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

kalaam

Banned
  • Content Count

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kalaam

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Contact Methods

  • Facebook
    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000658857828

Profile Information

  • Location
    Face Book
  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,235 profile views
  1. wow. such an explosion of emotions. something that doesn't let him think clearly. our sunni leader was attacked just a few days ago, and many were killed. but the shias are actually good at crying foul.
  2. If anyone does research, he will find that the money saudi govt throws in refuting shias is not even 5 % of what Iranian govt uses against Sunnis. Personally, I think it is not even 1 %, but just saying 5 % to be on the safe path.
  3. actually we all are not brothers and sisters in islam. Remember, Shiaism is like poison for Muslims. No one loves to include poison in his body, similarly Muslims are a body, this poison is an outsider. We don't consider it a part of us. We are indeed full of hate for this cult, since we have studied it in detail. Its claim of brotherhood are open fraud, anyhow, I personally don't try to waste time of people if they are in love with Shia Islam. Everyone has his choice, but there will be no choice in hereafter.
  4. lol, a shia with even a knife will not even smell the scent of Masjid nabawi (saww) for a million years. Rather remember my these words, Shiism will not expand now, it will only contract till it is in Isfahan and Qum only.
  5. Since you want to prove your claim by hook or crook, so you will never bother to look at my arguments. Do you even remember our last discussion, Majlisi had graded a narration as hasan, which means he authenticated it, and you said it is weak, because of this and that problem with it, now how would it be if I said, don't tell me the hadith is not authentic since Majlisi authenticated it? Now here I am proving that the saying of jamhur considering it madani is not correct, and I am giving evidences, and you are telling me that I should not tell you that this opinion is wrong? That is a big joke, and well, I am also not going to waste time on it again. Just wanted to show your deep hypocrisy and illness of heart that you are infected with. As I said, it is also mentioned in books that jamhoor considered it makki, so Ibn Taymiyyah said nothing unique. And as far as the rest of the two points, he is mistaken, just like Majlisi got mistaken in dozens of ahadith, and just like when Nematullah jazairi says in his book anwar al numania that the traditions of tahreef in Quran are mutawatir, you don't declare him liar, but you say 'Oh he is mistaken here'. I already mentioned five very well known tafasir of the present day which declared the surah to be makki, and you still repeat funnily that most of the present day tafasir mention it as madani. I know many masahif today declare this is as madani, but many masahif today declare it as makki as well. And if you want to go on verse by verse on the surah on how its verses are makki, so tell me, and lets begin reading verse by verse. You will know that either we have to accept that the whole surah is makki, or it is partly makki and partly madani. And why should you even care about the present day masaahif when you don't give weightage to the medieval tafasir by the late scholars? Mistake in ijtihad? Declaring the ahadith of tahreef in Quran as mutawatir like that of ahadith in imamate is a mistake in Ijtihad of Majlisi and al Jazairi and Nuri al tibrisi? Show me five sahih shia ahadith regarding tahreef of Quran, if ther are not even five sahih shia traditions regarding tahreef of Quran, and still these grand scholars of Shias claim to say that the narrations regarding tahreef of Quran are mutawatir, they are doing a much more huge blunder then Ibn taymiyyah in this case. Since you are not able to answer my arguments rightly, you are raising useless arguments for no valid reason. Simply considering any tafsir to be the best doesn't mean that a person would have read every word of it. Just like many Muslims consider Quran to be the best book but alot of them haven't read evey word of it, or don't remember every word of it. And again, he might have read in some tafsir that jamhur considers it makki, as well as the tafsir of ibn zamaneen, and few others as i mentioned and besides them as well in which the verse was declared madani. Now the only option on which I will agree with you to discuss further is to go on verse by verse of the surah and see whether they are makki or madani. Otherwise, I am not going to waste my time on this topic any more.
  6. This is very logical, for he mentioned his view as mentioned in some books, and then also mentioned the difference of opinion regarding it. And how do you say that the surah being madani is his actual position? Similarly your mentioning of Tafsir al Baghawi shouldn't count here, since he mentioned the difference of opinion here only. Ibn Abi Zamaneen (d. 399 H) is a much earlier scholar than any of the mufassireen except for Imam tabari (d. 310) that you have mentioned, and Zamakhshari (d. 438 H) is also a much earlier mufassir than any of the scholars except Imam Tabari that you have mentioned. And many of the rest are contemporary to the scholars you mentioned. So you don't have any right to talk about it being said by early or late scholars. And as I mentioned, to say that jamhur said it is madani is wrong, ten major tafasir say it is makki. And it is mentioned in al bahr al muheet that jamhoor considered it makki, so don't say again and again that jamhoor has declared it madani. It is totally wrong. Or else, I will also start repeating that al bahr al muheet mentions that jamhoor has declared it makki. You know, I highly dislike repetitions, if you don't have anything new to bring forth, then say it. But since you love repetition, so let me ask, how is the saying of jamhoor right when the major tafasir say it is a makki surah. Look at a small piece of it 1. It is mentioned in Tafsir Kashaf 4/194 سورة الانسان مكية. وهى إحدى وثلاثون آية 2. It is mentioned in Tafsir Muqatil ibn Sulayman 3/425 سورة الإنسان مكية، عددها إحدى وثلاثون آية 3. Tafsir al Razi, 30/235 سورة الإنسان إحدى وثلاثون آية مكية 4. Tafsir Alusi 29/150 سورة الإنسان وتسمى سورة الدهر والابرار والأمشاج وهل أتي وهي مكية عند الجمهور على ما في البحر 5. Tafsir Baidhawi 5/425 سورة الإنسان مكية وآيها إحدى وثلاثون آية 6. Tafsir Nasafi 4/302 سورة الانسان مكية وهي احدى وثلاثون آية 7. Durr al manthur 6/296 سورة الانسان مكية 8. Tafsir Tha'alabi 10/93 سورة الإنسان (الدهر)) مكية، وهي ألف وأربع مائة وخمسون حرفا، ومائتان وأربعون كلمة، وإحدى وثلاثون آية 9. Tafsir Ibn Kathir 8/285 تفسير سورة الإنسان وهي مكية 10. Tafsir ibn abi Zamaneen 2/289 تفسير سورة هل أتى على الإنسان وهي مكية كلها This is not only the individual view of Sayyid Qutub (Egypt) and Mawdudi (Pakistan), but of Mufti Muhammad Shafi (Pakistan) , Shaykh Muhammad Tahir ibn Ashur (Tunisia), Abdur rahman ibn Nasir al Sadi (Saudi Arabia) as well. And all these are contemporary scholars. You know what, I am a hanafi, I am not a salafi, but I will defend any scholar from the wrongful accusations. And Shias are blind in their accusations upon the scholars of ahlus sunnah, and this is what I have exposed here. This topic is not the bugdh of Ibn Taymiyyah, but it is the bugdh of Shias. If your raeesul muhadditheen Baqir Majlisi can commit mistakes in dozens of ahadith by grading their chain mutabar but when we present it to Shias, they say it is weak, that is a much bigger trouble than this single mistake that you guys are getting crazy about. Last words, Ibn Taymiyyah's book is a classic refutation of Shias, and Shias can't do anything but trying to find a few mistakes in it. They can't refute it, and I can find more errors in any book of Baqir Majlisi then they can in the book of Ibn Taymiyyah, 'minhaj us sunnah'.
  7. He mentioned his view based on the saying of jamhur according to what is mentioned in al bahr, and then went on to discuss the other opinion regarding it. And I don't know from where do you consider that his real position is that it is madani, prove it. This is absolutely not his view at all. This is wrong, since I showed that nine scholars of the past absolutely declared it makki, and it is also mentioned in some books that jamhoor consider it to be makki, so your presenting one side of the argument is highly misleading, and deceptive. To say that it is the view of jamhur that the surah is madani is totally wrong, since I showed major mufassireen declaring the surah to be makki. So it would be better to accept the view of what is mentioned in al bahr that jamhur actually considered it to be makki. This is totally wrong. It is mentioned in Tafsir Maariful Quran Vol. 8, p. 661, that this surah is makki. Sayyid Qutub says in 'fi zilal al Quran' في بعض الروايات أن هذه السورة مدنية ، ولكنها مكية؛ ومكيتها ظاهرة جداً In some narrations, this surah is declared madani, but it is makki, and it being a makki surah is very obvious. And similarly in tafsir tahreer wal tanweer, it is declared makki surah, and Maududi has also declared the surah to be makki. So these are the contemporary scholars who declared the surah to be makki, so how do you say majority of sunni scholars today say the surah is madani? If you can't differentiate between mistake and lies, than ask me, and I will provide many such lies from the mouth of shia scholars.
  8. How can I be doing tadlis when what I have mentioned is a conclusive proof that according to the mufassir himself, it is Makki, and the rest is the mentioning of difference in the opinion regarding it. It doesn't affect what the mufassir himself said in his book. And I mentioned only what the author of the book himself declared. I didn't bother about what he discusses afterwards regarding who considered it makki, and who didn't. So these ten mufassireen considered the surah to be makki, so how can the claim of jamhoor considering it as madani surah be considered right? Who is the jamhoor, ten major mufassireen consider it to be makki. The claim of jamhoor to be considering it madani is absolutely wrong in the light of what I mentioned. Apart from what is mentioned in Tafsir Alusi that jamhoor consider it to be makki, I didn't mention it, but if you say with reference to few books that jamhoor consider it to be madani, so remember that it is also mentioned in some books, that jamhoor consider it to be makki. And I really don't know why do you need to enlarge the size of text to such an extent for posting. Yeah, since you can't prove it sahih, hence the better thing is to say 'I don't care'. Nice try. By the way, this is also one of the funny refutations to Ibn Taymiyyah I have read online. This shows that his answer as a whole is unrefutable for the Shias, and ultimately he wins the argument that the narration is not sahih.
  9. We know it much better than the Shia religion, who even copied the terms used in hadith from us.
  10. Open a new topic, and lets discuss on the hadith of ghadeer khumm in detail whether it proves Ali (ra) as first imam or not. I will copy the discussion in our forum as well. Give a link to the new topic here too. So you are saying that this necessary characteristic of imams, if told to shias of their time, would have caused the Shias turning their backs to the Imams? That is a funny assumption, I am amused.
  11. This is one of the reasons he gave for the fabricated narration brought by the Shia scholar in his book. If you want to refute him, refute all his points, not just one. Secondly, 1. It is mentioned in Tafsir Kashaf 4/194 سورة الانسان مكية. وهى إحدى وثلاثون آية 2. It is mentioned in Tafsir Muqatil ibn Sulayman 3/425 سورة الإنسان مكية، عددها إحدى وثلاثون آية 3. Tafsir al Razi, 30/235 سورة الإنسان إحدى وثلاثون آية مكية 4. Tafsir Alusi 29/150 سورة الإنسان وتسمى سورة الدهر والابرار والأمشاج وهل أتي وهي مكية عند الجمهور على ما في البحر 5. Tafsir Baidhawi 5/425 سورة الإنسان مكية وآيها إحدى وثلاثون آية 6. Tafsir Nasafi 4/302 سورة الانسان مكية وهي احدى وثلاثون آية 7. Durr al manthur 6/296 سورة الانسان مكية 8. Tafsir Tha'alabi 10/93 سورة الإنسان (الدهر)) مكية، وهي ألف وأربع مائة وخمسون حرفا، ومائتان وأربعون كلمة، وإحدى وثلاثون آية 9. Tafsir Ibn Kathir 8/285 تفسير سورة الإنسان وهي مكية 10. Tafsir ibn abi Zamaneen 2/289 تفسير سورة هل أتى على الإنسان وهي مكية كلها Even though after these ten tafasir which have declared this surah to be makki, lets turn our attention to the narration in reply to which Ibn Taymiyyah said this as his point number five, lets talk on the main issue, the narration in reply to which Ibn Taymiyyah said this ,whether it is sahih or not. Prove it sahih, and you will give a huge refutation to Ibn Taymiyyah's answer. Otherwise accept that his answer as a whole is unrefutable for you people.
  12. There is no evidence in our books as far as I know that whether the Prophet (saww) halted at eighty lashes, or this was one of the punishment he gave as had for drinking wine, but this is clear that Umar (ra) fixed it. He is going to break his stick while beating the rope with it.
  13. The narration that prophet (saww) didn't fix the hadd for drinking wine in our books is more than enough for destroying the sand castle that you built.
  14. It was viewed as hadd. Again, for the pw, this narration is a shia narration, sahih sanad, present in your book al Kafi علي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن يونس، عن أبي بصير، عن أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) قال: قلت له: كيف كان يجلد رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله)؟ قال: فقال: كان يضرب بالنعال و يزيد كلما أتي بالشارب ثم لم يزل الناس يزيدون حتى وقف على ثمانين، أشار بذلك علي (عليه السلام) على عمر فرضي بها It is narrated from Abu Basir that he said : I said to to Imam Jafar: How did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله strike for wine (drinking)? He said: He would strike by the sandals and increase when he was brought the drinker. Then the people did not cease increasing until he halted that upon eighty. `Ali عليه السلام pointed that out to `Umar, so he was pleased by it. So here is a proof from your own book, that the Prophet (saww) didn't halt on forty, but he increased it till he halted on eighty lashes. And Umar (ra) didn't start any bidah and the slanderer will meet Allah with a blackened face inshaAllah for making a false accusation upon one of the noblest of the noble persons, Umar ibn Khattab (ra)
  15. Funny reply again. The majority of the shia companions of the imams didn't consider them infallibles, they were not the Sunni companions, they were the Shia companions, as clearly mentioned in the book of your shaheed al thani. So why would you bring christians here? As far as your saying that the imamate of Ali (ra) was clearly announced to the entire ummah, that is a thing considered as myth by Sunnis. So don't present myths to us to prove your arguments. If all Shias of this forum condemn atleast Bashar al Assad al nusairi, or even if only a dozen of their major scholars from Iran condemn him, I would be the first to condemn all the Shia killings in Pakistan.
×
×
  • Create New...