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

qalandar_1

Banned
  • Content Count

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by qalandar_1

  1. I think a one liner would have been enough. So mushaf-e-fatima is a collection of Hadith e Qudsi? Where is it right now? Two other books ie Al Jamia and Al Jafr have also been mentioned in shia Hadiths.what are they?
  2. Would a shia explain verse 3:7 to me? Or summarize Tabatabai's explanation of this verse in Tafseer-e-Meezan åõæó ÇáøóÐöíó ÃóäÒóáó Úóáóíúßó ÇáúßöÊóÇÈó ãöäúåõ ÂíóÇÊñ ãøõÍúßóãóÇÊñ åõäøó Ãõãøõ ÇáúßöÊóÇÈö æóÃõÎóÑõ ãõÊóÔóÇÈöåóÇÊñ ÝóÃóãøóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó Ýí ÞõáõæÈöåöãú ÒóíúÛñ ÝóíóÊøóÈöÚõæäó ãóÇ ÊóÔóÇÈóåó ãöäúåõ ÇÈúÊöÛóÇÁ ÇáúÝöÊúäóÉö æóÇÈúÊöÛóÇÁ ÊóÃúæöíáöåö æóãóÇ íóÚúáóãõ ÊóÃúæöíáóåõ ÅöáÇøó Çááøåõ æóÇáÑøóÇÓöÎõæäó Ýöí ÇáúÚöáúãö íóÞõæáõæäó ÂãóäøóÇ Èöåö ßõáøñ ãøöäú ÚöäÏö ÑóÈøöäóÇ æóãóÇ íóÐøóßøóÑõ ÅöáÇøó ÃõæúáõæÇú ÇáÃáúÈóÇÈö (3:7)
  3. Even after such a clear evidence from the Quran you deny the status of syedna Abu bakar Ra? Was not it the best time for Allah to reveal the "reality" of Abu Bakr Ra to Mohamad PBUH? I wonder how the Prophet PBUH took the risk of going into the cave with a "munafiq" (maazAllah) Try to understand that whats the root cause of all this trouble. The main issue is "Ghulu" exaggeration in the status of human beings which lead us to having extremly high expectations about them but when our rxpectations are countered by the historical record, we end up either rejecting it or doing taweel of that record or saying that "probably he was under taqiyya" For us sunnies , no human is shari , noone is masoom except syedna Mohamad PBUH so we don'y have much issues interpreting the Quran and hadiths. Ali ibn Abi Talib said to Zubair: “(Although) we got angry momentarily at the time of consultation (i.e. Saqifah), we can now see that Abu Bakr is the most deserving of the Caliphate: He was the companion of the Messenger of Allah in the cave. We know of his life and we know that the Messenger of Allah had ordered him to lead the prayers.” And then he (Ali) gave his Baya’ah (to Abu Bakr). (Sharh Nahjul-Balagha; Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed; Vol.1, p.132) The Sahaba ( may Allah be pleased with them all) were a picture of this verse of Quran and are free of all lies. (no exceptions have been made in this verse by Allah) مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّاء عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاء بَيْنَهُمْ تَرَاهُمْ رُكَّعًا سُجَّدًا يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانًا سِيمَاهُمْ فِي وُجُوهِهِم مِّنْ أَثَرِ السُّجُودِ ذَلِكَ مَثَلُهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَمَثَلُهُمْ فِي الْإِنجِيلِ كَزَرْعٍ أَخْرَجَ شَطْأَهُ فَآزَرَهُ فَاسْتَغْلَظَ فَاسْتَوَى عَلَى سُوقِهِ يُعْجِبُ الزُّرَّاعَ لِيَغِيظَ بِهِمُ الْكُفَّارَ وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ مِنْهُم مَّغْفِرَةً وَأَجْرًا عَظِيمًا (48:29) Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. Thou (O Muhammad) seest them bowing and falling prostrate (in worship), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) acceptance. The mark of them is on their foreheads from the traces of prostration. Such is their likeness in the Torah and their likeness in the Gospel like as sown corn that sendeth forth its shoot and strengtheneth it and riseth firm upon its stalk, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the disbelievers with (the sight of) them. Allah hath promised, unto such of them as believe and do good works, forgiveness and immense reward. 48:29
  4. 1. thats why i said "like 20 %", i may be wrong but it cant be more than 40 % iam sure. 2. Would you name any 5 mainstream paki zakirs to whom an Imami shia would like to listen? 3.Any evidence of a direct fatwa against such people will be appreciated p.s, wish you good luck for your research on the scholarly work of the deputies of Mahdi.
  5. @bhooka_bhariya .A few years ago when i was in pakistan,on the demand of a friend,i visited Sehwan (sindh) and there i had the chance of a meeting with Imran liaqat Hussain. He claims to an "Ayathullah" and have settled besides the shrine of Lal shehbaz.I did not take him serious as his beliefs were nuseyri and he had a weird explanation of wahdat-ul-wajood ( of which even Muhy ud din Ibn Arabi himself might have never thought). I just cant get onething that if these so called shias dont belong to shiasm, why dont the shia scholars do an open takfeer of him? Why dont the shias remove such weak narrations from their scriptures on which these people establish their reasoning? I think , till the day texts like " Ali Allah az azal Guftam" exist, such confusions will keep on prevailing. watch the people doing sajda to him and listen him castigating the religion as a whole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTyJaDARpHc
  6. naah sorry i read your post late. I agree with you on the point that "ali rab" (maazAllah) is a paki phenomenon and this concept is prevalent among the nuseyri/ghulat/sufi type of people.They call themselves shias.A few people like Jan ali shah kazmi are vocal against them but they are too few and i have heard many shia guys calling Jan ali shah kazmi " A wahabi in disguise". Would you agree with me on two things? 1. Vast majority of the paki shia is nuseyri/ghulat? (except for like 20 %) 2.Majority of shia zakireen in this region have injected such beliefs in the minds of these "shias" which are in contradiction with the Imami school of thought?
  7. (salam) brother, i do know that its not a mainstream shia belief,rather its a ghulaat/nuseyri belief but my point was that such narrations do exist in the shia literature.
  8. Here is an "authorative proof" A scanned page from Jalaul 'ayun by Mullah Baqir majlisi word to word translation > "The Rab which is adressed in Quran is Saqi e kothar Ali as.The prophets have preached oneness of the creator and whenever there were ant catastrophes from their Allah,they (Prophets) have called their Rab (Ali as) for help".
  9. Whenever we are talking about a certain faith or religion,we will have to refer the issues of its discourse to the scripture of that specific religion and on this point almost every theist will agree with me with the sole exception of some sufis who think that they have some extra-scriptural ways to reach what they call "the absolute reality". With that exception, almost all the orthodox sunni/shia agree on the extraction of the guidance and religious doctrines from the basic scripture and ofcourse,the undisputed basic scripture is Quran Al Majeed. Allah subhano wa ta'la says in the holly Quran "This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion." (-- Qur'an 5:3,) This verse speaks of the perfection of the religion ( I dont want to get into its Asbab e nazul) and is unambigious in its immediate as well as secondary meanings. Would you let me know that if Allah Almighty himself says that this day the religion has been perfected for you and this verse was revealed way earlier than the events of karbala, why would i take Karbala as a tenet of religion despite the shared respect we have for the Grand son of the Prophet ,Al Hussain Ra? I do know that human emotions are affiliated with the tragic events of karbala but such emtions are exaggerated due to the misreporting of the exact events. Give me a good reasons, why Allah did not mention this event of karbala in Quran in any way if its so significant for every muslim? You can also refer to the hundreds of examples in the history where people have raised against cruel rulers and they have been killed.Latter on, their suporters have attributed much of fiction to the events of war due to their sensational attachment with that up-raisers and its also a known fact that all the resources of prose and poetry have been used to escalate the status of that up-risers and defame the ruler against whom he raised up. Why would i take karbala as something different from this scenario when i have the evidence of exaggeration/misreporting and unreliability of the main primary narrator?
  10. I think that a brief two liner explanation will be enough instead of some lengthy Taweelat
  11. nothing can describe you better than that of your own line. I really have hundred folds to answer you back but the rules of the forum will not allow me to do so and above all, such an answer will drag me in the same category with you ( which ofcourse I would not like much).My opinion in this thread has been extremely clear about the historical record/chain of events/personalities involved and thats where i stand.If you want to debate these issues including your symptomatic SOS ( Salafi obsession syndrome), be my guest at a neutral forum. Will you elaborate this line for me? Im in no love with Yazid and why would I be? I have not attributed any virtues/merits to him in this thread at all.It was all about viewing the historical documentation of the events of karbala and their reliability.
  12. P.S. tell me if u agree with the fatwa of Ayathullah wal Uzza Mohammad Sadiq Ruhani? Ayatullat wal-Uzza Mohammad Sadiq Ruhani said about people who believe in tahreef: من یقول بالتحریف بالزیادة و النقصان لا یجوز رمیه بالکفر. "It's not permitted to accuse in disbelief person who would say that there is addition and deficiency (in Quran)". CODEhttp://www.imamrohani.com/fatwa-ar/viewtopic.php?t=3546 Thanks for a clear answer. plz stick to this thread and i shall present the evidence of those books tomorrow along with the views of famous shia scholars on Tehreef fil Quran. (p.s , I was a great admirer of the political ideology of Musa Al-sadr)(salam)
  13. Qol =word , talk in arabic I would present the evidence of tehreef and a shia scholar claiming that the hadiths abt Tehreef in shia books are Muthawathir. I would also present the evidence of shia belief in some extra-Quranic revelations as the thread moves on and the OP responds to my answer about Abdullah Ibn masood Ra
  14. brother , these are the words of Tusi, it cant be taken as Ijmaa,for Ijmaa u have to present the Qol of a Mujthahid who says that the scholars have been unanimous on the issue of the authenticity of Quran. I think whoever goes against Ijmaa' is kafir let alone going against the Nas of Quran so would u answer these two question in ur own words or any fatwa? 1.) liars!!! 2.) it is common sense that while the Quran is the most authoritative text and the final revelation for us,we also believe in Qudsi hadith like sunnis also have them.sunnis also believe those are the words of Allah.therefore it makes no difference if any text out of the Quran exist which is believed to also be revelation from Allah.what is your point? 1.so whoever says that the present Quran is not complete is just a liar and not a kafir? 2.My point was the if peson A claims that Allah had revealed certain other books besides Quran but they were not made public and were kept secret. What will u say about person A?
  15. I would like to see the evidence of such an Ijmaa' if it ever took place (wasalam), thanks for welcoming me.plz post the issues regarding Bidaa' in the relevant threads. brother why would you act on a hadith which is weak according to you?sahaba stars see the topic , its "tehrif challenge!" so i have the right to present the counter proofs. brother haideriam, would u expound on this?
  16. before going any further, i have two questions here. 1. Whats the Shia Imami view of the person who says that tahreef has been done to the Quran? 2. Are their any extra Quranic ( other thans hadith books) books in which the shia believe? What if a person claims to have such a book which is not Quran but is from Allah?
  17. MY only point is that one of our Adila e deen ( basics to extract the orders of religion) is Ijmaa' ie consensus. So his argument of the first thread which he has been pasted can easily be refuted by saying that the even if we accept that Abdullah Ibn masood Ra held such views then those views can be taken as his personal opinion.After Mashaf e othman Ra, there has been a complete consensus in-between the muslims that Quran is complete,perfect and free of any distortions.However, the shia scholars have been claiming tehreef fil Quran after that even. Molvi Mushtaq hussain is the latest example of the 20th century. By the way, what would u say about a person who claims that "pakistan" has been mentioned in the original Quran?
  18. The OP has tried to use the logic " why do you blame us for this? You believe in it as well", like if a person is cautioned about his deviant beliefs and he in turn says " what if i hold such a belief,u have the same belief as well". Its an effort like "two wrongs never make a right". From the intentions and mindset of the OP,its now well established that he believes in Tehreef e Quran and is trying to say that what if i believe in it? you believe in it as well so its like shooting oneself in his foot. I would provide some counter arguments for his claims. Here is a shia fatwa from Ayatullat wal-Uzza Mohammad Sadiq Ruhani about the people who believe in tehreef fil Quran. ãä یÞæá ÈÇáÊÍÑیÝ ÈÇáÒیÇÏÉ æ ÇáäÞÕÇä áÇ یÌæÒ Ñãیå ÈÇá˜ÝÑ. "It's not permitted to accuse in disbelief person who would say that there is addition and deficiency (in Quran)".so u cant accuse Abdullah Ibn masood Ra of infedility (maazAllah) anyways. The first thing is that it was the Ijma of the sahaba that the copy of Quran which was documented in the time of Hadrat Uthman Ra is perfect and its the same Quran which was revealed on Prophet Mohamad PBUH. It was the Ijmaa' of the sahaba that Mashaf e Usmani is the exact form of Quran (word to word,letter to letter) as it was revealed on Prophet Mohamad PBUH. The arguments of the OP can be straight away rejected on the basis of Ijma which is an Idilaa for us.Even if we accept that Abdullah Ibn Masood Ra went against the Ijmaa' (which he did not at all),his views will become khabar e wahid and will be rejected on the basis of sticking to the Ijmaa'. First of all, i would like to present two authentic hadiths( sunni sources are binding on him as he has tried to prove his case from sunni sources) from Hadrat Ubai bin kaa'b Ra which is ofcourse the most notable Sahaba in Quranic discourse.Both of these Hadiths will prove that the mu'awwidhtayn are a part of the Quran and the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them all) regarded and read them as a part of the Quran Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish: I asked Ubai bin Ka'b regarding the two Muwwidhat (Surats of taking refuge with Allah). He said, "I asked the Prophet about them, He said, 'These two Surats have been recited to me and I have recited them (and are present in the Qur'an).' So, we say as Allah's Apostle said (i.e., they are part of the Qur'an)" [sahih Bukhari - 6.60.500] Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish: I asked Ubai bin Ka'b, "O Abu AlMundhir! Your brother, Ibn Mas'ud said so-and-so (i.e., the two Mu'awwidh-at do not belong to the Qur'an)." Ubai said, "I asked Allah's Apostle about them, and he said, 'They have been revealed to me, and I have recited them (as a part of the Qur'an)," So Ubai added, "So we say as Allah's Apostle has said." [sahih Bukhari - 6.60.501] Here i would quote Mualna madudi Ra on this issue. "Here, the question arises: what caused Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud the misunderstanding that these two are not Surahs of the Qur'an? We get the answer to it when we combine two traditions: first, that Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud asserted that this was only a command which the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam)was given to teach him the method of seeking refuge with Allah; second, the tradition which Imam Bukhari has related in his Sahih, Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, Hafiz Abu Bakr al- Humaidi in his Musnad, Abu Nu'aim in his Al-Mustakhraj and Nasai in his Sunan, with different chains of transmitters, on the authority of Zirr bin Hubaish, with a slight variation in wording from Hadrat Ubayy bin Kab, who held a distinguished place among the Companions on the basis of his knowledge of the Qur'an. Zirr bin Hubaish states: "I said to Hadrat Ubayy: Your brother, Abdullah bin Mas'ud, says these things. What do you say about this view? He replied: I had questioned the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) about this. He said to me: I was told to say 'qul', so I said 'qul'. Therefore, we too say the same as the Holy Prophet said." In the tradition related by Imam Ahmad, Hadrat Ubayy's words are to the effect: "I bear witness that the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) told me that Gabriel (peace be on him) had told him to say: Qul a'udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq; therefore, he recited likewise, and Gabriel asked him to say: Qul a'udhu bi- Rabbin-nas; therefore he too said likewise. Hence, we too say as the Holy Prophet said." A little consideration of these two traditions will show that the word qul (say) in the two Surahs caused Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud the misunderstanding that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) had been commanded to say: A'udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq and A'udhu bi-Rabbin-nas. But he did not feel any need to question the Holy Prophet about it. In the mind of Hadrat Ubbay bin Kab also a question arose about his and he put it before the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet replied: "Since Gabriel (peace be on him) had said qul, so I too say qul." Let us put it like this. If somebody is commanded and asked: "Say, I seek refuge", he will not carry out the command, saying: "Say, I seek refuge", but he will drop the work "say" and say: "I seek refuge." On the contrary, if the messenger of a superior officer conveys to somebody the message in these words: "Say, I seek refuge", and this command is given to him not only for his own person but to be conveyed to others, he will convey the words of the message verbatim to the people, and will not have the permission to drop anything from the text of the message. Thus, the fact that these two Surahs begin with the word qul is a clear proof that it is Divine Word, which the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) was bound to convey verbatim. It was not merely a command given to him for his person. Besides these two Surahs, there are 330 other verses in the Qur'an which begin with the word qul (say). The presence of qul in all these is a proof that it is Divine Word. which was obligatory for the Holy Prophet to convey verbatim; otherwise if qul everywhere had meant a command, the Holy Prophet would have dropped it and said only that which he was commanded to say, and it would not have been recorded in the Qur'an, but, on the contrary, he would have remained content with saying only what he was commanded to say. Here, if one considers this, one can understand fully well how unreasonable it is to regard the Companions as infallible and to make the clamor that a Companion has been defamed as soon as one hears a saying or doing of his being described as wrong. Here, one can clearly see what a blunder happened to be committed by an illustrious Companion like Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud about two Surahs of the Qur'an. If such an error could be committed by an eminent Companion like him, others also might commit an error. We can examine it in the scientific way, and describe it as wrong if a thing said or done by a Companion is proved to be wrong. But wicked indeed would be the person who went beyond describing a wrong act as wrong and started reproving and finding fault with the Companions of the Holy Prophet of Allah (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam). Concerning the Mu'awwidhatayn the commentators and traditionists have described the opinion of Ibn Mas'ud as wrong, but no one has dared to say that by denying these two Surahs of the Qur'an, he had, God forbid, become a disbeliever." After Mushaf e Othman Ra which was sent to all parts of the Muslim world that time and which was recorded with the consensus of the sahaba ( may Allah be pleased with them all) no muslim has ever challenged the authenticity of Quran. Just as a counter argument, i would start with an example of shia belief in tehreef. Just to begin it in a lighter tone,here is a book of a famous shia scholar,Abdul kareem mushtaq and he says that "pakistan was mentioned by name in the orignal Quran )
  19. Bada has two meanings in the Arabic language: The first meaning is "Appearance after hiding." For example, you say "bada" the gates of the city, or the gates of the city had appeared. The second meaning is the "origination of the new idea." For example, you say "bada" for him a matter, or he got a new idea in a matter. [Mukhtar Al-Sahhah 7/2278, Lisan Al-Arab 14/66, and Majma'a Al-Bahrain 1/45] The two meanings are reported in the Quran and are attributed to humans. For the first meaning of the word, Allah says, "Whether ye bida "show" what is in your minds or conceal it, Allah calleth you to account for it." [Al-Baqarah, 284] And the second meaning is when Allah says, "Then it occurred to the men after they had seen the Signs, (that it was best) to imprison him for a time." [Yousef, 35] These two meanings – appearance after hiding and the origination of the new idea – must be preceded by ignorance and followed by knowledge. Both of these two meanings are according to the Sunni view on Bada not applicable to Allah. Sunnis view it is a disbelief to attribute such meanings to Allah. Your badaa has alot of examples ias badda is one of the basic tenets of shiaism.The theory of Imamat stands on badaa. Here is an example Al-Majlisi says in Bihar Al-Anwar that Abu Jaffar said, “O’ Abu Hamzah, if we told you something, and then another thing happened, then Allah does as he desires. And if we told you something today, and then we tell you the opposite tomorrow, then Allah deletes what He wishes, and confirms what He wishes.” [Bihar Al-Anwar by Al-Majlisi, vol.4, p.119. Tafseer Al-Ayashi, vol.2, p.217. Al-Burhan fi Tafseer Al-Quran, vol.2, p.299]
  20. U better had refuted my points with some historical evidence from the well acknowledged historians or hadiths, i would have responded but u did not do that. Ur comments about the Hadiths and the way u want the atheists,agnostics etc to be the judge in the case of religious matters shows that you are not an Imami shia either. U seem to be a sufi/ghulat or a mixture of them so i better put you on ignore.Go to some doctor to treat you for SOS ( salafi obsession syndrome).You are ignored
  21. Alhamdulilah that u opened this topic. I would satisfy you very will and will prove from your books that what was the belief of your earlier scholars.I just want a mod approval for that as i see many threads on this topic ie tehreef in Quran have been locked.
  22. thats is no excuse. kulayni while recording hadiths did not mention the names of many narrators due to security reasons already. Later on the scholars "decoded" Al kafi and came to know about the narrators.Uthman bin saed and the other three representatives could have been coded as well if there were any security reasons but still they are nowhere in the picture.The irony is that according to most of shia scholars 58 % of Al-kafi is unauthentic though the its hadiths were recorded in the time of lesser occultation and kulayni lived in Baghdad near to the son of Uthman bin saed who was constantly meeting the hidden Imam and collecting money for him. "However, the chain of narrators should be evaluated. If the chain turns out to be broken (i.e., one element in the chain is missing), then the tradition is considered weak in Isnad. Thus all the narrators should be named, and this is the case for the majority of Shi'i collections of traditions. Nevertheless, there are only a number of traditions in Usul Kafi in which the last element in the chain is missing, i.e., the name of the person who reported to Kulaini in person. In stead of mentioning his name, Kulaini has used the phrase "a group of our associates". But Kulaini has mentioned all other elements in the chain. The reason for this was that, as I mentioned, Shia have always been under prosecution of unjust rulers including the Abbasids. If Kulaini (ra) have mentioned the names of those who reported to him and were still alive, and if the book could have found his way to the officials, then all those reporters would have been killed. To protect them, he did not mention their names and codified it by saying "a group of our associates". However he mentioned the name of those who reported to him but died during Kulaini's life. But the good news is that since Kulaini knew the regulations of scrutinizing of the traditions by the Shia, he told some of his students how the names of the last narrators are codieifed. More specifically, it was mentioned that: I. Whenever you read in Usul Kafi, that "a group of our associates narrated from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Isa", then the group here means the following five persons: 1.Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Yahya al-Attar al-Qummi 2.Ali Ibn Musa Ibn Ja'far al-Kamandani 3.Abu Sulayman Dawud Ibn Kawrah al-Qummi 4.Abu Ali Ahmad Ibn Idris Ibn Ahmad al-Ash'ari al-Qummi 5.Abul Hasan Ali Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Hashim al-Qummi. II. Whenever you read in Usul Kafi, that "a group of our associates narrated from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Khalid al-Barqi", then the group here means the following four persons: 1.Abul Hasan Ali Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Hashim al-Qummi 2.Muhammad Ibn Abdillah Ibn Udhaynah 3.Ahmad Ibn Abillah Ibn Umayyah 4. Ali Ibn al-Husain al-Sa'd Abadi. III. Whenever you read in Usul Kafi, that "a group of our associates narrated from Sahl Ibn Ziyad", then the group here means the following four persons: 1. Abul Hasan Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Aban al-Razi, who is known as Allan al-Kulaini 2. Abul Husain Muhammad Ibn Abdillah Ja'far Ibn Muhammad Ibn Awn al- Asadi al-Kufi, resident of ray. 3. Muhammad Ibn al-Husain Ibn Farrukh al-Saffar al-Qummi 4. Muhammad Ibn Aqil al-Kulaini. IV. Whenever you read in Usul Kafi, that "a group of our associates narrated from Ja'far Ibn Muhammad who narrated from al-Hasan Ibn Ali Ibn al-Faddal", then the group here consists of the following person: 1. Abu Abdillah al-Husain Ibn Muhammad Ibn Imran Ibn Abi Bakr al- Ash'ari al-Qummi. Thus the narrators of those traditions are known and can be evaluated accordingly. Nontheless, we do not claim that al-Kafi is an all authentic book of traditions for the Shia. There are certain traditions in al-Kafi which are reported by weak narrators who are known to the Shia scholars of Hadith." http://www.al-islam....hapter5a/3.html
  23. sallams.. My only point was that the occultation which occurred in the case of Twelver's mehdi's was not something new for the shias. Earlier,many shia sects have claimed occultation for different Imams/people as mentioned by the OP. We do believe in mehdi and we do believe that he will be the descendant of Hadrat Hassan Ra but he will be naturally born and will meet certain signs from which the people will recognize him.
  24. Here is another such narration about the Imam but its not in AL-kafi,its in Al-khisal. حدثنا أبي رضي الله عنه قال: حدثنا أحمد بن إدريس قال: حدثني محمد بن أحمد، عن موسى بن عمر، عن عبد الله بن جبلة، عن حنان بن سدير قال: دخلت على أبي عبد الله عليه السلام وعلي نعل سوداء فقال: مالك ولبس نعل سوداء! أما علمت أن فيها ثلاث خصال؟ قال: قلت: وما هي جعلت فداك؟ قال: تضعف البصر، وترخي الذكر، وتورث الهم وهي مع ذلك من لباس الجبارين، عليك بلبس نعل صفراء فان فيها ثلاث خصال قال: قلت: وما هي قال: تحد البصر، وتشد الذكر، وتنفي الهم، وهي مع ذلك من لباس الانبياء عليهم السلام (The compiler of the book narrated) that his father - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ahmad ibn Idris quoted Muhammad ibn Ahmad, on the authority of Musa ibn Umar, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Jabal'le, on the authority of Han'nan ibn Sadeer, "I went to see Aba Abdullah ( Imam Jafar Al-sadiq) while I was wearing black shoes. He (MGB) asked me, 'Why are you wearing black shoes?' Don't you know that there are three attributes for them?' I said, 'May I be your ransom! No. What are they?' The Imam (MGB) said, 'They will weaken your vision, weaken your sexual drive and make you depressed. Moreover, it is part of the apparel of the oppressors. You should wear yellow shoes, since that would sharpen the vision, improve your sexual drive and reduce your depression. It is part of the Prophets' apparel." I think i wore black shoes for years regularly and its a part of most schools uniform.*** The hadith can be viewed here.Al-khisal
×
×
  • Create New...