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

the-truth123

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About the-truth123

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male
  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
  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 s
  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 wh
  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 t
  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 '
×
×
  • Create New...