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 Member
  • Content Count

    3,100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mansab.jafri

  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 att
  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
  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 عز
  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
  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 a
  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
  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 fro
  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 سبحان
  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
  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 `Uma
  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
  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
  15. ?? This has absolutely nothing to do with Shi'a Rijal......... Anyway, I'm busy at school but I want to say: I don't agree that this report should be thrown out due to the laxity of Tawtheeq for Rabee'a. There isn't any Jarh for Rabee'a, and apparently the criteria for rejecting the Tawtheeq of Ibn Hibban and al-'Ajli is that it must go against the Jarh of other more trusted scholars of Rijal. This is what I read from your quote: فالعجلي معروفٌ بالتساهل في التوثيق كابن حبان تماماً. فتوثيقه مردودٌ إذا خالف أقوال الأئمة الموثوق بنقدهم وجرحهم So it would have to be Jarh that would cause a con
  16. (salam) It's sometimes not possible to find unanimity amongst Sunni scholars of Hadith regarding Tawtheeq. In any case, all of these narrators are reliable according to Ibn Hajar il-'Asqalaani in al-Taqreeb. Ibn Hajar in Taqreeb ul-Tahdheeb says about Rabee'a ibn Naajid: ÑÈíÚÉ Èä äÇÌÏ ÇáÃÒÏí ÇáßæÝí íÞÇá åæ ÃÎæ ÃÈí ÕÇÏÞ ÇáÑÇæí Úäå ËÞÉ ãä ÇáËÇäíÉ ÊÞÑíÈ ÇáÊåÐíÈ Ì 1 Õ 298 - Mansab
  17. (salam) I don't see how anyone can deny this fact... Here is an authentic narration from al-Khasaa'is ul-`Alawiyya of al-Nasaa'i: 66 - ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÇáÝÖá Èä Óåá ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÚÝÇä Èä ãÓáã ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÚæÇäÉ Úä ÚËãÇä Èä ÇáãÛíÑÉ Úä ÃÈí ÕÇÏÞ Úä ÑÈíÚÉ Èä äÇÌÏ Ãä ÑÌáÇ ÞÇá áÚáí íÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä áã æÑËÊ ÇÈä Úãß Ïæä Úãß ÞÇá ÌãÚ ÑÓæá Çááå Ãæ ÞÇá ÏÚÇ ÑÓæá Çááå Èäí ÚÈÏ ÇáãØáÈ ÝÕäÚ áåã ãÏÇ ãä ØÚÇã ÞÇá ÝÃßáæÇ ÍÊì ÔÈÚæÇ æÈÞí ÇáØÚÇã ßãÇ åæ ßÃäå áã íãÓ Ëã ÏÚÇ ÈÛãÑ ÝÔÑÈæÇ ÍÊì ÑææÇ æÈÞí ÇáÔÑÇÈ ßÃäå áã íãÓ Ãæ áã íÔÑÈ ÝÞÇá íÇ Èäí ÚÈÏ ÇáãØáÈ Åäí ÈÚËÊ Åáíßã ÈÎÇÕÉ æÇáì ÇáäÇÓ ÈÚÇãÉ æÞÏ ÑÃíÊã ãä åÐå ÇáÂíÉ ãÇ ÞÏ ÑÃíÊã ÝÃíßã íÈÇ
  18. (salam) Perhaps my words are sharp, but this has been going on long enough. If people don't speak up, I will. The point is very simple to understand. People need to refer to the Maraaja' before speaking on behalf of our Madhab and making wild statements like "not all of Ziyaarat `Ashura is authentic" as if they know more than them. If you were here for past discussions, you would know what's going on. We have had a person accuse pretty much all of our `Ulema of extremism in beliefs and using double-standards, and he seems to imply always that the only one in our Madhab who is not a Ghali i
  19. (salam) Wallah, this is very sad. You and Jondab are not scholars of Hadith or Rijal. Neither of you know what this is about except for a superficial understanding. You do not understand these rules that you try to cite. Our scholars have authenticated this Ziyaarat. Their opinions level your accusations to the ground. Your opinions mean nothing, really. al-Syed ibn Tawus (ra) did not say that there was interpolation in the Ziyaarat. You ask me for proof regarding the unanimity of acceptance of Ziyaarat 'Ashura. This is widely understood. Go and look at the Fatawa of the 'Ulema. I'm s
  20. No need. We don't need another discussion on this from lay people. - Mansab
  21. Salaam, brother. Mashallah, yes. Also, we have the Fatawa of Syed Sistani (ra), Sheikh Fadhil Lankarani (ra), al-Syed Muhammad Sadiq al-Ruhani (ra), and others about this. It's only the pseudo-scholars who challenge this. - Mansab
  22. (salam) Actually, according to al-Maraaja' ul-'Adhaam, all of Ziyaarat 'Ashura is Hadith Qudsi. It is a great Ziyaarat, and its rewards are unimaginable. There is unanimity in this regard. The main person who disagrees is Fadhlullah, and his ijtihad is problematic. So it is a fact that there is unanimity in this regard that Ziyaarat 'Ashura is authentic beyond a shadow of a doubt, and it is virtuous to recite it. I find it frightening when people pass their own religious edicts on matters about which they don't know anything about, really. They should remember this Hadith Sahih: محمد بن يحيى،
  23. (salam) The words Dha'eef and Sahih don't really have much meaning in areas such as these. Refer to our Tafaseer and books on 'Aqeeda where we have utilized Ahadith which are acceptable due to things like Qur'anic evidence. Dha'eef doesn't mean fabricated, it just means it is not able to prove its authenticity by its own self (through its chain). But if it is proven that this Hadith contains information regarding the future and that it does seem to come about, it would in a way strengthen its own validity. Note, however, that I'm not saying that this Hadith refers to Reza Shah I necessarily
×
×
  • Create New...