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 got a reaction from Skanderbeg in Hadith About Fasting 13, 14, And 15 Of Every Month   
    Bro Ali_Hussain:
    Thank you very much. Jazakallah khayr.
    My follow up question is something that's mentioned by bro Iskandarovich. Sayyid Sistani gives his fatwa that this fast is to be done in the *first* Thursday in 1-10, *first* Wednesday in 11-20, & *last* Thursday in 21-29/30, even a qada is recommended if one misses this.
    From the ahadith, I don't get the explanation of which Thursdays/Wednesday (except perhaps the last Thursday from the second hadith) or the recommended qada.
  2. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Ali_Hussain in 'oldest' Koran Fragments Found   
    * This doesn't really add anything to the thread, but Dr Bart Ehrman commented on it:
     
     
    The Significance of an Astounding New Discovery Those of you who follow the news have heard that a truly great manuscript discovery has been made public this week, coming out of the University of Birmingham, England.   The university has a very important collection of manuscripts, and for New Testament scholars it is famous for its Institute devoted to the study, analysis, and editing of Gospel manuscripts, an institute headed by my long-time friend and colleague David Parker, indisputably one of the top NT textual scholars in the world.
     
    But the discovery that has been made is not connected to the New Testament.  It is connected to the Qur’an.  Since 1932 the university has had, among its collected works, a virtually full two page fragment of the Qur’an.   Recently they decided to see if they could come up with a (relatively) precise date for these pages.   And so they had a carbon-14 dating done.   The results are nothing less than astounding.  See, e.g., http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/quran-manuscript-analysis/index.html
     
    Let me say that carbon-14 dating is indeed a science, but it’s not a highly exact science.  It dates organic material based on the deterioration of its carbon-14 isotope, and so can give a range of dates that are statistically determined to be of relative accuracy.   Even so.  This dating is remarkable.   The dating was done by a lab devoted to such things in Oxford.    It turns out that there is a 95% chance that these pages were produced between 568 and 645 CE.  How good is that?  The prophet Mohammed, who (in traditional Islamic teaching) was responsible for producing the Qur’an was engaged in his active ministry in 610-632 CE.  These pages may have been produced during his lifetime or in a decade or so later.
     
    In case anyone is missing the significance of that, here is a comparison.   The first time we have any two-page manuscript fragment of the New Testament is from around the year 200 CE.  That’s 170 years after Jesus’ death in 30 CE.  Imagine if we found two pages of text that contain portions, say, of the Sermon on the Mount, in almost exactly the same form as we have them in what is now our Gospel of Matthew, and suppose that these pages received a carbon-14 dating of 30 BCE – 40 CE.   Would we be ecstatic, OR WHAT???
     
    Since I am a scholar of early Christianity rather than Islam, this discovery in Birmingham raises all sorts of questions for me that it would not raise for any of my Muslim friends and neighbors.  One is a historical question, and one is a question of modern Christian attempts to “prove” the “truth claims” of Christianity.
     
    My historical question is this.   If these pages of the Qur’an do indeed show that the text of the Qur’an is virtually the same in, say 630-40 CE as it is in 1630-40 as it is in 2015, that would suggest that Muslims are indeed correct that at least in some circles (it would obviously be impossible to prove that it was true in *all* circles), scribes of the Qur’an simply didn’t change it.   The made sure they copied it the same, every time, word for word.   Now it *may* be that these newly-dated fragments have significant textual variants from the rest of the manuscript tradition of the Qur’an, and if they do, that too will be immensely interesting.  But my sense is that they must not be much, if at all different, otherwise *that* is the story that would be all over the news.
     
    And so back to my question.  If Muslim scholars over the centuries – from the very beginning – made dead sure that when they copied their sacred text they didn’t change anything, why didn’t Christian scribes do the same thing???   Here I should stress that within Judaism as well, at least in the Middle Ages, there was exorbitant care taken to ensure that every page, every sentence, every word, every letter of the Torah was copied with complete and resolute accuracy (that’s not true for an earlier period of Judaism, to be sure; but it became true in Judaism in a way that never, ever was true in Christianity).  Christian scribes did not do the same thing.   We have many thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament.  They all have mistakes in them.   Lots of accidental mistakes (hundreds of thousands) from times that scribes were inept, inattentive, sleepy, or otherwise careless; and even lots of mistakes that appear to be places that scribes altered the text to make them say something other than what it originally said.
     
    You don’t appear to get that with the Qur’an.  And so my historical question.  Why was that?  For Christians the New Testament was a sacred book, the Word of God.  Why didn’t they *make sure* that it never got changed?  I can understand on one level why they didn’t.  The scribes who copied it, especially in the early period, were not professionals.  In the early centuries, the copyists were simply the local people who happened to be literate who could do a decent job.  And they made lots of mistakes and changed the text in places intentionally.  But why didn’t anyone go to the trouble of making sure that didn’t happen?  It’s a genuine question.
     
    My second point has to do with modern attempts to defend the truth of Christianity.  I hear a certain perspective expressed a LOT by Christian apologists who are determined to show that Christianity is true (and that, as a result, not just non-belief but all other religions are flat-out wrong).  If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this view I would buy a summer home in Provence.  It is this:  since the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world, we can trust it.
     
    There are so many problems with this view that it’s hard to know even where to begin in addressing it.   But let me just say two things about it.   The first is that even though it is absolutely true (as I’ve been emphasizing in my posts over the past week or two) that we have more manuscripts of the New Testament than for any other book from Greek and Roman antiquity – far, far more – these manuscripts all differ from one another and contains many thousands (hundreds of thousands) of differences among them, so that even though we can be relatively sure of what the authors wrote most of the time, there are numerous places of disagreement and some of these places really matter.  There are some passages where we will probably never know the exact wording.
     
    That may not be the case with the Qur’an.
     
    And that raises my second point, which is really THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ONE.  The fact that you do (or do not) know what a book originally said, has no bearing – no bearing at all, not a single bearing – on the question of whether you can trust it or not.  It is completely irrelevant to the question.  An absolute non sequitur.   I wish Christian apologists would learn this, instead of continuously filling people’s heads with nonsense.  Being the best-attested book from antiquity has no bearing on the question of whether the things that are said in the New Testament are true.  No bearing at all.
     
    I can prove that.   Take a Christian fundamentalist apologist and ask him whether Mein Kampf (Hitler’s autobiography) or The Communist Manifesto (a writing of a very different order indeed!) or … well, take your pick of a modern book – whether there are serious textual problems with such writings so that you do not know what the author wrote.   The answer is NO.   There is not a huge question about how well these books are attested.  They are extraordinarily well attested.  And here’s the point:  Does the fact these books are well attested prove that you can trust them?  That what they say is true?   Of course not.  It’s completely irrelevant.  Whether you can trust a writing and accept its views as true is unrelated to the question of how well it is attested.
     
    The New Testament is well attested.  Does that mean you can trust that what it says is true?  Of course not.  You have to make that judgment on *OTHER* grounds.
     
    And now we appear to have evidence – better evidence than, say, for the Gospel of Matthew, or  Paul’s letter to the Romans, or the epistle to the Hebrews – that the Qur’an was (at least by some scribes) very accurately copied over the centuries from the time it was produced.  Does that “prove” that you can trust what it has to say?  Of course not.   But for historians it is an absolutely stunning, marvelous, and wonderful discovery nonetheless.
     
    http://ehrmanblog.org/the-significance-of-an-astounding-new-discovery/
  3. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Ali_Hussain in Hadith About Fasting 13, 14, And 15 Of Every Month   
    wa 'alaykum assalam,
     
     
    To be honest, I'm not really sure, the first part of the sentence is al-Saduq's comment, the second part that you quoted are the words of al-Hurr al-'Amili.
     
    It is possible that I mistranslated it, although I'm pretty sure that the part you quote is correct.
     
     
    If you accept Qurb al-Isnad, this has a strong chain.
     
    http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235009458-sihha-of-masaail-ali-b-jafar-from-qurb-al-isnad/
     
     
    But as for your question, these two were included by shaykh Hasan Sahib al-Ma'alim in his book Mantiqa al-Jaman fi al-Ahadith al-Sahih wa al-Hasan, so they are Mu'tabar.
     
    Sorry for the awkward translations, my understanding of them isn't at 100%
     
    عن علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن أبي أيوب، عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أول ما بعث يصوم حتى يقال: ما يفطر ويفطر حتى يقال: ما يصوم، ثم ترك ذلك وصام يوما وأفطر يوما وهو صوم داود عليه السلام، ثم ترك ذلك وصام الثلاثة الأيام الغر ثم ترك ذلك وفرقها في كل عشرة يوما، خميسين بينهما أربعا، فقبض صلى الله عليه وآله وهو يعمل ذلك
     
    From 'Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, from Ibn Abi 'Umayr, from Abi Ayub, from Muhammad bin Muslim, from Abi 'Abd Allah عليه السلام, he said: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله was the first one sent who fasted until it was said: Does he not break his fast? So he did not fast until it was said: Does he not fast? Then he abandoned that and fasted one day and then not the next, and that is the fast of Dawud عليه السلام. Then he abandoned that and fasted the three days of al-Ghurr*, then he abandoned that and he divided them (with) a day in each ten days, two Thursdays between them (the ten days) and a Wednesday, so he صلى الله عليه وآله passed away whilst that was his habit.
     
    *al-Ghurr is al-Baydh
     
    (al-Kafi)
     
    وعن علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن حماد، عن الحلبي، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام أنه سئل عن الصوم في الحضر، فقال: ثلاثة أيام في كل شهر، الخميس من جمعة، والأربعاء من جمعة، والخميس من جمعة أخرى، وقال: قال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام صيام شهر الصبر وثلاثة أيام من كل شهر يذهبن ببلابل الصدر، وصيام ثلاثة أيام من كل شهر صيام الدهر، إن الله عز وجل يقول: (من جاء بالحسنة فله عشر أمثالها)
     
    from 'Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, from Ibn Abi 'Umayr, from Hamad, from al-Hilbi, from Abi 'Abd Allah عليه السلام that he was asked about the fast in the present, so he said: three days in every month, the Thursday from a Friday and the Wednesday from a Friday and the Thursday from the last Friday. And he said: The Commander of the Believers عليه السلام said: a month of fasting is patience (sabr) (?), and fasting three days removes the anxieties of the heart, and fasting three days from every month is a continuous fast, verily Allah عز وجل says: Whoever brings a good deed, he shall have ten like it (6:160)
     
    (al-Kafi)
  4. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Islamic Salvation in Mu'tabar Ahadith From Al-kafi   
    Both these are Mu'tabar.
  5. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Islamic Salvation in Mu'tabar Ahadith From Al-kafi   
    I will give you an example of the other set of Ahadith.
     
    In al-Faqih with a Mu'tabar chain:
     
    وروى جعفر بن بشير: وعبدالله بن جبلة، عن عبدالله بن سنان عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: " سمعته يقول في صلاة الجمعة: لا بأس أن تقرأ فيها بغير الجمعة والمنافقين إذا كنت مستعجلا
     
    And Jafar b. Bashir narrated and Abdallah b. Jabala also from Abdallah b. Sinan from Abi Abdillah, he said: I heard him saying about the Friday prayer: there is no fault if you recite in them [i.e. the two Raka'at] other than the Jumuah and Munafiqun if you are in a hurry.
     
    The point being that if something was essentially Wajib, its Wujub does not fall simply because of being in a hurry, unless it is an extreme danger [e.g. we can drop the second Surah in the Salat in such cases].
     
    Or from al-Tahdhib:
     
    لحسين بن سعيد عن حماد بن عيسى عن حريز وربعي رفعاه إلى أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: إذا كان ليلة الجمعة يستحب أن يقرأ في العتمة سورة الجمعة وإذا جاء‌ك المنافقون، وفي صلاة الصبح مثل ذلك، وفي صلاة الجمعة مثل ذلك، وفي صلاة العصر مثل ذلك
     
    al-Husayn b. Said from Hammad b. Isa from Hariz and Rib'i they raised it to Abi Ja'far who said: if it is Friday eve - it is recommended to recite in the Isha prayer al-Jumuah and al-Munafiqun, and in the morning prayer likewise and in the Friday prayer itself likewise, and in the Asr prayer as well.
     
    وروى محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى عن أحمد بن محمد عن الحسن عن أخيه الحسين بن علي بن يقطين عن أبيه قال سألت أبا الحسن الاول عليه السلام: عن الرجل يقرأ في صلاة الجمعة بغير سورة الجمعة متعمدا؟ قال: لا بأس بذلك
     
    Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from al-Hasan from his brother al-Husayn b. Ali b. Yaqtin from their father who said: I asked Aba al-Hasan the First about a man who recites in the Friday prayer other than Surat al-Jumuah purposely? he said: there is no harm in that. (Mu'tabar)
     
    And other reports than have been used in this regard.
  6. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Islamic Salvation in Mu'tabar Ahadith From Al-kafi   
    Ah I see, I had translated it as seventy six, when it should be سبعا وستين which is sixty seven.
  7. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to Islamic Salvation in Mu'tabar Ahadith From Al-kafi   
    W. Salam
     
     
    What the Hadith means is that after 34 Allahu Akbar the Imam began Alhamdulillah - and all that he counted after finishing this was 76 (total), then he began Subhanallah and all that he counted after finishing was 100.

    So it does not different from our practice.
     
     
    There are certain Ahadith that seem to stress very much the requirement of reciting these two Suwar in the Friday prayer, and taken in of themselves the language seems to be pointing to Wujub, but when we combine with other Ahadith that allow otherwise - the scholars in order to reconcile both sets relegate these to pointing to Istihbab, but it is indeed a very stressed on practice [Mu'aqada], that we should try to follow.
     
     
    I think what the Hadith is making an allowance for is a man to pray with his Qawm and in their Masajid - despite them being of the A'mma - when they are the overwhelming majority and there is some harm that accrues from not doing so e.g. accusations and decrease in status of a believer.
     
    How far this Taqiyya goes is questionable.
     
    As it has come in many narrations - the one who is the subject of Taqiyya (who needs to perform Taqiyya) is more aware of his condition and its limits.
     
     
    This is because there is no harm in combining after the Aimma of the Madhhab have clarified the legitimacy of the prophetic Rukhsa [dispensation] in this regard.

    However, what also comes to mind in this case is that praying both Dhuhr and Asr with them was required to maintain Taqiyya, and the Ashab preferred praying Asr alone rather than with them, and they had the convenience of making it seem that it is of the Nawafil - this is what the Sunnis term as Ba'diya and is specific for Dhuhr, so they used this excuse. 
     
     
    al-Majlisi says that by Fardh here in this Hadith it is meant [a] that which is Wajib explicitly in the Qur'an (some scholars add: mentioned as a part of Salat and not just mere mentioning), or, it is legislated in the Qur'an for Salat - whether it be Wajib or Mustahhab.

    The non-Fardh would include what is Wajib and Mustahhab but not explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an - meaning it from the Sunnah of the Prophet added into the Salat itself which is itself a Faridha.

    As for Tawwajuh he gives the following possibilities:

    والتوجه المراد به إما تكبيرة الافتتاح لقوله تعالى : ( وربك فكبر ) ( 2 ) والنية لقوله تعالى : ( وما امروا إلا ليعبدوا الله مخلصين له الدين ) ( 3 ) وأمثاله ، أو استقبال القبلة بأن يكون المراد بالقبلة معرفتها لاالتوجه إليها وهو بعيد

    The meanining of Tawwajuh is either the Takbir of Iftitah [opening] because of His words وربك فكبر ('and your Lord do magnify'), or, it is the Niyyah because of His words 'and they were not ordered except that they worship Allah sincerely - His is the religion' and its like, or, facing the Qibla, such that the meaning of the Qibla (in the Hadith) be taken to mean knowing it (where the Qibla is) and not facing it, and this last is far-fetched.
     
    But it is possible to also understand it as the supplications of Tawajjuh before beginning Salat (after the Takbir)
     
    http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234989951-tawajjuh/
     
    As for Dua, al-Majlisi says:

    والدعاء القنوت لقوله سبحانه ( وقوموا لله قانتين ) ( 1 ) فيدل على التفسير الاول للفرض على وجوبه ، أو القراءة لاشتماله على الدعاء ، ويقال للفاتحة سورة الدعاء لقوله تعالى ( فاقرؤ اما تيسر من القرآن ) ( 2 ) أو الاعم منهما

    And the Dua is the Qunut, because of His words 'and stand for Allah قانتين' - so this Hadith indicates its (Qunut's) Wujub - as per the first interpretation of Fardh (that which is explicitly Wajib in the Qur'an), or Dua can be the Qira'ah because the reciting of the Qur'an naturally includes also supplication (e.g. in the Ayat that contain Dua), and al-Fatiha is named Surat al-Dua - and for Qira'ah it has come in the Qur'an - 'so recite that which is easy for you from the Qur'an'.

    Other scholars have noted that the Salawat in Tashhahud can also be considered a Dua.

    And others have indicated that Dua is more general than this - being the spirit of Salat.
  8. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Ali_Hussain in Exposing Imam Shaikh Brother Mohammad Tawhidi   
    If he (or anyone) believes this in his heart, then it's a definite ghuluw, which, as the ahadith & the practices of the Aimmah (as), is cursed heavily by them or could even mean kufr.If he actually doesn't believe this and yet he says these things, the he's a liar.
    If this Twitter account isn't run by him & he actually opposes this, he needs to condemn these posts publicly and sacks his Twitter admin immediately, otherwise it would mean that he allows fasad & ghuluw beliefs to spread & influence others.
    For this guy:
    - As speaker, I'd say that no one should ever ask him again to provide speech anywhere. It'll be devastating for us to be viewed as sharing his belief secretly while in actuality, his ghuluw doesn't represent us & Islam at all and we're disgusted by it. He's also providing the ammunition to the enemies. Does the case of Yasir al-Habib not teach us anything?
    He needs to publicly repent and condemn the ghuluw and goes back to study Islam (this time, it should be done seriously).
    If he's still allowed to give speeches, then he would think that nothing's wrong with him, so the ones that invite him are responsible in increasing his deviant beliefs and spread them to others.
    - As an individual, I'd be OK with what bro Ali said about trying to help him to go back to the correct path as much as possible. But, as also mentioned by others, other Shi`i need to publicly denounce him for him not to be seen as representing us.
  9. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Ali_Hussain in 8Th Shavval - Destruction Of Jannat Ul Baqi   
    Overgeneralization is wrong.
    There are Jews who are opposing Zionism (for exampe: Neturei Karta, True Torah Jews, Satmar) and there are non-Jews who are supporting Zionism (for example: the Christian Zionists, Messianic Christians).
    So, if you're opposing something, use the correct term.
  10. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from mina in 8Th Shavval - Destruction Of Jannat Ul Baqi   
    Overgeneralization is wrong.
    There are Jews who are opposing Zionism (for exampe: Neturei Karta, True Torah Jews, Satmar) and there are non-Jews who are supporting Zionism (for example: the Christian Zionists, Messianic Christians).
    So, if you're opposing something, use the correct term.
  11. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from hasanhh in 'oldest' Koran Fragments Found   
    Btw, why is this not in the Qur'an forum, in where this should belong?
  12. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from akamp in Anyone Here The Only Shi'a Member Of Their Family?   
    I'm also the only Shi`i in my family. The rest is Sunni Shafi`i.
    My mom is not happy with my conversion and up until today, she frequently tells me to go back to Sunni. My brothers are practically OK. Basically, I think I'm quite lucky to be able to use Shi`i fiqh in the ibadat (salat, zakat, sawm).
  13. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from mina in Is Eid Tomorrow Or Saturday   
    http://daralahadith.blogspot.com/2014/07/grand-ayatullah-marja-al-taqlid-ali.html?m=1
    If we see this hadith:
    It explicitly says "see". That's why majority of `ulama states sighting is required for the beginning & end of the month of Ramadan.
  14. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Ali_Hussain in Mu'tabar Ahadith On Laylatul Qadr?   
    An interesting analysis from a brother:
  15. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Sumerian in Mu'tabar Ahadith On Laylatul Qadr?   
    An interesting analysis from a brother:
  16. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Ali Musaaa :) in Mu'tabar Ahadith On Laylatul Qadr?   
    An interesting analysis from a brother:
  17. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to BlackWave in Fajr Time At High Latitudes   
    I am not sure but I think shia scholars consider fajr time to be nautical twilight (astronomical for precaution):-
    http://www.al-islam.org/beliefs/practices/fajr.html
    Nautical twilight does occur in Scotland, I think
    http://www.ukweathercams.co.uk/sunrise_sunset_times.php?city=57
  18. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Ali Musaaa :) in Where Have The Shia Quran Reciters Gone?   
    Sorry, just curious. Why people are asking for Shi`i reciters when basically what's read is the same regardless what madhdhab the reciters are?
  19. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Muslim2010 in The Merit Of A ‘Ālim Over The Mere `abd (Servant)   
    Wa `alaykum salam,Thank you & it's a good answer.
    I'd add that according to an-Naml:16, Sulayman (as) inherited Dawd (as) which would mean that a Prophet does inherit wealth to his family so this hadith would go against al-Qur'an if it's forced to be understood as wealth inheritance to the family, hence it's talking figuratively about the Prophet not leaving wealth to the `ulama, but knowledge.
  20. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Ali Musaaa :) in The Merit Of A ‘Ālim Over The Mere `abd (Servant)   
    Wa `alaykum salam,Thank you & it's a good answer.
    I'd add that according to an-Naml:16, Sulayman (as) inherited Dawd (as) which would mean that a Prophet does inherit wealth to his family so this hadith would go against al-Qur'an if it's forced to be understood as wealth inheritance to the family, hence it's talking figuratively about the Prophet not leaving wealth to the `ulama, but knowledge.
  21. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from mina in Where Have The Shia Quran Reciters Gone?   
    Sorry, just curious. Why people are asking for Shi`i reciters when basically what's read is the same regardless what madhdhab the reciters are?
  22. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Ali_Hussain in Where Have The Shia Quran Reciters Gone?   
    Sorry, just curious. Why people are asking for Shi`i reciters when basically what's read is the same regardless what madhdhab the reciters are?
  23. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from estoc in Ahl Al-Bayt In Judeo-Christian Literature   
    Salam bro Qa'im,
    You mentioned that `Isa (as) is a descendant of Yehudah. Do you have the materials on this? As far as I know, by blood, Maryam (as) was a Levite, that's why in al-Qur'an, she was called "sister of Harun" by her fellow Jews. This would make `Isa (as) as a Levite, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Moshiach ha-Kohen as mentioned in the DSS.
    Now, the interesting part is how to explain the other part of the prophecy, i.e. Moshiach ha-Nasi because seemingly there are 2 contradictory passages in the Tanak on its identification:
    1. The Beres*hit (Genesis) verse saying the sceptre will be in Yehudah until Shiloh comes (as you have quoted) which implies that Shiloh is not from the tribe of Yehudah.
    2. Yesha`yahu (Isaiah) 11:1 (ESV): "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch of his roots shall bear fruit." As Jesse (Yishay) was the father of Dawud (as), this creates the expectation among the Jews that the Messiah is the descendent of Dawud (as).
    Perhaps you can also discuss Isaiah 11:1 since it is also relevant to the discussion.
  24. Like
    rotten_coconut got a reaction from Jaafar al-Shibli in Validating Hadith Sources   
    I just finished reading the English version of Shaykh Saduq's I`tiqadul Imamiyyah (The Beliefs of Imamiyyah). It's very interesting because even though it's an aqa`id books, Shaykh Saduq used Qur`an & ahadith to explain the principles.
    In relation to this topic, I think bro Nader's suggestion is good. The marjas need to use two versions of answers:
    - Short version for people who just want to know the rulings
    - Longer version with Qur`an & ahadith basis for people who want to learn & know more
  25. Like
    rotten_coconut reacted to kadhim in Defaming The Wife Of The Prophet(s) Is Forbidden   
    Fuqaha is a plural. No need to hunt it down; I know of the narration you speak of. I was simply confirming that that is your basis.
    This is a man-made construct built for convenience. There is a certain sensibleness and simplicity of choosing one person, but it does not follow from the narrations. The narrations tell us to consult a community of scholars. They don't say anything about picking one sole reference.
    And, actually, no, this is not in the risalah amaliyyeh of the marjah either. In fact, most or all of them will say that you can consult another in certain matters if you think they are superior in that subject. Most also give the option of going by precaution, picking on each issue whoever is strictest.
    A number of marja also say tabeedh (referring to a handful of trusted scholars) is legitimate. (Ironically, I seem to recall Khamenai is one of them)
×
×
  • Create New...