anti-Aslan are being uncouth. 7. People on shiachat really have nothing better to do. They sit here at all hours of the night, trying to start fights. What is the point of this? Why would you do? i have seen so much anti umaa hatred, but i have not seen maturity from these posters. We need to band together as a community who does not fight over nothing. 8. It was a fun time, but very religious. Nothing uncouth about that, am I right? 9. One day, Qiyamat will come. but we need to establish our good deeds and repent for our sins. What value will you gain about complaining about UMAA? if you complain about UMAA enoguh, will that do anything for our community? Will that fix our community's shortcomings? No. 10. Thank you for reading this and helping to mitigate the uncouth misconceptions about UMAA.
  2. (bismillah) ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã Surprisingly, Fadhlullah doesn't know that this Du`a' ul-Iftitaah exists in al-Tahdheeb... Ó: åá ÏÚÇÁ ÇáÇÝÊÊÇÍ ÕÍíÍ ÇáÓäÏ Ãã áÇ¿ Ì: äÞáå ÌÚÝÑ Èä ãÍãøóÏ ÇáÚãÑí¡ æáã íÑæå Úä ÃÍÏ ÇáÃÆãøÉ (Ú)¡ ßãÇ íÐßÑ ÇáÓíÏ ÇÈä ØÇææÓ Ýí (ÇáÅÞÈÇá). Question: Is Du`a' ul-Iftitaah Sahih (authentic) in its chain or not? Answer: Ja`far b. Muhammad al-`Umari transmitted it, and he does not narrate it from one of the A'imma (Ú), as what is mentioned by al-Syed Ibn Tawus in al-Iqbaal. http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/books/nadwas/fikr378Q2.htm Not only is the name wrong, but they ignored Tahdheeb ul-Ahkaam. I asked their office if its Sahih in any of our books, and they pretty much said no, only mentioned the Mursal chain from al-Iqbaal: Ó) åá ÏÚÇÁ ÇáÇÝÊÊÇÍ ÕÍíÍ ÇáÓäÏ Ãã áÇ¿ åá åæ ÕÍíÍ Ýí Ãí ãä ßÊÈäÇ¿ ÈÅÓãå ÊÚÇáì: Ì) ÐßÑå ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÕÑÉ ÈÅÓäÇÏå ÝÞÇá: ÍÏËäí ÃÈæ ÇáÛäÇÆã ãÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáÍÓäí ÞÇá: ÃÎÈÑäÇ Ãæ ÚãÑ æãÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä äÕÑ ÇáÓßæäí (ÑÖ) ÞÇá: ÓÃáÊ ÃÈÇ ÈßÑ ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚËãÇä (áã íÐßÑæå) ÇáÈÛÏÇÏí (ÑÍãå Çááå) Ãä íÎÑÌ Åáì ÃÏÚíÉ ÔåÑ ÑãÖÇä ÇáÊí ßÇä Úãå ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ ãÍãÏ Èä ÚËãÇä Èä ÇáÓÚíÏ ÇáÚãÑí (ÑÖ) æÃÑÖÇå íÏÚæ ÈåÇ ÝÃÎÑÌ Åáí äÚÊÑÇð ãÌáÏÇð ÈÃÍãÑ ÝäÓÎÊ ãäå ÃÏÚíÉ ßËíÑÉ æßÇä ãä ÌãáÊåÇ... ÝÇáÓäÏ ÛíÑ ÊÇã. æáßä ÇáÏÚÇÁ ãä ÇáÃÏÚíÉ ÇáãÚÊÈÑÉ ãÖãæäÇð æíÌæÒ ÇáÏÚÇÁ Èå æáæ áã íßä ÓäÏå ÞæíÇð¡ æáßä ÇáãÝÇåíã ÇáæÇÑÏÉ Ýíå ÕÍíÍÉ æÊÊäÇÓÈ ãÚ ãÇ æÑÏ Úä ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ) ÇáÃÆãÉ (Ú). Question: Is Du`a' ul-Iftitaah Sahih (authentic) in its chain or not? Is it Sahih in any of our books? Answer: [Mentioning the chain from Iqbaal ul-A`maal] ... Thus, the chain is Ghayr Taam (not complete). [answer continues...] I'm shocked they don't know Tahdheeb ul-Ahkaam has this Du`a' with an authentic chain... lol.
  3. (bismillah) السلام عليكم What you try and push is sad. These are not Shi`a like the Imaamiyya are Shi`a. Whoever believes in the above, how can they be Imaami? How can any Shi`i of Ahlul'bayt (عليهم السلام) say al-Imam `Ali (عليه السلام) considered their rule right and accepted their leadership? La Hawla wa la Quwatta illa Billah. We have narrations that show that the recognition of Abu Bakr and `Umar is of Shaytaan. محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن الحسن بن محبوب، عن هشام بن سالم، عن زرارة قال: قلت لابي جعفر عليه السلام: أخبرني عن معرفة الامام منكم واجبة على جميع الخلق؟ فقال: إن الله عزوجل بعث محمدا صلى الله عليه وآله إلى الناس أجمعين رسولا و حجة لله على جميع خلقه في أرضه، فمن آمن بالله وبمحمد رسول الله واتبعه وصدقه فإن معرفة الامام منا واجبة عليه ومن لم يؤمن بالله وبرسوله ولم يتبعه ولم يصدقه ويعرف حقهما فكيف يجب عليه معرفة الامام وهو لا يؤمن بالله ورسوله ويعرف حقهما؟ ! قال: قلت: فما تقول فيمن يؤمن بالله ورسوله ويصدق رسوله في جميع ما أنزل الله، يجب على اولئك حق معرفتكم؟ قال: نعم أليس هؤلاء يعرفون فلانا وفلانا قلت: بلى، قال: أترى أن الله هو الذي أوقع في قلوبهم معرفة هؤلاء؟ والله ما أوقع ذلك في قلوبهم إلا الشيطان، لا والله ما ألهم المؤمنين حقنا إلا اله عزوجل. Muhammad b. Yahya, from Ahmad b. Muhammad, from al-Hasan b. Mahbub, from Hishaam b. Saalim, from Zuraara, who said: “I said to Abu Ja`far (عليه السلام): “Inform me about whether the recognition of the Imam from you is obligatory upon all of the creation?” He said: “Verily, Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, sent Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله) to all the people as a Messenger and Hujjat (proof) of Allah upon all of His creation in His world. Then who believes in Allah and in Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, and obeys him and accepts him, then the recognition of the Imam from us is obligatory upon him. And who does not believe in Allah and his Messenger and does not obey him and does not accept him, and does not recognize their (Allah and the Messenger) right, then how is recognition of the Imam obligatory upon him while he does not believe in Allah and the Messenger and does not recognize their right?”” Zuraara said: “I said: “Then what do you say about whom believes in Allah and His Messenger and accepts His Messenger in all what Allah revealed - is the right of your recognition obligation upon these [people]?” He said: “Yes. Do these not recognize Fulaan and Fulaan (Abu Bakr and `Umar)?” I said: “Yes [they do].” He said: “Do you see that Allah is whom established in their hearts the recognition of these? I swear by Allah, none established that in their hearts except Shaytaan. I swear by Allah, none inspired the Mu’mineen (believers) with our right except Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.”” (Al-Kafi 1/180-181, Chapter on the Recognition of the Imam and the Reply to Him, Hadith 3) Al-`Allamat ul-Majlisi (قدس سره) said: Sahih. (Miraat ul-`Uqool 2/302)
  4. (bismillah) (salam) This Du`a is Sahih (authentic). al-Shaykh has mentioned it in al-Tahdheeb 3/108, in part of a long narration whose chain is: محمد بن يعقوب عن علي بن ابراهيم عن ابيه عن ابن محبوب عن علي بن رئاب عن عبد صالح عليه السلام "Muhammad b. Ya`qub, from `Ali b. Ibrahim, from his father, from Ibn Mahbub, from `Ali b. Ri'aab, from `Abd Salaah (عليه السلام)..." al-Shaykh narrates it from the book of Muhammad b. Ya`qub, and his Tareeq to the books of Muhammad b. Ya`qub is mentioned in his Fihrist 211: أخبرنا بجميع كتبه ورواياته الشيخ المفيد أبو عبد الله محمد بن محمد ابن النعمان ، عن أبي القاسم جعفر بن محمد بن قولويه ، عنه "al-Shaykh al-Mufeed Abu `Abdillah Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Nu`man transmitted all of his books and narrations, from Abu'l-Qasim Ja`far b. Muhammad b. Qawlawayh, from him [Muhammad b. Ya`qub]. And the Tareeq of al-Shaykh to all the books and narrations of Muhammad b. Ya`qub is Sahih. From then, the chain is as follows: 1. Muhammad b. Ya`qub is al-Kulayni He really need no mention here, but for those who do not know... Al-Najashi says in his Rijal 377: محمد بن يعقوب بن إسحاق أبو جعفر الكليني - وكان خاله علان الكليني الرازي - شيخ أصحابنا في وقته بالري ووجههم، وكان أوثق الناس في الحديث، وأثبتهم. "Muhammad b. Ya`qub b. Is'haaq Abu Ja`far al-Kulayni - and he was the uncle of `Alaan al-Kulayni al-Raazi - [Muhammad b. Ya`qub] was the Shaykh of our companions in his time, at Ray, and their notable. He was the most trustworthy of the people in Hadith, and the most firm of them." 2. `Ali b. Ibrahim Al-Najashi says in his Rijal 260: علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم أبو الحسن القمي، ثقة في الحديث، ثبت، معتمد، صحيح المذهب، سمع فأكثر "`Ali b. Ibrahim b. Hashim Abu'l-Hasan al-Qummi. Trustworthy in Hadith, firm. Dependable. Correct in his Madhab. Heard many things." 3. The father of `Ali b. Ibrahim, who is Ibrahim b. Hashim al-Qummi Al-Khoe'i says in al-Mu`jam : أقول : لا ينبغي الشك في وثاقة إبراهيم بن هاشم "I say: There should be no doubt in the trustworthiness of Ibrahim b. Hashim..." 4. al-Hasan b. Mahbub al-Shaykh mentions him twice in his Rijal 334 and 354, saying he is trustworthy. 5. `Ali b. al-Ra'aab al-Shaykh says in his Fihrist 151: علي بن رئاب الكوفي : له أصل كبير ، وهو ثقة جليل القدر "`Ali b. Ri'aab al-Kufi : Has a large Asl, and he is trustworthy, dignified in his esteem." So, this narration is Sahih. Al-Majlisi graded this narration Hasan in al-Milaadh 5/116, but it really should be Sahih because there is no doubt upon the veracity of Ibrahim b. Hashim, as al-Khoe'i mentioned in Mu`jam, and because al-Syed ibn Tawus, in his book Fallaah ul-Saa'il 158,mentioned a chain from al-Shaykh ul-Saduq , and in the chain is Ibrahim b. Hashim, and he writes: ورواة الحديث ثقات بالاتفاق "And the narrators of the Hadith are trustworthy with consensus." وعليكم السلام - Mansab
  5. السلام عليكم I opened this thread mainly for brothers like brother Macisaac and others who have an interest in this subject and have insight and knowledge. Anyway, there is a discussion on the Fast of `Ashura in the book al-Mustanad fi Sharh il-`Urwat il-Wuthqa written by the great master al-Syed ul-Khoe'i (قدس الله روحه), volume 12. The section is called Aqwaal fi Sawm Yawm `Ashura, and it's available here for those who want to read it: http://www.al-khoei.us/books/index.php?id=3258 Al-Khoe'i mentions this: Al-Khoe'i graded that narration as Muwaththaq, but I don't see how. If we look in al-Wasaa'il 10/457, where al-Khoe'i took this narration from and sourced it in his footnote, we see it was taken from al-Shaykh ul-Tusi (قدس سره) in al-Tahdheebayn. He narrates it from the Asl of `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fadhaal, and the Tareeq of al-Shaykh to this book is as follows in his Fihrist: أخبرنا بجميع كتبه قراءة عليه أكثرها والباقي اجازة ، أحمد بن عبدون ، عن علي بن محمد بن الزبير سماعا وإجازة عنه In red is the weakness I found in this chain, according to al-Khoe'i himself in Mu`jam Rijal il-Hadith. Per chance I was looking at the entry for `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fadhaal. and I drifted over to `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Muhammad al-Taa'aa. I saw that al-Khoe'i had said this about `Ali al-Taa'aa: وطريق الشيخ إليه ضعيف، بعلي بن محمد القرشى I checked up on this individual, and he is, according to al-Khoe'i, the same person as `Ali b. Muhammad b. al-Zubayr: 8513 - علي بن محمد القرشي : تقدم ذكره في ترجمة أبان بن تغلب ، وهو علي بن محمد بن الزبير القرشي . He then says about `Ali b. Muhammad b. al-Zubayr al-Qarashi: لم تثبت وثاقته Therefore, the weakness of the chain of al-Shaykh in his Fihrist to `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fadhaal should have been clear. Since al-Khoe'i himself said that the narrator through whom the book of `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fadhaal reached al-Shaykh is without Tawtheeq, it seems that this narration under discussion should have been graded Dha`eef rather than Muwaththaq. وعليكم السلام
  6. (salam) This man was a great master of Akhlaaq. The great Shiachat Sheikh albaqyr in his Rijal ul-Shiachat writes: Mahdaviat: Known as Bahr ul-Akhlaaq (ocean of akhlaaq). Trustworthy, trustworthy, distinguished from amongst our companions. His Akhlaaq was one to be emulated. baradur_jackson narrated to me: "o, wouldst thou not wish that he came back? wo to those who attacked him, for he was one of the oceans of akhlaaq." shiasoldier786 narrated to me: "his posts were firm and easy for the eyes and the heart. i have not seen a companion from amongst the shiachatters as insightful in the etiquette of dialogue as bahr ul-akhlaaq." - Mansab
  7. (salam) I quickly checked Rijal of al-Najashi (ra) and Naqd ul-Rijal of Tafrishi (ra) and Rijal of Sheikh Tusi (ra). Not sure about the first two, but I will check when I have some time to sit and read. I have to go right now. ا 1. ?? محمد بن علي بن أحمد بن هشام القمي، يكنى أبا جعفر، روى عن محمد ابن علي ما جيلويه، روى عنه إبن نوح رجال الشيخ , ص 446 2. ?? 3. محمد بن عمر بن عبد العزيز الكشي أبو عمرو، كان ثقة رجال النجاشي , ص 372 4. الحسن بن محمد بن سهل النوفلي ضعيف لكن له كتاب حسن كثير الفوائد جمعه رجال النجاشي , ص 37 Can I also see the source of the Hadith you are quoting this Isnaad from, please? - Mansab
  8. Brother, the IR is not even fair to its own people (the `Ulema), so how can you expect fair treatment for Sunnis? :cry: - Mansab
  9. Hmm, he seems familiar. But I don't think I've ever been on yanabi.com. Is this the same as the user Amilcar? If so, then yes I know him. But this view is not accepted by our scholars... I don't know how you can trust a majhool person on the internet about our madhab rather than the Mujtahideen... - Mansab
  10. ?? Who is Wasil ibn Ata? And no, actually Ziyaarat `Ashura is the greatest proof of this. It is accepted unanimously by the great Maraaja' as being fully authentic and one of the great treasures from Allah that we have. I have been asking all the offices, and the reply is the same everytime. I recently got this in my inbox today: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته الجواب: زيارة عاشوراء من حيث السند هو حديث قدسي نزل به جبرئيل الامين من عند الله تعالى على الرسول الكريم، واللعن فيه مطابق للقرآن الحكيم حيث لعن من آذى الله في رسوله أو آذى رسوله في اهل بيته بقول الله سبحانه: «ان الذين يؤذون الله ورسوله لعنهم الله في الدنيا والآخرة وأعد لهم عذاباً مهيناً» الاحزاب/57 فينبغي ارشاده الى ذلك وفي ارشاده بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة أجر كبير. ملاحظة: جميع الاجابات صادرة من قبل مكتب المرجع الديني سماحة آية الله العظمى السيد صادق الشيرازي دام ظله. مكتب الإمام الشيرازي ـ قم المقدسة In this Ziyaarat, you very well know what Allah says about Abu Bak'r, `Umar, and `Uthman, and the others like Mu`awiya. And no, the other Ahadith are not weak, because these people who weaken them are Dha'eef in Rijal themselves. How do they have the ability to authenticate and weaken Ahadith? Don't make me laugh. Here is a Hadith Sahih by even their standards: حدثنا محمد بن عيسى عن يونس عن عبدالصمد عن ابى جعفر عليه السلام قال سمعته يقول ان من ورآء هذه اربعين عين شمس ما بين شمس إلى شمس اربعون عاما فيها خلق كثير ما يعلمون ان الله خلق آدم اولم يخلقه وان من وراء قمركم هذا اربعين قمرا مابين قمر إلى قمر مسيرة اربعين يوما فيها خلق كثير مايعلمون ان الله خلق آدم اولم يخلقه قد الهموا كما الهمت النحل لعنة الاول والثانى في كل وقت من الاوقات وقد وكل بهم ملائكة متى مالم يلعنوها عذبوا - كتاب بصائر الدرجات للصفار 1/506 9. From Muhammad ibn 'Isa ibn 'Ubaid from Yunus from 'Abd us-Samad from Abu Ja'far (a.s.). He ('Abd us-Samad) said: "I heard Abu Ja'far (a.s.) saying that: 'Behind this sun are forty such suns, and what is between a sun to another sun is forty years. Over there are many creations who do not know whether or not Allah created Adam (a.s.). And behind this moon of yours are forty such moons, and what is between a moon to another moon is forty days. Over there are many creations who do not know whether or not Allah created Adam (a.s.). They have been inspired, just like the Bee has been inspired, to curse the first and the second, all the time. And with them are Angels, who torture them when they do not curse the two." Basaa'er ud-Darajaat of Saffaar (r.a.) 1/506 See here: http://www.u-of-islam.net/uofislam/maktaba/Hadith/Bsaer/a506.htm Then we have two narrations from al-Rawdat min al-Kafi from Imam Baqir (as) where he curses Abu Bak'r and `Umar. Though they are not Sahih al-Isnaad, they are reliable chains according to Al-Majlisi in Miraat ul-`Uqool and by what is mentioned by Al-Khoe'i in Mu`jam about the primary problematic narrator (Sadeer ibn Hakeem), and in these two reports Imam Baqir (as), after mentioning them with disgust and narrating their misdeeds, invokes the curse of Allah, the Angels, and all of mankind upon the two. Not to mention there is an absolute consensus mentioned by Sheikh Tusi (ra) that `Umar killed Fatima (as). So don't teach me what our madhab believes in. Anyway, back to the point - why the defense of `Umar by your Sunni brothers against the clear reality that he simply has a lack of Akhlaaq? Is this really a man that is considered a Khalifatullah by Ahlul'sunnah? You shouldn't insult your own intelligence by accepting this. - Mansab
  11. We have an entirely opposite view on this subject. How would you know that Ahlul'bayt (as) never cursed `Umar? We are the ones who narrated the Ahadith of Ahlul'bayt (as), not the Ahlus'sunnah. It's more probable that you have an incomplete picture of who Ahlul'bayt (as) were since your Ahadith are not from them. And what little you do have from them is not even taken seriously. Ibn Taymiyya in Minhaj ul-Sunna, volume 7, page 529 even claims: فليس في الأئمة الأربعة و لا غيرهم من أئمة الفقهاء من يرجع إليه في فقهه "None of the Four Imams (Abu Hanifa, Shafi`i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Malik ibn Anas) and none of the other Imams of Fiqh referred to him (`Ali (as)) in matters of Fiqh." So I don't find it very convincing that your sources would really indicate much from Ahlul'bayt (as), especially since even your most revered collections of Hadith contain little from them - in fact, barely enough to even really know what they stood for by their own testimony. Instead, you should refer to our books for Ahadith from Ahlul'bayt (as). And then you will realize that the picture is painted quite different from our sources. - Mansab
  12. lol @ this thread. Lord Botta, I am surprised that you even would bring all of that as evidence for a different view, as it really has nothing to do with anything. What we are clear about is `Umar's flamboyant disrespect towards the Messenger's (as) daughter. Just like he used to beat up his sister. I feel as if `Umar has a history of violence against women, unfortunately. He has no Akhlaaq, no dignity, and his rage should have been kept in check. I'm sorry if I'm being too straightforward about this. But this is the reality. So far, all we have seen is some people trying to justify `Umar's violent nature through twisting words of Rasoolullah (as) about penal law. Please do not compare Rasoolullah (as) to `Umar, that's just sad. We are taught in our madhab to hate those who harmed Ahlul'bayt (as). It is Wajib for us to hate them. - Mansab
  13. (salam) Whoever denies this incident is just a kid, no offense. حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بِشْرٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ ، حَدَّثَنَا زَيْدُ بْنُ أَسْلَمَ ، عْن أَبِيهِ أَسْلَمَ ؛ أَنَّهُ حِينَ بُويِعَ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ، كَانَ عَلِيٌّ وَالزُّبَيْرُ يَدْخُلاَنِ عَلَى فَاطِمَةَ بِنْتِ رَسُولِ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فَيُشَاوِرُونَهَا وَيَرْتَجِعُونَ فِي أَمْرِهِمْ ، فَلَمَّا بَلَغَ ذَلِكَ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ خَرَجَ حَتَّى دَخَلَ عَلَى فَاطِمَةَ ، فَقَالَ : يَا بِنْتَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وَاللهِ مَا مِنْ الْخَلْقِ أَحَدٌ أَحَبَّ إِلَيْنَا مِنْ أَبِيك ، وَمَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ أَحَبَّ إِلَيْنَا بَعْدَ أَبِيك مِنْك ، وَأَيْمُ اللهِ ، مَا ذَاكَ بِمَانِعِيَّ إِنَ اجْتَمَعَ هَؤُلاَءِ النَّفَرُ عِنْدَكِ ، أَنْ آمُرَ بِهِمْ أَنْ يُحَرَّقَ عَلَيْهِمَ الْبَيْتُ. قَالَ : فَلَمَّا خَرَجَ عُمَرُ جَاؤُوهَا ، فَقَالَتْ : تَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ عُمَرَ قَدْ جَاءَنِي ، وَقَدْ حَلَفَ بِاللهِ لَئِنْ عُدْتُمْ لَيُحَرِّقَنَّ عَلَيْكُمَ الْبَيْتَ ، وَأَيْمُ اللهِ ، لَيَمْضِيَنَّ لِمَا حَلَفَ عَلَيْهِ ، فَانْصَرِفُوا رَاشِدِينَ ، فَرُوْا رَأْيَكُمْ ، وَلاَ تَرْجِعُوا إِلَيَّ ، فَانْصَرَفُوا عنها ، فَلَمْ يَرْجِعُوا إِلَيْهَا ، حَتَّى بَايَعُوا لأَبِي بَكْرٍ This is from the Musannaf if ibn Abi Shayba. The reference I have in my version (which I downloaded from almeshkat.net) is: 14/567, hadith 38200. It is reliable. What you can conclude from this is that 'Umar is out of his mind, threatening to harm the greatest of women, the daughter of the Rasoolullah (as). And yet, it is still claimed that everyone was just and 'aadil and righteous in their conduct. I beg to differ. 'Umar clearly suffered from psychotic problems. I just don't think he was normal in the head. And if he was normal, then he had serious issues with Akhlaaq and how to act like a human being. Not to mention that this event shows that there was absolutely no Ijma' for the Khilafate of Abu Bak'r which is so often claimed by Sunnis. I sometimes become very angry when I read this, and I cannot handle translating it because I will be enraged for the rest of the evening. Someone else can do it. - Mansab
  14. (salam) It is a flawed argument, looking at it logically. Which is why Mulla Sadra (ra) and other great philosophers criticized it. The argument of Mulla Sadra (ra) for the existence of God is superior and essentially free of weakness. http://www.mullasadra.org/new_site/english/Paper%20Bank/Ontology/Hamid%20Reza%20Ayatullahi.htm - Mansab
×
×
  • Create New...