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


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About the-truth123

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. Thanks for the reply. I just wanted to get that confirmed as I have seen people dealing with the scenario as follows: End of year 1 mukhammas: 80 End of year 2 amount in bank: 80 Because the year 2 amount is the same as the previous year's mukhammas, they say that there is no profit made in year 2 therefore no khums to pay. But of course this won't apply here right?
  2. Salaam. Consider the following scenario: Money in bank at the end of year 1 = 100 Therefore khums = 20 Mukhammas = 80 Money in bank at end of year 2 = 80 But at one point in year 2 the money in the bank went down to 50. Therefore, 30 was taken out from the previous years mukhammas. So of the 80 that remains at the end of year 2, 50 of it is the previous years mukhammas and 30 of it is new money. Wouldn't khums have to be paid on the 30 of year 2's 80 because it is new money? Jazakumallahu khayran
  3. JazakAllah khayra for all your help my brother. This ruling is a fascinating one, though, of course, only applicable at the time of necessity. Do you, or anyone else for that matter, know of any in-depth fiqhi books on warfare authored by our Ulema?
  4. Thanks for your help brother, here though would الكفارة not mean the Islamic reparation? I wonder if there are any similar rulings that have been issued by the Maraja.
  5. JazakAllahu khayra for the quick response. Since permission to kill women, children and elderly - along with the captives - is included in the hadith, does not that seem to lend credence to the idea that the ones Sayyid Khoei speaks of in the sentence: نعم لو تترس الاعداء بهم جاز قتلهم إذا كانت المقاتلة معهم أو الغلبة عليهم متوقفة عليه likewise includes the women, children and elderly as opposed to just the Muslim captives?
  6. I see, thank you very much. And what of the hadith the Sayyid cites? سألت أبا عبدالله عن مدينة من مدائن الحرب ، هل يجوز أن يرسل عليها الماء أو تحرق بالنار أو ترمى بالمنجنيق حتى يقتلوا ومنهم النساء والصبيان والشيخ الكبير والاسارى من المسلمين والتجار ؟ فقال : يفعل ذلك بهم ، ولا يمسك عنهم لهؤلاء ، ولا دية عليهم للمسلمين ولا كفارة The Imam [a] says there is no diya nor kaffaarah in the above circumstance. The questioner asks of the permissibility of the action, does the Imam's reply constitute a permission?
  7. Salaamun alaykum. Mods, not sure whether this is the appropriate place for this topic, so feel free to move it or take any suitable action. I happened across the following arabic fatwa of Sayyid Khoei's (mas'ala 17), but fear that I'm not understanding it correctly. Is permission being given for the killing of women, children and elders in times of war when the enemy is among them and when they are being used as shields by the enemy? Jazakumullahu khayra
  8. Salaam, A few of the fatawa of the contemporary and classical 'ulema are listed here. Just to clarify for those who are saying that the sentence must be delivered by an islamic court, Sayyid Khoei and others have ruled that executing the one who insults the Messenger (sa) is wajib on the one who hears the insult and there is no need for a ruler or jurist or trial etc to hand out the sentence.
  9. Thank you for the helpful replies and the narrations. I've been looking further into this and have found another sunni hadith al kisa narration at the end of which the Prophet prays that Allah purify these under the cloak, his ahl al bayt, and then Umm Salamah says: "And I, O Messenger of Allah?", and the Prophet replies, "And you". It's clear that the Umm Salamah is just asking to be included in the Prophet's prayer, and the Prophet accepts this, he does not however accept that she is a part of the Ahl al Bayt and neither is Umm Salamah asking this. But consider yourself in the position of someone who doesn't believe that the Five [a] are exclusively the ahl al bayt; then you would look at this narration and assume that the Prophet is in fact meaning to say that Umm Salamah is a part of the ahl al bayt. So, considering that narrating "by meaning", and not word-for-word, is valid, it's not unlikely at all that some people would have narrated ahadith like this stating that Umm Salamah specifically asked whether she was a part of the ahl, or that the Prophet said that Umm Salamah is part of the ahl al bayt, or that she is "inshaAllah" a part, simply because these people may well have sincerely believed that to be the true meaning of Umm Salamah's/the Prophet's words, and they are relaying what they assumed to be the true import of the hadith. So as far as they are concerned, they aren't lying and are relaying the Prophetic tradition by meaning as opposed to verbatim which still constitutes a valid transmission. This is further corroborated when taking into account just how many alternate wordings there are; it's clear mistakes were made, and things were added or subtracted to the narrations. Also, if I'm not mistaken, only those ahadith where the Prophet says "yes, inshaAllah" are considered properly Sahih. The ones where the Prophet explicitly states that she is a part of his ahl are defective. And, I've also come across ahadith where IIRC Umm Salamah goes under the cloak along with the Prophet, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain. Interestingly in this particular hadith, Ali is excluded. There is no doubt that this alteration is there to accommodate for those fabrications which said that the Prophet's wife entered along with Ali, which was unthinkable as they are na-mahrams. The alteration legitimises the hadith and makes it more acceptable. Another point to add is as someone told me, the Umayyads and the Abbasids would have hated for the supreme merit of having verse 33:33 revealed in one's honour to belong exclusively to Imam Ali and his family. They would wish for nothing more than for the scope of the term ahl al bayt to be widened to include as many others as possible to diminish the value and exclusivity of the merit. They would also love for it to be expanded to include their tribes as well because that would be seen as giving them some sort of legitimacy. And indeed as such, many major scholars in those days included the entirety of Banu Hashim, or the entirety of Banu Mutallib, or even the entirety of Quraysh, in the Ahl al Bayt.
  10. Thanks for the reply, you've made some excellent points which show the inconsistencies in the narratives of these traditions. The way I was looking at it was that there appear to be quite a number of these traditions in which the Prophet explicitly mentions Umm Salamah as being part of the ahl al bayt, which completely contradict those ahadith in which he says that she is upon goodness but doesn't confirm whether she is ahl al bayt or not, and thought to myself: is it reasonable to suppose that all of these traditions are false considering their sheer volume? Sort of like tawatur. So it's safe to assume that the narrations in which Umm Salamah asks whether she is a part of the ahl al bayt are fictions then? I think the ones in which the Prophet replies saying that Umm Salamah is "Inshaallah" part of the ahl al-bayt are interesting. They somehow seem like a later appendage attached to the end of a narration to reduce the significance it attaches to the Five [a]. It's not too explicit either and, in a sense, an interpolator - in order to make the narration more acceptable - may well have inserted it in thinking that the addition is very "mild" and not exactly untrue (i.e. indeed, if Allah wills it then it's possible) and doesn't seem like a blatant lie on the Prophet. And from there people just had to tweak it a little bit further into the direction of their presumptions and, voila, the more explicit narrations where the Prophet replies saying Umm Salamah is actually a part of his ahl al-bayt are born. What are your thoughts? Pondering on it a bit more, it's interesting to note that there are narrations where the Prophet allows Umm Salamah under the cloak, and others where Wathilah comes under it if i'm remembering correctly, despite there being their na-mahrams there. So these are clear fabrications, as if the Prophet would allow that. So if people were fabricating things like this to prove the inclusion of other personalities in the ahl al-bayt, what's to say they never fabricated "softer", more implicit narrations like the ones with "Inshaallah", to bolster their claims that the wives etc are also included. I would very much like to hear more of your thoughts on this.
  11. Assalamu `alaikum, From all that I've gathered, it appears to be unanimous amongst the shi`ah that the Ahl al-Bayt referred to in verse 33:33 consist exclusively of Prophet Muhammad, Imam Ali, Bibi Fatimah, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain, to the exclusion of the wives etc. And they cite as evidence the ahadith of the Kisa, usually narrated on the authority of Umm Salamah. However in this article all of those narrations which say it was revealed for the Five alone have been weakened, and the authors give a tonne of other Ahadith al-Kisa', many which they claim are completely authentic, in which Umm Salamah was explicitly included in the Ahl al Bayt by the Holy Prophet himself, and there are others there in which the Prophet includes other wives and companions as belonging to his ahl al-bayt. Considering just how many of these narrations there are which include others amongst the ahl al-bayt, how are we to claim that it was exclusively for the Five (as) alone? Can all of these ahadith which state otherwise be dismissed as fabrications? JazakAllah khayra
  12. Salaam, I've been taught that a nominal sentence in the present tense only occurs when the verb to be is implied, and that only happens when a definite subject is followed by a predicate which does not have ال. For example, الولد كبير is a sentence ('the boy is big' where 'is' is the verb to be). However الولد الكبير and ولد كبير are not sentences (they mean, 'the big boy' and 'a big boy') as both the subject and the predicate are either definite or indefinite. How then do you say 'a boy is big', where the subject 'a boy' is indefinite? Thanks
  13. Shukran for the replies, and the link to Abu Tufayl's stuff was great, though unfortunately none of it directly refers to the bit I am looking for a response to. Here's the claim that the sunnis make, what's a good response to it?: "Having finished the campaign in the Yemen, the troop of three hundred horse that the Prophet had sent out in Ramadan was now approaching Mecca from the south. 'All had ridden on ahead ofhis men, eager to meet the Prophet as soon as possible and to make with him the Pilgrimage, which he now had done. Amongst the state's fifth of the spoils there was enough linen to clothe the whole army, but'Allhad decided that itmust be handed over to the Prophet untouched. In his absence, however, the man he had left in charge was persuaded to lend each man a new change of clothes out of the linen. The change was much needed for they had been away from home for nearly three months. When they were not far from entering the city, 'All rode out to meet them and was amazed to see the transformation that had taken place. "I gave them the garments," said the deputy commander, "that their appearance might be more seemly when they entered in among the people." The men all knew that everyone in Mecca would now be wearing their finest clothes in honour of the Feast, and they were anxious to look their best. But 'All felt he could not countenance such a liberty and he ordered them to put on their old clothes again and return the new ones to the spoils. Great resentment was felt throughout the army on this account, and when the Prophet heard of it he said: " 0 people, blame not 'Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the path of God to be blamed." But these words were not sufficient, or it may be that they were only heard by a few, and the resentment continued. On the way back to Medina one of the troops bitterly complained o f ' Ali to the Prophet, whose face changed colour. "Am I not nearer to the believers than their own selves?" he said; and when the man assented, he added: "Whose nearest I am, his nearest 'All is." Later on the journey, when they had halted at Ghadir al-Khumm, he gathered all the people together, and taking 'Ali by the hand he repeated these words, to which he added the prayer: "O God, be the friend of him who is his friend, and the foe of him who is his foe"; and the murmurings against 'Ali were silenced."
  14. Salamun alaikum, I've been confronted by sunnis who say that the Prophet Muhammad's [saww] announcement at Ghadir never happened in front of a large crowd of people as the shias say. They say that all the evidence from their authentic material points to the fact that the Prophet said 'For whomsoever I am Maula, Ali is his Maula' in front of only a few people; specifically those who criticised Imam Ali [as] for the Khums incident which occurred when they accompanied him to Yemen. The Prophet heard these people complaining and criticising Imam Ali and, in front of them and a few others, said 'For whomsoever I am Maula, Ali is his Maula' in order to silence Ali's detractors. They also say that you can't take the Prophet's statement out of this context and say that its grammatical formulation indicates Ali's leadership because it's just one of many examples whereby the Arabs used hyperbole to get their point across. In this case the Prophet used this linguistic hyperbole to show that the actions of Imam Ali can't be questioned as he is on the truth, not to show that he is the Prophet's successor. How should I respond to their claims? Thanks
  • Create New...