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

Leo

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Leo

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male
  1. ^ Ofcourse Messi is the best now and he will continue to reign. Ronaldo needs a change, he has been amazing so far but the problem is that Ferguson has always limited him in giving the independence that could see him excel. Look at Messi, the reason why he is brilliant is because he has the freedom to excel and preform as he wishes. Notice in the game, Messi in the beginning was out of the game but then came in simply because of the work of his team mates. Look at the play of Ineista and Xavi and see how they bought Messi into the game and gave him the confidence to preform so brilliantly. That is what lacks in Utd, they are too disciplined and there is no creativity. Remember Arshavin's statement that Utd lack the creative spark well that showed against Barcelona. Barcelona were beaten by Utd last season. And yes had Utd scored that would have changed the game altogether.
  2. That picture is from the Library of Imam Ridha (as)
  3. Well first off congratulations to Barcelona. They deserved to win there was no doubt about it after their preformance. Man Utd have to learn from this, they lost to a side which played better used their chances efficiently and stuck to their task. The game was won in the midfield by Barcelona. The pairing of Ineista and Xavi was the key to success. I feel this is where Ferguson made a very crucial mistake by picking Anderson and Carrick, while they may have been good pairing in the league but were no match for the Barcelona midfielders who dictated the game after the first goal. Experience would have been better than youthful emotions amd hence Scholes should have started rather than Anderson. Tactically Guardiola was one step ahead of Ferguson and would have rejoiced seeing Carrick and Anderson on the team sheet. Utd banked everything on an early goal, they had about 5 shots in the first ten minutes and you can see their gameplan straight away; early goal which would cause Barcelona to change their style but it did not work and Utd paid the price when Eto'o scored. Vidjic should know better that he will cut inside because the angle was tight but not only that the pass should have never made it to him. Anderson and Carrick both failed to tackle Ineista which showed the obvious weakness in the midfield and Barcelona used that to their advantage. The style that Utd set out to play was never going to work, playing long balls just because Barcelona defence seemed weak was just dubious. You cannot play long ball against this sort of team, you need to match their strength and something which Utd simply could not do as they had no one who could be the playmaker, this is where Utd have lacked for years they need a playmaker just like all the top teams have one Barcelona have Xavi and Ineista, Real Madrid had Zidane, Bayern Munich have Ribery, Arsenal have Cesc and so on. If Utd are to become as good as the likes of Barcelona then they need to learn how to pass the ball around this is a weakness which has costed Utd in Europe on many occassions and last night it was evident again. Coming to Messi-Ronaldo talk, to me it seemed that Messi edged this one simply because he played brilliant as he was able to given that his team made that possible. I do not think that they are vastly different in ability or that one is better than the other. If Ronaldo was playing in a Barcelona shirt his preformance would be as good as that of Messi. The reason why he did not preform as good is simply because his team did not create enough. Barcelona would bring the ball upto last third and find Messi where as Utd were trying long field balls from defence to find him when he is up against Puyol, which was a stupid decision from Ferguson. On right side there was a 35 year old full back who has only played a handful games this season why did he not try an expose that side rather then a side where Puyol was, who naturally is a right back turned centre back. Ronaldo should have been on the right throughout and should have been running at Slyvinho with Giggs on the left with Rooney in the centre. Ferguson should have started with Tevez rather than Park and Rooney should have played upfront. However the biggest reason why Messi was successful was because of the free role he plays in. Given the freedom to move across the pitch in the opposition half makes it difficult to mark and that was evident when he scored the second goal both Ferdinand and O'Shea left him to head home. Utd's failure is because of this too, all the top teams have a player whp plays as a free role . Henry use to do it at times for Arsenal, Gerrard does it for Liverpool and so on. Utd gave Ronaldo that role in the Semi final and it showed that it works for them but pinning him down in one position did not work especially when Barca were closing down so quickly and packing the midfield. So all in all when Ferguson looks back at this season he will regret two games; FA Cup semi final where he fielded a very weak side and Champions League final where he got it all wrong tactically and at the £32 millions spent on Berbatov when that could have been used to keep Tevez. Utd need to keep Tevez and with that buy two classy midfielders. Scholes and Giggs have reached the end. Anderson is still young and naïve and Carrick is finding his feet. They did miss one player greatly and that was Fletcher. Against Arsenal he marked Cesx throughout and it would have been his job to mark Ineista or Messi. The only consolation for Utd is that won 3 out 5 trophies and lost the Champion League final by only 2-0 as Van der Sar made some crucial saves to give them a chance.
  4. That is quite evident I have read the book but I wanted to see your view on the hadith and what you have actually read. Your null knowledge of Ilm ul Rijjal actually makes it evident that you have no clue as to what is Imam Khomeini (ra) referring to when he mentions the hadith is weak. The hadith is divided into sanad [Chain] and Matn [Content], when he relates that the hadith is weak that means the sanad is weak not the matn and in Rijjal the sanad being weak does not automatically means that it should be disregarded especially when there are other hadiths which support that hadith with authentic chains. Furthermore, the hadith being referred to here please read what Imam Khomeini (ra) has said regarding that and why it cannot be just ignored even when it is considered weak. If we go with your presumed view then let me ask you why do you read Dua Kumayl which comes from a chain which is weak? I did not say it was for me but thanks for your concerns.
  5. ^ His burial is on Tuesday so Salat ul Wahshaat should be recited that night.
  6. Inna Lillah Wa Inna Ilayhi Raajioon May Allah bless his soul. Today the world has lost a great scholar :(
  7. What tradition is that? And do you know any rules of Ilm ul rijjal? As for the rest of your post, assumptions and nothing more.
  8. At least quote the fatwa properly without doing tahreef. He says that it is haram to wear in social gatherings but makrooh for work gatherings so how are you 'pretty much boned'?
  9. I was not talking about what you do, quite frankly I do not care at all how you wish to do taqleed. You stated about implications do expand on what are these implications rather than turning away from the discussion at hand and giving your own methodology. He is responsible for his muqallids but in your case you are trying to say that whoever you pick and choose from is responsible for you even though half of them will not agree with your methodology of taqleed. I would say bogus to the link. Because you have failed to under what Imam Khomeini (ra) has written and what you have made it out to be. Firstly you stated that a WF can overrule a Marja and the edicts of a marja in regards to religion. The quoted you provided says nothing regarding that. And to add to your ignorance the part you highlighted talks about the importance of Government over the other aspects of religion. So again how does that prove your point exactly? A non usooli? You are more of an Usooli than half of this forum would be so please stop passing yourself as one of the other side. More ignorance, Ayatollah Montazeri believes in WF al Mutlaqa and has a whole series of articles and books on it. Oh btw if you ever have the guts look up what Montazeri was guilty off, he was known for his defence of his son in law who was an MKO terrorist. Gee I guess it is okay for Ayatollahs to protect MKO terrorists regardless of what these people do to the clergy eh. I guess Montazeri should have been given a medal for this eh? As for the Shirazi issue you might wanna catch up on that it seems you are erm a good few years late. Sadiq Shirazi and Khamenai settled their differences, it is a shame that people like you are still breeding fitna without being aware of issues. It is pathetic what your intellectual capacity is that you taken any quotes from a scholar thrown on the forum to be viable proof. Let me ask you have you even read any books of Mesbah Yazdi on the topic of WF? If not then how do you know what you quoted is even true? How about you go and read the books of these ulemas and then copy paste these words? A person who has probably never read the works of any of the Ulemas in that list is stating they disagree with what I say, wow I knew SC standards were low but this is just beyond insanity! read this thread, look at the proofs i bring, and the total lack of any proofs whatsoever that usoolis brought. then tell me who needs to be cured and who needs to wake up from their fantasy Usoolis? Hilarious! So if one is an Usooli then he is a follower of Khomeini now? Can you even think? My friend half of the thread is filled with BS. You have failed to answer the questions raised to you in that thread, you failed to bring any credible sources regarding your defence of other personalities. You would be good at writing a book on Imam Khomeini (ra) like the other so called western academics did, it would sell greatly try it! LOL I did not made that assumption you did so providing the proof is on you not myself. This phrase is rather used loosely by many Scholars who advocate taqleed to layman. It was not said by anyone specifically or even coined unless you can prove otherwise, I will be waiting to see how you can proof this otherwise you have just slandered him by attributing false to him. Ironic is it not that both Basheer Najafi and Golpayghani are believers of WF al mutlaqa and you follow their fatwas :) I am not talking abt what you do, I gave that an example to show how the statement previously mentioned comes into effect. so how about answering that? You would be responsible because the last letter of the Imam (aj) gives authority to the Ulemas hence you have to follow them. Now if you choose to ignore them and do what you wish and end up doing your amaals wrongly even knowing that your knowledge capacity is zilch compared to theirs then you will be responsible. You have access to Scholars to learn from, you have access to the knowledge so if you wish to be ignorant then do not expect to be getting off scotch free!
  10. Uh huh apart from zainab_ no one else bought these issues so I wonder who is getting desperate and calling names :rolleyes:
  11. Who has mentioned sex in their posts? I did not so I have to ask where did you read that. I know the intellectual level is beyond your capability no need to admit to that its evident. Macisaac quoted the same thing in english below the arabic, ace51214 did not give the tafseer of Agha Pooya. Since you are beating the drums in his favour find me where Agha pooya in his tafseer states this: And Macisaac squashed the above from the Tafseer of Shaykh Tusi showing correctly what it means. Ace51214 only posted his view, the above quoted part is not found in the tafseer of Agha Pooya look it up on www.al-islam.org/quran Which renouned Shia Tafseer? See above in my reply. Typically it is evident that you are unable to read what is written. I did not state a hadith first of all, I only quoted a historical fact that these two marriages happened, are you denying that these two marriages did not happen? If so proof? Look up the Seerah of those personalities I mentioned in bold and you will find what I stated. If not then I request Macisaac to post it for you even though when the proof will be presented you will still deny it like those who denied the clear signs of Allah :) ------- The Reality, it would suffice for you to keep your malicious disgusting language and ettiquettes to yourself when you have no clue regarding the discussion nor do you have any thing useful to add apart from insults. Also, if it is regarding the 'Mullahs' then answer my question to ace51214 regarding the hadiths, let see if you have the intellectual ability to match the 'Islamic' mannerism of yours.
  12. LOL first prove it then label ppl. Islamic mannerism seems to have been your weaker subject. Erm what do you mean 'Your' Fiqh. Fiqh is the part of Shia Islam, regardless of what you classify as an Usooli Akhbari etc you have to have Fiqh. Not having Fiqh in a religion is like a society without the laws to live by, so good luck answering that on the day of judgement to Allah :) My my, what fabrication? It seems your imagination has been getting better of you. No one has posted a single credible tafseer of the verses of the ayahs quoted instead when prompted ace51214 discredited the likes of Shaykh Tusi, one of the greatest scholars and his works. So to justify your side of the arguement you and co have discredited one of the biggest Scholars of Shia Islam and whose works are paramount to our beliefs! Incase you cannot read let me post again here the part of post from Macisaac which squashes the arguement of the hadiths being fabricated as it goes against the Quran. Interpretations of the Quran are best left to those who know, rather than those who just pull anything out of their thoughts: Gee I wonder why you did not read the above, so maybe its time you put your conjecture in your pocket :) Regarding whether the Prophet (pbuh) or the Imams (as) practised this how about your answer this from Macisaac: As to the acts of the A'imma, what about Amir al-Mu'mineen (as) marrying his daughter Umm Kulthum to `Urwa b. az-Zubayr when she was a child, and how about `Abdullah b. al-Hasan b. `Ali marrying a minor and the Imam permitting this? Go on answer that! The Imam (as) allowed this act if it was wrong or not halal then why would they?
  13. ^ I am not emotional if I was then I would use your terminology of 'Paedo Shiophila' but such is not the case. At least be mature and have a discussion without any name calling. If you dont want anything to do with the Fiqh then stop following this religion. Fiqh is not something which comes from wavingg a magical wand. It is from the Islamic Sources. The hadiths have been shown regarding child marriage which you have not even accepted, there has been countless evidence presented by Macisaac but in return you and your likes have called him to be closet Paedophile which does show your emotionality to the subject. Oh btw when I say your issue not mine it simply means that is your opinion and not mine so good for you if you have that opinion!
  14. Your issue not mine. You have not bought any evidence contrary to the one provided. You just add your conjecture like observed in many threads previously. Learn to read and digest before being so emotional. It seems that you people have no clue regarding the forumlation of rulings regarding Fiqh nor do you have a clue about the different ahkam. When you know the basis of fiqh and the methodology then please discuss. It seems your input in this thread is simply nodding to the words of Maula and zainab_ without offering any sort of substance to the discussion. So yea I wonder who is the brain washed one here :rolleyes: The crux of the subject is the formulation of this particular ruling in light of the ahkam of Fiqh.
×
×
  • Create New...