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

Al-Englisi

Unregistered
  • Content Count

    1,067
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in Can A Shia Choose To Separate The 5 Prayers?   
    Bismillah
     
    Waslam alaykum,
     
    They both do have separate times in which the the can't be prayed. For Dhuhr it is when the time comes in up until the amount of times it takes to pray 4 units of prayer, and for `Asr, it's the last remaining time before Maghrib in which there is only time to pray 4 units of prayer. Those in the book of laws are considered the specific times of these two prayers. 
  2. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from haideriam in Why Is Abu Mikhnaf Reliable ?   
    Bismillah
    If you want to read the maqtal of Abu Mikhnaf, make sure to read the one mentioned above (with revisions by shaykh Muhammad Hadi Yusufi Gharawi). He has done extensive research on it. In a lecture I attended of his he explained the atmosphere of the Muslim lands at the time of Abu Mikhnaf and how the stories of al-Hussain's (as) martyrdom were still a fresh topic in the bazaar
    He lived in a time only 50 odd years after the event of Karbalaa and decided to try and collect first hand information or through minimum links about the event. The rest has been explained above.
  3. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Abu Nur in Why Is Abu Mikhnaf Reliable ?   
    Bismillah
    If you want to read the maqtal of Abu Mikhnaf, make sure to read the one mentioned above (with revisions by shaykh Muhammad Hadi Yusufi Gharawi). He has done extensive research on it. In a lecture I attended of his he explained the atmosphere of the Muslim lands at the time of Abu Mikhnaf and how the stories of al-Hussain's (as) martyrdom were still a fresh topic in the bazaar
    He lived in a time only 50 odd years after the event of Karbalaa and decided to try and collect first hand information or through minimum links about the event. The rest has been explained above.
  4. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in Shia Reformist   
    Wasalam Alaykum wa rahmatullah,
    Wasalam Alaykum, 
    Reformist is not a negative label when it comes to Academic and intellectual discourse, it can in fact in may places be a term of praise. In arabic they use the term 'mujadid' for a number of great scholars, which is used to mean something similar to reformist. 
    Funnily enough, there is a site: https://shiareformist.wordpress.com/
    In farsi they use the term 'Roshan Fikr' which again, although carries negative connotations in some ways, it can also be seen as a positive attribute in certain fields. 
     
    Wow, the comments about Sayyid Khamenei is up there among the seriously ignorant things i've heard regarding our jurists and fiqh as a whole. Sayyid Khamenei is known in the hawzaat as someone who is on the manhaaj of Fiqh al-Jawahiri, and is considered pretty traditional. 

    If you wanted to put names of reformists (in ideas), you would say in recent history apart from the other two mentioned, it was Sayyid Baqir Sadr (r), Sayyidi al-Khu'i (r) shaykh Sadiqi Tehrani, among those who have passed, and Shaykh Jannaati among those still alive. There are a good number of scholars who fall into this category. 
    The ideas of Sayyid Khamanei that are known among the people to vary from others in fiqh are just the use of optical aid in moon-sighting and artificial insemination. Other than those, most of his rulings fall into standard Shia traditional views. 
    He has multiple talks (some i have translated in places) regarding keeping fiqh traditional. 
    Sayyid Fadhlullah (r) is just the logical conclusion of Sayyid Khui's methodology (rejecting the usage of Shohrah - popularity in extrapolating Islamic law). Sayyid Khu'i and Shahid Sadr did not completely implement their ideas from Usul al-Fiqh inside their Fiqh rulings, whereas Sayyid Fadhlulah went the whole 10 yards. 
  5. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Sirius_Bright in Akhbari Manual Of Islamic Laws?   
    You seem to be ignorant of the purpose of having Imams. The Imams came to guide. Rejecting hundreds of 'true' hadith equals not having guidance which is very likely to lead to misguidance. It's a very silly comment to make. 
    Even within the narrations, we are not always asked to reject narrations, or throw them against the wall. We have also been advised to refer them back, or leave them for their 'Ahl' (people) - meaning those who understand them (the Ahlulbayt). 
  6. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Ibn Al-Ja'abi in Akhbari Manual Of Islamic Laws?   
    Bismillah
    [1] If by dha`īf narration, you mean according to the definition as used today, then it does not equal ' a slim chance it may have come from the Imam'. Today, dha`īf is a description of the chain and not the narration itself. Also, what makes a chain dha`if is also a matter of dispute. 
    [2] There is a big difference between hearing and reading (from original sources). One of our problems with non-Muslims or non-Shias - and you seem to scream this aloud all the time - is that they don't get information about our madhhab directly from its sources, they just go by what they have heard. Why do we apply double-standards when judging others? Should you even be speaking about the issue if you haven't read it from its sources? 
    [3] It isn't 'easily' refutable, and if you spend some time examining the discussions regarding this matter you would see this. Usūlī scholars have also held this opinion and some continue to do so. I recently was listening to a recording of a Rijāl lesson/discussion by Ayt. Shaykh Mahdi ShabZindehDar (one of the teachers of Dars Kharij in the holy shrine of Sayyida Ma`suma, and a future prospective marja') who is as Usūlī as they get, holds the view that all the narrations of al-Kafi can be relied upon. The are different arguments for this, and it's not in your capacity as someone who hasn't even scratched the surface of hadīth or rijāl studies to make such judgments.
    Your reference to the Rijal of Kashi again implies that you think the classical scholars graded scholars as the contemporary scholars do. This is a grave mistake. The classical scholars did not all just grade a narration based on its chain. Even Shaykh Tusi, who is the person we have to thank for preserving Rijal Kashi for us, and having his own book on the subject too, included narrations in his books that in terms of there 'chain' would be considered weak by some scholars of today. 
    [4] In the introduction of his 'Al-Kafi', Shaykh Kulayni ® says the following (after mentioning narrations about judging reports through the Quran):
    فاعلم يا أخي أرشدك اللّه أنّه لا يسع أحدا تمييز شي‏ء، ممّا اختلف الرّواية فيه عن العلماء عليهم السّلام برأيه، إلّا على ما أطلقه العالم بقوله عليه السّلام: «اعرضوها على كتاب اللّه فما وافى كتاب اللّه عزّ و جلّ فخذوه، و ما خالف كتاب اللّه فردّوه» و قوله عليه السّلام: «دعوا ما وافق القوم فإنّ الرشد في خلافهم» و قوله عليه السّلام «خذوا بالمجمع‏
    عليه، فإنّ المجمع عليه لا ريب فيه» و نحن لا نعرف من جميع ذلك إلّا أقلّه‏ و لا نجد شيئا أحوط و لا أوسع من ردّ علم ذلك كلّه إلى العالم عليه السّلام و قبول ما وسّع من الأمر فيه بقوله عليه السّلام: «بأيّما أخذتم من باب التسليم وسعكم».
    I don't want to translate this, and i'm hoping you will try to translate it yourself - with minimum help from Arabic speakers. Just get a tiny taste of what it means to read and understand things from their sources. For more clarification on what is meant by the red part, you can also refer to the noted of Shaykh Ali Akbar Ghafari (he has a footnote here).    [5] It is unfairness after you admit not having done proper research or show you haven't even looked at their arguments first hand and are going of the weakest of their arguments.    [6] You have not mentioned any strong enough or good reasons, just conjecture and un-sourced statements. It's extremely illogical to judge a school of thought without actually knowing what they say, and especially if you are getting information about them from their opponents. The importance of Rijāl becomes irrelevant to the Akhbaris after accepting the four books. You can't use that as part of your discussion. I can't think of the English term, but such an argument is called 'musadirah bi l-matlūb' in Arabic. It is not acceptable.    [7] So far, your post has been mostly 'wild claims'.   [8] You really need to stop using the 'majority' argument where it suits you. Otherwise its plain outright double standards. In other discussions you argue against what the majority of the Shia scholars and followers believe in today. Also, there was a period in time where the Akhbari scholars and school made up the majority of the Shia school. The reminiscence of their thoughts and ideas can still be seen in some hawzaat/seminaries (whole cities) across the Shia world, and even among some of the top Shia maraaje' today. If they have not been influenced in all of the subjects (Fiqh, Usul, Hadith, Quran etc), they have in some. To understand this, you need to study the history of the Usuli and Akhbari schools - both pre-Astrabadi and post-Astrabadi.    [9] Again, you are not in a position to make that statement. I urge you to refrain from speaking about matters in which you have little or no knowledge.The study of Hadith and Rijal is not so simple that you draw all your conclusions 'over night' (as a brother stated) and without thinking through properly or reading actual books.    [10] Is that supposed to be an argument? Most people who know what an Akhbari is, are aware of this.    [11] You haven't read any books or their arguments to say 'i haven't come across', this is quite amusing. If you want to get a general idea, there are books in English, some mentioned earlier (especially the one mentioned by br. Ali Musa). Also, the fourty differences between Akhbari's and Usulis by Samahiji (Translated by Andrew J Newman - although i've only read the Arabic and not the translation, so not sure how good it is).
  7. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Hameedeh in 10 Years Completed! Reflections   
    Bismillah
    I haven't hit the one decade mark yet, but i'm not far off. 
    I first visited SC after being informed about it by some older Shiite friends back in 2005. I had just started to take my religion and life a little bit more seriously and was looking for some spirituality and Shiite friends (all my friends were non-muslim, or Sunni). I had just come back from ziyaraat in Iran and was hyped about becoming more Shiite (being known by most people as someone who would always joke around, and as one of the most carefree people around), i came to SC looking to find serious discussions and hardcore Shiites that could help me develop myself. I was expecting a very serious environment, with everyone following strict shar`iah laws and had convinced myself to put my humor and 'street kid' attitude on hibernate mode. However, when i joined the site, i got the shock of my life. It was the most unserious place i had seen (i wasn't much of an internet guy, so had no idea what forums were usually like). I saw everything i was expecting not to see, to an extent that i thought, whats the difference between this shiite  muslim website and my local chicken and chip shop (where lots of guys and girls would meet up and be very Harami). So i left the site after a week.
    A year later, the same Shiite friends that i would still meet every now and then would still be mentioning the site. I travelled with them to different centers around London and saw that they knew so many Shiites from everywhere (brothers & sisters obviously  ). I was surprised, and found out that it was all from online and university - Ahlulbayt societies (ABSOC), which boast a completely different story lol.
    I decided to come back to SC, but this time with a much more relaxed mentality. So i joined with a new username, since i had forgotten my password for the older one. I now intended to be myself, and through jokes and sarcasm expose some of the hypocrisy i saw and at the same time learn more about the different shiite communities and benefit from the knowledgable/wise members lurking around. 
    Just as i joined some great members were leaving, and the threads about how sc would never be the same without 'the greats' were countless. There were still some great members, and in my opinion it was a great period for SC. There was everything; comedy, controversy, religious debates and priceless wierdos. I really saw Shiites from all walks of life, some coming from worse personal (not family - i had it good in that sense) backgrounds than myself.
    I spent hours a day on SC back then and made and even met many shiite friends. 
    I became one of the famous spammers and also active in the controversial topics Ibn al-Hussain mentioned. It was a weird mix. The majority of my posts were in the off-topic forum and the family one?(my user name was The Guide). 
    Again in 2009 i decided i had my fair share of SC and that it was enough immaturity on my part, so i decided to sign out and disappear slowly. I had made enough hijjabi friends to last me a earthly life time and decided i would now waste my time on facebook and msn (where i had most of my SC friends added). A friend found out and made me a goodbye thread (i wasn't planning on having one, because i had seen so many people return) so i was forced to leave. 
    I left for a good year or two and returned at the end of 2010 because i had a few months free (so basically boredom). This time however, i told myself i will only make good use of SC and stick to serious forums. I made a personal commitment to stay away from the off-topic forum and other un-serious forums. I've been pretty good at it, i now generally only check the Quran, Hadith forum, general discussions some time and the Europe forum. 
    After deciding to only make good use of the site, i realised how amazing it was. There is so much to lear from here. Sometimes indirectly. 
    My experience on the site has been similar to Ibn al-Hussain.
    The site when i joined was a lot warmer, more variety of people. It felt like one big family unit. I really can't express how great it was back then. I saw that over the years it became a lot more colder amongst other things.
    I'm glad i was introduced to this site and learnt how to use it properly. 
    I hope for the newer comers that the same environment can be created for them that we had in our days.
    I now feel like an older member who just comes on occasionally when i have breaks. I used to come back just for the Hadith, Poetry and Europe forum, but lately i have gotten more active in other topics as well.
    Sorry for the long post of me reminiscing to myself, i actually had to leave a lot of details out lol. I just saw older posters sharing, and being the loudmouth that i am, i couldn't help but share my experience to.
  8. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Al Hadi in Ahlul Khibra And Shirazi   
    Bismillah
     
    You obviously haven't been around many Shiite then. Up until a few years ago the only Maraaje' that most Shiite outside of Iran and Iraq new about were Sayyid Khamenei, Sayyid Sistani, Sayyid Fadhlullah and Sayyid Shirazi. DIfferent communities were aware of Maraaje' from their own countries or ethnicity, i.e. some Pakistanis also knew about Shaykh Bashir, Afghanis about Shaykh Fayyadh and Iraqis about Sayyid Hakeem.
     
    It's a more recent phenomenon (last 7-8 years i believe) that more living Maraaje' are recognised by the Shiite - esp after the death of the Shaykhs Tabrizi, Lankarani and Bahjat. 
     
    Also, the comment about Shirazis not thinking so shows signs of little to no understanding of how the Shiite system of Marja`iyyat works. Obviously they don't think so, otherwise they would be 'Shirazi'. The same goes for the followers of Sayyid Sistani not seeming to think Ishaaq Fayadh, Wahid Khorasani, Makaarim Shirazi or Saafi Gulpaygaani are most knowledgeable
  9. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Haydar Husayn in The need to differentiate between theological Shi'ism & Historic Shi'ism   
    Bismillah
    Important it is, but you're fooling yourself if you think that we can come up with any consensus regarding theological Shiism. If the difference is supposed to be 'contradictions vs no-contradictions' most people are still going to come up with different and contradicting results from even those sources - making it almost impossible to come up with a definite form (defined structure) which can truly be said to represent the aqaa'id of the Shia. Sure you can get some basic and fundamental premises that everyone agrees on, but even that is in it's most general sense - the details in those will also be debated. Tawhid, Prophethood, Quran, Imamate - certain attributes of the infallible guides (don't sin, can't misguide) - but you get left with a bare minimum version of beliefs (which is not necessarily problematic).  
     
    My question is, what would be different with this approach, although this view is shared by many and not particular to one Shia scholar. 
     
    Currently, i'm of the understanding that we should only preach the bare minimum ideas and necessary elements of the faith, and after that, think of a different method regarding the teaching of finer details. 
  10. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from YAli in The Shaykh Visits The Sayed   
    Bismillah
     
    Salam,
     
    Only three people replied to you after your post. I think you might be slightly over-reacting. 
     
    I'm not sure why you find it odd that the many blasphemous comments made by Tawhidi enrage the Shiites? Correct my understanding of Islam if i'm wrong in this case, but i really doubt that we should take any such comments lightly or with a smile on our face. 
    There are red lines, ad then there are RED LINES, any comment comparing anything or person to Allah is crossing those RED LINES. 
     
    I condone the brothers for truly feeling disgusted and angered at a person who wears clothing that is associated with the Prophet (saw) and preaches everything the Prophet (saw) was against, or even came to remove from society. 
     
    Those comments show that the person has neither understood Allah (swt), or Ali (as).
     
    Islam is our home and refuge, our save-haven and ark of salvation, shirk and blasphemy is the biggest hole that can sink this ship, so though he doesn't have the power to bring down this great religion, if the type of beliefs that he was spreading gain popularity in society then you can say good by to monotheism in Islam. 
     
    He posted a picture in the last few days of Ayatullah Makarim Shirazi giving flowers to a female and then followed it up with an ayah of the Qur'an which speaks about men lowering their gazes (ask him about his own behavior in the fast-food restaurants of Qum; Bama, al-Baik, Paraj, boyeh gandum) implying that the Ayatullah was committing a sin? I'm holding myself back, or else i have a lot i could say in this regard. 
  11. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Ibn Al-Ja'abi in Where Is The Grave Of Syeda Fatima (As)?   
    The popular view amongst the `amaah is that she (sa) is buried in Baqi, however some renowned scholars of their school hold the opinion that she (sa) was indeed buried in her house. 
    Also, a story quoted by Shaykh al-`Amri (Shiite scholar from Medina) indicates that during his youth, the markings of the grave of her holiness (sa) was evident in her house (hence his belief that she was surely buried there). 
    Nice work, i've read almost similar research articles in Farsi and Arabic, it seems that the most likely place is the House, as you suggested, although some scholars keep the possibility open for it to be in between the grave of the Prophet (saw) and his pulpit. 
  12. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from shia farm girl in The Distance Between Earth And Moon Hadith?   
    Bismillah
     
     
     
     
     
    Bihaar al-'Anwaar, Muhammad Baaqir al-Majlisi, v.55, p102-103 (ShiaOnlineLibary copy)
     
    No mention of horses or the sun (talks about distance from earth to the skies/heavens?), plus it's from the Prophet (saw) and not Imam Ridha or Ali (as). I couldn't find anything about the particular hadith that was mentioned, although i have heard it myself from the pulpit. Sounded a bit like one of those Pakistani 'Naarey Haideri' moments to me. 
     
    It could be in some books, although i a'm doubtful (i would give someone the weirdest look if they ever spoke about traveling to the moon by horse - but if it's true, then maybe the Imam as would use another example for me).
     
    Allahu `Aalim
  13. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Ibn Al-Shahid in Shia Reformist   
    Wasalam Alaykum wa rahmatullah,
    Wasalam Alaykum, 
    Reformist is not a negative label when it comes to Academic and intellectual discourse, it can in fact in may places be a term of praise. In arabic they use the term 'mujadid' for a number of great scholars, which is used to mean something similar to reformist. 
    Funnily enough, there is a site: https://shiareformist.wordpress.com/
    In farsi they use the term 'Roshan Fikr' which again, although carries negative connotations in some ways, it can also be seen as a positive attribute in certain fields. 
     
    Wow, the comments about Sayyid Khamenei is up there among the seriously ignorant things i've heard regarding our jurists and fiqh as a whole. Sayyid Khamenei is known in the hawzaat as someone who is on the manhaaj of Fiqh al-Jawahiri, and is considered pretty traditional. 

    If you wanted to put names of reformists (in ideas), you would say in recent history apart from the other two mentioned, it was Sayyid Baqir Sadr (r), Sayyidi al-Khu'i (r) shaykh Sadiqi Tehrani, among those who have passed, and Shaykh Jannaati among those still alive. There are a good number of scholars who fall into this category. 
    The ideas of Sayyid Khamanei that are known among the people to vary from others in fiqh are just the use of optical aid in moon-sighting and artificial insemination. Other than those, most of his rulings fall into standard Shia traditional views. 
    He has multiple talks (some i have translated in places) regarding keeping fiqh traditional. 
    Sayyid Fadhlullah (r) is just the logical conclusion of Sayyid Khui's methodology (rejecting the usage of Shohrah - popularity in extrapolating Islamic law). Sayyid Khu'i and Shahid Sadr did not completely implement their ideas from Usul al-Fiqh inside their Fiqh rulings, whereas Sayyid Fadhlulah went the whole 10 yards. 
  14. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from AnaAmmar1 in Shia Reformist   
    Wasalam Alaykum wa rahmatullah,
    Wasalam Alaykum, 
    Reformist is not a negative label when it comes to Academic and intellectual discourse, it can in fact in may places be a term of praise. In arabic they use the term 'mujadid' for a number of great scholars, which is used to mean something similar to reformist. 
    Funnily enough, there is a site: https://shiareformist.wordpress.com/
    In farsi they use the term 'Roshan Fikr' which again, although carries negative connotations in some ways, it can also be seen as a positive attribute in certain fields. 
     
    Wow, the comments about Sayyid Khamenei is up there among the seriously ignorant things i've heard regarding our jurists and fiqh as a whole. Sayyid Khamenei is known in the hawzaat as someone who is on the manhaaj of Fiqh al-Jawahiri, and is considered pretty traditional. 

    If you wanted to put names of reformists (in ideas), you would say in recent history apart from the other two mentioned, it was Sayyid Baqir Sadr (r), Sayyidi al-Khu'i (r) shaykh Sadiqi Tehrani, among those who have passed, and Shaykh Jannaati among those still alive. There are a good number of scholars who fall into this category. 
    The ideas of Sayyid Khamanei that are known among the people to vary from others in fiqh are just the use of optical aid in moon-sighting and artificial insemination. Other than those, most of his rulings fall into standard Shia traditional views. 
    He has multiple talks (some i have translated in places) regarding keeping fiqh traditional. 
    Sayyid Fadhlullah (r) is just the logical conclusion of Sayyid Khui's methodology (rejecting the usage of Shohrah - popularity in extrapolating Islamic law). Sayyid Khu'i and Shahid Sadr did not completely implement their ideas from Usul al-Fiqh inside their Fiqh rulings, whereas Sayyid Fadhlulah went the whole 10 yards. 
  15. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from haideriam in Shia Reformist   
    Lol you either did not read my post or did not understand it at all, even with the examples i gave. This is a perfect example of selective reading and forcing your own understanding out of other peoples words. 
    Khayr, one thing i've learned on Shiachat is when it's obvious a discussion with someone is going to be a waste of time, so i'll end it with you here with one last point;
    if you want to point the finger of reform towards anyone, at least do it right. Sayyid Khamenei did not offer any new or original ideas (as far what is available currently) towards the idea of WF. He has taken and reiterated everything from Sayyid Khumayni. So in essence he is following the ideas of another reformist (by your definition, by my explanation even he wouldn't necessarily be considered a reformist for his view). Your list, by your criterion, should have the original reformer, not followers who haven't added further to the idea (like Sayyid Fadhlullah to the ideas of Sayyid Khu'i).  
  16. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from sharinganMahdi in Shia Reformist   
    Wasalam Alaykum wa rahmatullah,
    Wasalam Alaykum, 
    Reformist is not a negative label when it comes to Academic and intellectual discourse, it can in fact in may places be a term of praise. In arabic they use the term 'mujadid' for a number of great scholars, which is used to mean something similar to reformist. 
    Funnily enough, there is a site: https://shiareformist.wordpress.com/
    In farsi they use the term 'Roshan Fikr' which again, although carries negative connotations in some ways, it can also be seen as a positive attribute in certain fields. 
     
    Wow, the comments about Sayyid Khamenei is up there among the seriously ignorant things i've heard regarding our jurists and fiqh as a whole. Sayyid Khamenei is known in the hawzaat as someone who is on the manhaaj of Fiqh al-Jawahiri, and is considered pretty traditional. 

    If you wanted to put names of reformists (in ideas), you would say in recent history apart from the other two mentioned, it was Sayyid Baqir Sadr (r), Sayyidi al-Khu'i (r) shaykh Sadiqi Tehrani, among those who have passed, and Shaykh Jannaati among those still alive. There are a good number of scholars who fall into this category. 
    The ideas of Sayyid Khamanei that are known among the people to vary from others in fiqh are just the use of optical aid in moon-sighting and artificial insemination. Other than those, most of his rulings fall into standard Shia traditional views. 
    He has multiple talks (some i have translated in places) regarding keeping fiqh traditional. 
    Sayyid Fadhlullah (r) is just the logical conclusion of Sayyid Khui's methodology (rejecting the usage of Shohrah - popularity in extrapolating Islamic law). Sayyid Khu'i and Shahid Sadr did not completely implement their ideas from Usul al-Fiqh inside their Fiqh rulings, whereas Sayyid Fadhlulah went the whole 10 yards. 
  17. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Abu Nur in Shia Reformist   
    Lol you either did not read my post or did not understand it at all, even with the examples i gave. This is a perfect example of selective reading and forcing your own understanding out of other peoples words. 
    Khayr, one thing i've learned on Shiachat is when it's obvious a discussion with someone is going to be a waste of time, so i'll end it with you here with one last point;
    if you want to point the finger of reform towards anyone, at least do it right. Sayyid Khamenei did not offer any new or original ideas (as far what is available currently) towards the idea of WF. He has taken and reiterated everything from Sayyid Khumayni. So in essence he is following the ideas of another reformist (by your definition, by my explanation even he wouldn't necessarily be considered a reformist for his view). Your list, by your criterion, should have the original reformer, not followers who haven't added further to the idea (like Sayyid Fadhlullah to the ideas of Sayyid Khu'i).  
  18. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from baradar_jackson in Shia Reformist   
    Wasalam Alaykum wa rahmatullah,
    Wasalam Alaykum, 
    Reformist is not a negative label when it comes to Academic and intellectual discourse, it can in fact in may places be a term of praise. In arabic they use the term 'mujadid' for a number of great scholars, which is used to mean something similar to reformist. 
    Funnily enough, there is a site: https://shiareformist.wordpress.com/
    In farsi they use the term 'Roshan Fikr' which again, although carries negative connotations in some ways, it can also be seen as a positive attribute in certain fields. 
     
    Wow, the comments about Sayyid Khamenei is up there among the seriously ignorant things i've heard regarding our jurists and fiqh as a whole. Sayyid Khamenei is known in the hawzaat as someone who is on the manhaaj of Fiqh al-Jawahiri, and is considered pretty traditional. 

    If you wanted to put names of reformists (in ideas), you would say in recent history apart from the other two mentioned, it was Sayyid Baqir Sadr (r), Sayyidi al-Khu'i (r) shaykh Sadiqi Tehrani, among those who have passed, and Shaykh Jannaati among those still alive. There are a good number of scholars who fall into this category. 
    The ideas of Sayyid Khamanei that are known among the people to vary from others in fiqh are just the use of optical aid in moon-sighting and artificial insemination. Other than those, most of his rulings fall into standard Shia traditional views. 
    He has multiple talks (some i have translated in places) regarding keeping fiqh traditional. 
    Sayyid Fadhlullah (r) is just the logical conclusion of Sayyid Khui's methodology (rejecting the usage of Shohrah - popularity in extrapolating Islamic law). Sayyid Khu'i and Shahid Sadr did not completely implement their ideas from Usul al-Fiqh inside their Fiqh rulings, whereas Sayyid Fadhlulah went the whole 10 yards. 
  19. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Ali_Hussain in Shia Reformist   
    Lol you either did not read my post or did not understand it at all, even with the examples i gave. This is a perfect example of selective reading and forcing your own understanding out of other peoples words. 
    Khayr, one thing i've learned on Shiachat is when it's obvious a discussion with someone is going to be a waste of time, so i'll end it with you here with one last point;
    if you want to point the finger of reform towards anyone, at least do it right. Sayyid Khamenei did not offer any new or original ideas (as far what is available currently) towards the idea of WF. He has taken and reiterated everything from Sayyid Khumayni. So in essence he is following the ideas of another reformist (by your definition, by my explanation even he wouldn't necessarily be considered a reformist for his view). Your list, by your criterion, should have the original reformer, not followers who haven't added further to the idea (like Sayyid Fadhlullah to the ideas of Sayyid Khu'i).  
  20. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Kianagha in Shia Reformist   
    Wasalam Alaykum wa rahmatullah,
    Wasalam Alaykum, 
    Reformist is not a negative label when it comes to Academic and intellectual discourse, it can in fact in may places be a term of praise. In arabic they use the term 'mujadid' for a number of great scholars, which is used to mean something similar to reformist. 
    Funnily enough, there is a site: https://shiareformist.wordpress.com/
    In farsi they use the term 'Roshan Fikr' which again, although carries negative connotations in some ways, it can also be seen as a positive attribute in certain fields. 
     
    Wow, the comments about Sayyid Khamenei is up there among the seriously ignorant things i've heard regarding our jurists and fiqh as a whole. Sayyid Khamenei is known in the hawzaat as someone who is on the manhaaj of Fiqh al-Jawahiri, and is considered pretty traditional. 

    If you wanted to put names of reformists (in ideas), you would say in recent history apart from the other two mentioned, it was Sayyid Baqir Sadr (r), Sayyidi al-Khu'i (r) shaykh Sadiqi Tehrani, among those who have passed, and Shaykh Jannaati among those still alive. There are a good number of scholars who fall into this category. 
    The ideas of Sayyid Khamanei that are known among the people to vary from others in fiqh are just the use of optical aid in moon-sighting and artificial insemination. Other than those, most of his rulings fall into standard Shia traditional views. 
    He has multiple talks (some i have translated in places) regarding keeping fiqh traditional. 
    Sayyid Fadhlullah (r) is just the logical conclusion of Sayyid Khui's methodology (rejecting the usage of Shohrah - popularity in extrapolating Islamic law). Sayyid Khu'i and Shahid Sadr did not completely implement their ideas from Usul al-Fiqh inside their Fiqh rulings, whereas Sayyid Fadhlulah went the whole 10 yards. 
  21. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Ali_Hussain in Shia Reformist   
    Wasalam Alaykum wa rahmatullah,
    Wasalam Alaykum, 
    Reformist is not a negative label when it comes to Academic and intellectual discourse, it can in fact in may places be a term of praise. In arabic they use the term 'mujadid' for a number of great scholars, which is used to mean something similar to reformist. 
    Funnily enough, there is a site: https://shiareformist.wordpress.com/
    In farsi they use the term 'Roshan Fikr' which again, although carries negative connotations in some ways, it can also be seen as a positive attribute in certain fields. 
     
    Wow, the comments about Sayyid Khamenei is up there among the seriously ignorant things i've heard regarding our jurists and fiqh as a whole. Sayyid Khamenei is known in the hawzaat as someone who is on the manhaaj of Fiqh al-Jawahiri, and is considered pretty traditional. 

    If you wanted to put names of reformists (in ideas), you would say in recent history apart from the other two mentioned, it was Sayyid Baqir Sadr (r), Sayyidi al-Khu'i (r) shaykh Sadiqi Tehrani, among those who have passed, and Shaykh Jannaati among those still alive. There are a good number of scholars who fall into this category. 
    The ideas of Sayyid Khamanei that are known among the people to vary from others in fiqh are just the use of optical aid in moon-sighting and artificial insemination. Other than those, most of his rulings fall into standard Shia traditional views. 
    He has multiple talks (some i have translated in places) regarding keeping fiqh traditional. 
    Sayyid Fadhlullah (r) is just the logical conclusion of Sayyid Khui's methodology (rejecting the usage of Shohrah - popularity in extrapolating Islamic law). Sayyid Khu'i and Shahid Sadr did not completely implement their ideas from Usul al-Fiqh inside their Fiqh rulings, whereas Sayyid Fadhlulah went the whole 10 yards. 
  22. Like
    Al-Englisi reacted to Islamic Salvation in Ḥadīth Question   
    The chain is quite obscure. Ibn al-Ghadhairi notes that the Ghulat generally had attributed a lot of spurious material to Mufadhal. Having said this, the Hadith should be studied on its own merit without necessarily considering it the words of the Imam (Ref. to al-Muhsini in Mishra'ah). Some scholars have autheticated it because of what they deemed the miraculuous nature of the content (e.g. Sadr al-Din Amili).
    Some claims found in it are questionable, like the notion that scientific achievements in fields like astrology and medicine are directly a result of God's revelation, when we know that human endeavour resulted in a lot of errors and mistakes.
  23. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from von Lohengramm in Ḥadīth Question   
    Bismillah
    Wasalam alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatu
    It's called حديث الاهليلجة and comes through Mufaddhal b. Umar al-Ju'fi (in a letter exchange with Imam Sadiq). The narration is very lengthy. 
    The chain of narrators is as follows:
     حدثني محمد بن محرزة بن سعيد النحوي بدمشق قال حدثني محمد بن ابي‏مسهر بالرملة عن ابيه عن جده قال کتب المفضل بن عمر الجعفي الي ابي‏عبدالله
    Mufadhhal is a disputed figure amongst scholars of Rijaal. Some consider him very weak and untrustworthy, while others consider him to be from the special companions of the Imams.  
    The narration has been recollected by Muhaddith Majlisi in his Bihaar (as mentioned above). I am not aware of an earlier source than that, although it is also referred to as a separate treatise/book. 
  24. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Determined in Are there many iranians who convert to christianity ?   
    In my experience with Iranians, very few (in Iran) actually become atheist. Those who leave Islam, do so while adopting another Religion. 
    A large part of it is the distance between the clerical establishment and the people, causing a noticeable misunderstanding between the two. 
    Although factors like pressures from the government and ideas of freedom do play a role, one of the biggest factors is the ideas of western freedom that have been injected through satellite and internet platforms in to many Iranian homes. If you see how many persian channels are propagating against Islam, and attacking it in every way possible, causing serious doubts in the minds of the young and old, you see why such a situation would arise. 
    It is not the fault of the government and  religious scholars only, there is a lot of propaganda from the outside and inside alike. It is not a completely natural move as many would like to make it sound, but rather for a large part, engineered and directed outside of Iran. 
    There are many factors at play, and it seems everyone is pointing the fingers away from themselves, which makes it less likely that things will improve drastically any time soon. 
  25. Like
    Al-Englisi got a reaction from Abu Nur in Are there many iranians who convert to christianity ?   
    In my experience with Iranians, very few (in Iran) actually become atheist. Those who leave Islam, do so while adopting another Religion. 
    A large part of it is the distance between the clerical establishment and the people, causing a noticeable misunderstanding between the two. 
    Although factors like pressures from the government and ideas of freedom do play a role, one of the biggest factors is the ideas of western freedom that have been injected through satellite and internet platforms in to many Iranian homes. If you see how many persian channels are propagating against Islam, and attacking it in every way possible, causing serious doubts in the minds of the young and old, you see why such a situation would arise. 
    It is not the fault of the government and  religious scholars only, there is a lot of propaganda from the outside and inside alike. It is not a completely natural move as many would like to make it sound, but rather for a large part, engineered and directed outside of Iran. 
    There are many factors at play, and it seems everyone is pointing the fingers away from themselves, which makes it less likely that things will improve drastically any time soon. 
×
×
  • Create New...