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

rotten_coconut

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    895
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Ali Hayder in Pseudo-akhbari Accusations Against the Maraaji'   
    No that is not what I said.
    You are generalising and this is what I am against. Some Usooli Shias insulted marjas and some Akhbaris insulted them too. That doesn't mean all of them are bad.
    You were earlier saying that we can't follow the opinion of early scholars and we have to follow the living scholars but you didn't provide evidence for this (as there isn't any). I could construct this as an insult on the early scholars and say that Usoolis are insulting the early scholars.
    Now do you see the problem with your logic?
  2. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Abbas. in Pseudo-akhbari Accusations Against the Maraaji'   
    Bro but guidance/misguidance is relative to ones perception. No doubt laymen like you and I (SC members) challenging views of scholars such as Qibla Sistani sound silly and have a lot of explanation to do. But one does and should have a right to question, oppose or criticise even a scholarly opinion. I understand and agree with your concern too i-e the negative pseudo-Akhbari and hyper anti-usooli views........but i think that the best way to fight them is by sharing our knowledge and point of view in a respectful manner. Pretty much following the legacy of (majority of) our marjas/mujtahids......
    Bro I'll be honest. Some examples of poor mannerism have also been set in this forum by those of us who adore and follow our marjas.....
  3. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from UIE in Pseudo-akhbari Accusations Against the Maraaji'   
    Salam,
    I think some of Usulli are over reacting with the accusations that Akhbaris refuse to pay khums because they don't want to give their money or they want to weaken the financial's position of Marja'. Probably, there are some Akhbaris who think that way, but as we're commanded to avoid bad prejudice especially to fellow Shi`i, I can see if some Akhbaris refuse the obligation of khums in the time of ghaybah because for them it's not an obligation. The most common arguments used by Akhbaris for the non-obligation of khums during ghaybah:
    1. Tauqi`at of Imam `Asr
    2. The diverse opinion of early Shi`i `ulama regarding this, implying there was no unanimous command from the Aimmah (as) on what to do regarding khums in the time of ghaybah
    3. The (present) concept of marja`iyyah which according to Akhbari was not present in the time of early Shi`i `ulama.
    Reading the materials on this issue, I also have unresolved issues with the obligation of khums during ghaybah, but nevertheless I think it's better to pay this as ihtiyat even if you are not convinced of its obligation. Furthermore, khums can help Shi`i `ulama to be able to have independence from any outside interference, different from Sunni `ulama which usually depend on the mercy of their government (example: Egypt).
    One point which I'd like to point out is be careful with our accusation & keep the discussion on the rational level. We don't want our accusations (especially if it turns out to be false) to be something that burden us in the hereafter, right?
  4. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Ali Hayder in Question To Akhbaris   
    After reading other posts on this issue such as:


    I'd like to revise the above statement.
    Looks like the principle of Usulli is Asl al-Bara`a (Principle of Freedom) while the principle of Akhbari is Asl al-Ihtiyat (Principle of Precaution).
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, so when an Akhbari finds an issue where the text is silent (e.g. liver transplant from non-Muslim, artificial insemination where the sperm comes from non-husband), he'll say "I don't know" & refuse to issue a ruling on that & probably would stay away from this.
    Need further information from the Akhbari brothers/sisters on this.
  5. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Haydar Husayn in Pseudo-akhbari Accusations Against the Maraaji'   
    Salam,
    I think some of Usulli are over reacting with the accusations that Akhbaris refuse to pay khums because they don't want to give their money or they want to weaken the financial's position of Marja'. Probably, there are some Akhbaris who think that way, but as we're commanded to avoid bad prejudice especially to fellow Shi`i, I can see if some Akhbaris refuse the obligation of khums in the time of ghaybah because for them it's not an obligation. The most common arguments used by Akhbaris for the non-obligation of khums during ghaybah:
    1. Tauqi`at of Imam `Asr
    2. The diverse opinion of early Shi`i `ulama regarding this, implying there was no unanimous command from the Aimmah (as) on what to do regarding khums in the time of ghaybah
    3. The (present) concept of marja`iyyah which according to Akhbari was not present in the time of early Shi`i `ulama.
    Reading the materials on this issue, I also have unresolved issues with the obligation of khums during ghaybah, but nevertheless I think it's better to pay this as ihtiyat even if you are not convinced of its obligation. Furthermore, khums can help Shi`i `ulama to be able to have independence from any outside interference, different from Sunni `ulama which usually depend on the mercy of their government (example: Egypt).
    One point which I'd like to point out is be careful with our accusation & keep the discussion on the rational level. We don't want our accusations (especially if it turns out to be false) to be something that burden us in the hereafter, right?
  6. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Abbas in Questions For Macisaac And Nader Zaver   
    Salam Alaikum
    Below are some arguments against the theory of the shared night and response to the Mujtahideen who have adopted it. My best respects are for the late Sayyid Al-Khoei and his students who have followed him in his view, but these are just counter-arguments made by other Mujtahids.
    Sayyid Al-Khoei: The matter of the Hilal is in respect of the relationship between the sun and moon, not the moon and the earth, so the differences in the visibility of the moon from the different parts of the earth have nothing to do with the issue.
    (1) The matter is about the relationship between three things: the moon, the sun, and the earth, because the narrations all emphasise the sighting of the Hilal, and this differs from place to place, therefore this variable is also part of the equation.
    (2) If the Hilal is sighted in Makkah at the start of the night, and the visibility curve on those visibility charts (like on moonsighting.com) peaks at Makkah, i.e. it cannot be seen to its east, making it the first of Shawwal, for example, then for a city to its East, like Tokyo, is 6 hours behind, so for six hours during Tokyo’s night it is the last night of Ramadhan and so the Aamaal of Ramadhan are recited, and once the moon is seen in Makkah and it is announced, the date in Tokyo will change all of a sudden, and one can imagine that is will create great confusion and many questions, for example, does the beginning of the night in Tokyo belong in the month of Ramadhan, and the night after the Hilal sighting in Makkah belong to the month of Shawwal?
    To add to this, if the second city (the city to the east of Makkah) is so far away that when the moon is seen in Makkah in the beginning of the night, and in this second city the night is just ending, albeit the night is shared, the situation is much more confusing.
    Sayyid Al-Khoei: the riwayat being non-qualified and unconditional (mutlaq) in respect to where the sightings take place and where they should be applied.
    (3) These narrations imply that the two cities would be close and not too far, and this implication is from the context of those days in which travelling far distances was rare, and obtaining news about the start of months from such travelers was even rarer.
    The degree that one can be certain about, and that all agree upon, is that these riwayat are in respect of close cities, that one can travel between in no longer than, say, a month. This is what we’d call the Al-Qadr Al-Mutayaqqin. Anything beyond this is not agreed upon and one cannot be certain about it, so the Muqaddimat-ul-Hikmah are not present in this case, therefore Itlaq (making it mutlaq) is not a valid option here.
    (4) The context is further strengthened by this issue not being mentioned by all our earlier scholars, and when the fuqaha began expanding their studies of various issues, they did discuss it and nearly all of them said that these riwayat are about two close cities, because this is what made sense to them at the time, and the inclusion of all cities of the world was not making sense, as travel in those days was the same as the travel in the Imams’ [a] days.
    Thus we see Sheikh Tusi write: “Whenever one does not see the Hilal in his own balad and it is seen outside the balad as per what we have explained, one must act according to it, if the two cities are close together, in such a way that if in the city the skies were clear and the obstacles gone, he would see it in that balad also, due to being close in latitude and close by, like Baghdad, Awsat, Kufah, Tikrit, Musul. But when the bilad are far away, like Baghdad and Khorasan, and Baghdad and Egypt, then each balad has its own hukm.” (Al-Mabsoot 1:268)
    Such statements from early scholars represents the norm of those days, and such norms should be understood to be the contexts of these riwayat.
    Lailatul-Qadr is One for everybody
    (5) On the theory of the sharing of the night, as is quite obvious, sometimes the month will not begin on the same date for everybody, as not the whole world will share the night, so there will eventually be 2 Nights of Qadr. This is besides the fact that if there are witnesses in one city which some people see as Adil, and other do not, the first of the month is established for the former and not the latter, so the same scenario is here too.
    Dua-e-Qunoot: Allah made this day Eid for all Muslims
    (6) “This day” means the first of Shawwal, whenever it is decided to be by the person reciting this dua. And obviously, under any type of Fatwa of any Marja, as explained above, the day of Eid can easily differ.
    It could also refer to the subjective Eid day for each person.
    Allama Hilli of the 7th/8th century AH had mentioned in his book Al-Muntaha that all cities have the same hukm if the Hilal is established in one of them, and he is one of the earlier scholars
    (7) Allama Hilli in this book did indeed write something like this, but towards the end of the relevant chapter (vol.9 page 255) he quotes an objection to this view: that due to the curve of the earth, the Hilal can be seen in one place and not be seen in another place. He answers this as follows: If it is known that the Hilal will rise in some parts of the world and not in other parts of the world which are far from former, due to the spheric shape of the earth, the hukm will not be the same. But without this knowledge, the same hukm is the truth.”
    From this we can conclude two things:
    The reason he included far and near cities to begin with was the assumption that if the crescent is seen in one city, it can be seen in another city, even if it is far. He refers earlier to Sheikh Tusi’s words, which implies that he wishes to include the examples of far cities that he gave (i.e. Baghdad and Khorasan, Baghdad and Egypt) within the same hukm as near cities. This assumption is clearly false, as we know nowadays.
    He excluded the situation where one knows that seeing the moon in one city will not necessitate seeing the moon in another far away city.

    I suggest one reads the whole chapter, and especially the last paragraph in the original Arabic to see more clearly what Allama Hilli means.
    In other words, Allama Hilli’s words cannot be used to support the theory of Ittihad-ul-Layl.
    (8) The scholars since the time of ghaybat-us-sughra wouldn't have known that the moon is sighted in Lima or Rio De Janiero, which share the night with the Middle-East. In fact, can we even say that the Imams [a] acted according to moon's presence and visibility over the South American continent? This poses the question: have we got our Eids, Nights of Qadr, 15th Shaban, Ashura etc wrong all these centuries?
    ========================================
    Hope these eight responses balances the equation and sheds light on the very difficult task in front of Mujtahids to decide on something not found explicitly in narrations. Although I am no Mujtahid, in fact no way near, I have no right do the Mujtahids job, as they have a better understanding of Quran and Ahadeeth and Fiqh and Usool. But I personally feel more comfortable with the theory of Ittihad-ul-Ufuq.
  7. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to guest 34193 in Qur'an Readings & Their Chains Of Transmission   
    Just wanted to share something I came across just now. Was reading from it without knowing who the author is, and was pretty pretty impressed as this seemed like about the most in depth research on the issue of the multiple qira'at from a Shi`i fiqhi angle I've yet to come across. Turns out the author is Shaykh Muhsin Aal `Asfoor, who is a well known contemporary Akhbari scholar in Bahrain:
    http://basrahcity.net/pather/book/elom-alqoran/ethaaf/ethaaf.html
  8. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Qa'im in Dome Of The Rock And The Shia   
    Our position on the Dome of the Rock is a bit unclear. Our Imams (as) were asked about Bayt al-Maqdis in Jerusalem, which is not the same building as the Dome of the Rock. Bayt al-Maqdis ("the Holy House", Beit ha-Mikdash in Hebrew) is seen by the Sunnis and many lay Shi`as as "Masjid al-Aqsa" ("the Furthest Mosque") mentioned in the Qur'an. However, when asked about this, the Imams (as) said that al-Aqsa was actually a Masjid in the heavens (hence, the furthest), and that the Masjid of Kufa was superior to the Masjid in Jerusalem.
    With this new interpretation, is would mean that the verse in the Qur'an which says Muhammed (pbuh) was taken from the Ka`ba to al-Aqsa would mean he ascended to the heavens (mi`raj) from Mecca and not Jerusalem.
    If I recall correctly, some scholars did adopt the event of Isra from Sunni literature (the Prophet's trip to Jerusalem and other places), but I don't know if the story is reliably narrated in any of our own traditions. As for the status of Jerusalem, although it obviously had historical importance to previous prophets and served as Muhammad's (pbuh) first qibla, I think its significance ends there. I believe the Ummayyads had an interest in making Jerusalem more of a holy city and making its two mosques holy locations. Same with Damascus. The Umayyad's ruled from Shaam, which encompassed Jerusalem, and for a long time they did not control Mecca or Medina; and thus, I think they needed to hold onto a branch of spiritual legitimacy. Moreover, the story Isra provided legitimacy to Abu Bakr, as it is allegedly the event in which he gained his epithet "as-Siddiq" ("the believing friend"), which we deny and even al-Albani declared as weak.
    As for the Dome of the Rock historically, it is likely to be the ancient spot in which the Temple of Solomon lay. After it was destroyed in 70 CE, it was turned into a garbage dump by the Romans. After the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, Sunni tradition records `Umar ibn al-Khattab travelling to Jerusalem with Ka`b. Ka`b points to the spot that the Temple used to lay, and `Umar began clearing the dirt with his hands. The Umayyads later built Bayt al-Maqdis and the Dome of the Rock, saying that the Prophet (pbuh) prayed with all prophets at al-Maqdis and then ascended to heaven at the Dome of the Rock (the two are not far from each other). The existence of a dump however casts doubt on the story, because the Prophet would've prayed in a building that did not exist, and ascended to heaven from the dump. So I believe the story is revionary. And Allah knows best.
  9. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Fatima Waliyatullah in Shia Quran Reciters   
    It's nice to have Shi`i qari & we ought to have more, but since the qira`ah & rules of tajwid are the same between Sunni & Shi`i, I think there will be no difference between listening to Shi`i or Sunni qari.
    In fact, I learn qira`ah of Hamzah from Sunni qari audios.
  10. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Al-Hassan in 28 Issues With Quran   
    I see that your problems are more related to tafsir. Have you tried to read tafsir by our scholars?
    Your questions are not something that can be answered shortly in a Q&A section of a marja'. If you're really serious in finding the answers to this & remove the doubts in your mind, then I suggest to find a knowledgeable scholar in tafsir in your area who you can address these questions too. If you don't find one, depends on how serious you are, you can even try to fly to another place.
    Just as Mutahhari said, doubt is good because it can deliver you to a higher degree of yaqin, as long as you have the perseverence & keep learning to know the truth.
  11. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Danyal Zia in 28 Issues With Quran   
    I see that your problems are more related to tafsir. Have you tried to read tafsir by our scholars?
    Your questions are not something that can be answered shortly in a Q&A section of a marja'. If you're really serious in finding the answers to this & remove the doubts in your mind, then I suggest to find a knowledgeable scholar in tafsir in your area who you can address these questions too. If you don't find one, depends on how serious you are, you can even try to fly to another place.
    Just as Mutahhari said, doubt is good because it can deliver you to a higher degree of yaqin, as long as you have the perseverence & keep learning to know the truth.
  12. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Barabika in Forum Updated   
    Hope you can provide choices in skin, especially darker ones which are more friendly to the eyes when reading in the night
  13. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Qa'im in What Skin Color Were The Ahlul Bayt?   
    (salam)
    First it must be made clear that race and colour does not have a place in Islam. That being said, there have been prophets, righteous people, and martyrs of all races for the whole world.
    It should also be known that the scale of "whitest" to "blackest" in that day of age was much smaller than we have today. Today, through immigration, transportation, and communication, we see people from all over the world. Super light and super dark. In 7th century Arabia, which was a mixed and multicultural society, still probably did not have as wide of a range as we do today. The "whitest" people were probably tradesmen coming in from Shaam and Asia Minor; people that we consider to be olive or "Arab white" today. So keep in mind that light skin and dark skin as epithets are somewhat relative.
    The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was described to have a white and reddish complexion ("Arab white"?).
    Imam `Ali (as) was said to be dark skinned with a very white beard.
    Hasan (as) was said to look more like Muhammad (pbuh) than `Ali (as).
    Husayn (as) Zayn al-`Abideen, Muhammad al-Baqir, and Ja`far as-Sadiq I am not sure.
    Musa al-Kadhim had an African mother, and was probably dark or mixed looking.
    `Ali ar-Ridha also had an African mother, and was dark skinned (perhaps at this point, Ahl al-Bayt (as) was predominantly African looking).
    Muhammad al-Jawad I don't know.
    `Ali al-Hadi was dark skinned.
    Hasan al-`Askari I don't know.
    Imam al-Qa'im had an African mother.
    So in my expectation, the second half of the A'immah (as) were probably African looking, despite what some people may depict in art. This is not to mean they were better or worse than those before them; colour is irrelevant.
  14. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Abu Nur in Forum Updated   
    Hope you can provide choices in skin, especially darker ones which are more friendly to the eyes when reading in the night
  15. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Muhammed Ali in Forum Updated   
    Skin might need changing.
×
×
  • Create New...