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
Sign in to follow this  
ka3wila_omar

Syed And Non Syed Marriage

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

Respect for sadaat is an issue of aqeedah, but permissibility of marriage is completely a fiqhi issue.

You missed the point. When the aqeeda is not on the right track, it helps very little to reach to the right fiqhi conclusions.

I don't know who fed you such unislamic ideas, but I suggest that if you really respect sadaat, then you follow the teachings of the Ahlulbayt. The Ahlulbayt did not discriminate between sadaat and ghayr sadaat, and allowed the marriage of syed females with ghary syed males. So you should agree with their stance as well.

OK then, lets stick to the teachings of Ehl-ul-Bait. I will give you references of the teachings of our Imams to support my aqaed. And it is only fair that you do the same.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did. Read up the commentary of verse 33:36. The prophet himself got his cousin Zaynab bint Jahsh married to a non-hashmi male.

Syeds are Aal-e-Rasul. Imam Jafar said that Aal-e-Rasul are those, with whom , our Prophet's aqd is haram. They are the ones entitled to Khums and sadqa is haram on them. The daughters of our Prophet & Imams did not marry non-Syed. Infact they considered it Na-jaez. References are provided below.

That is NOT the basis of this permissibility. The basis of permissibility is that this act should not be haram. Since there is NO indication that syeda marrying a syed is haram (in fact, our Prophet (pbuh&hp) himself married a syeda to a non-syed), this act becomes permissible.

In other words, permissibility does not require a reason. Impermissibility does.

Actually there are indications, in mazhab e Ehl-ul-Bait, that syeda marrying a non-syed is najaez. According to teachings of Ehl-ul-Bait, there needs to be a Kufv for marriage. Non-Syeds are not the Kufv of Sadaaat which is why they cannot marry Syedzaadis.

Some Useful references as a daleel :

Syed Hassan Abtahi writes, " Just like, in the first century hijri, it was a disrespect for a non-syed to propose a Syedzaadi, it is a disrepect for all the non-syeds to propose syedzaadis till Qayamah. " ( Anwaar Zahra s.a - Matbua e Iran )

-----------

Allama Sheikh Abbas Qummi writes in his Mutahi ul Amaal, " Imam Musa Kazim a.s had 21 daughters. None of them were married because there was no Syed Shehzaada available for them. There were however non-Syed momineen but they were not their Kufv... " He then continues to write, " The daughters of the pure house did not consider their marriage valid (jaez) with non-syeds... "

----------

The wasiyat of Imam Musa Kazim, " My son is well aware of the relations of his nation. If He wills, He may and maynot marry his sisters. I have advised this to my daughters as well " ( Bihar Vol 48, P:280 )

----------

Syed Abdul Azeez, well known historian of Egypt, writes in Kitab Syeda Zainab page 21, " Ash'at Bin Qais, a non-Syed, asked for the rishta of Syeda Zainab from Maula Ali. Maula Ali became furious and told him to leave. Aha't bin qais later became the enemies of Ehl-ulBait. "

----------

Hazrat Eisa bin Zaid Bin Zain al Abideen is known by Ulema e Rijaal as the student & companion of Imam Jafar Sadiq. Allama Abdul Razaq Mauswi used to say that He was a Zahid, Abid and Mutaqqi. This student of Imam Jafar Sadiq lived a life of Taqiyah and didn't tell people that He was a Syed. He married a non-syed and had a daughter from her. When His daughter grew elder, his wife wanted to marry their daughter to a rich person. However, Hazrat Eisa objected because he didn't believe that the marriage of his Syeda daughter is jaez with a non-Syed since the non-syed was not the kufv of his daughter. ( Zaid Shaheed P 171, 177 )

-----------

There is a very long narration that I remember reading. When Marwan was the governor of Madina, He was sent, by Muawiyah, to Imam Hussain to ask for his son's rishta. He specifically mentioned that it is nowadays hard to find kufv like Muawiyah's son. He mentioned that by doing this, the adawat ( enmity ) between them will be removed, all the debts will be eliminated and they will pay heavy haq mehr. Imam Hussain gave a detailed reply, with patience. In the end He mentioned, " Kufv does not change by gaining wealth and power..... Our daughters are only for our sons. Only our sons are for our daughters. "

------------

Yes, it has. Just like the imam of a jama'at can be a non-syed, while those following him may be syeds. There is no restriction against the hakim of a syed being a non-syed.

Sheikh Mufid, "If a Syed is present, then a non-syed has no right to lead Namaaz e Janaza."

Shaheed e Saani, " Preference to a non-syed over a Syed, in Namaaz e Jamaat, is not jaez "

There is a shift in view when it comes to the sadaat because keeping the same view for them as with khaak-e-karbala is qiyas, and thus it would be sheer ignorance to do so.

Do you not know that khaak is intrinsically pure (tahir/paak), but blood is a najisul-ayn? Even the blood of sadaat. If you are trying to attribute intrinsic purity to sadaat like that which is attributed to khaak, then why don't you ask the female sadaat to not wash themselves after menstruation? Or try praying with the blood of sadaat on your clothes?

Even if you touch a dead syed (who hasn't died as a shaheed), ghusl becomes WAJIB on you. If syeds were paak like khaak-e-karbala, then why would you have to do ghusl after touching a dead syed. But a shaheed is paak, regardless of whether he is sadaat or ghayr sadaat. And this is why khaak-e-karbala is valued so highly. It is because it has the paak blood of shaheeds! Not because it has the blood of sadaat.

You completely missed the point of Ayatullah Syed Muhammad Sherazi.

So I again suggest that you do not do qiyaas in matters of Islam, and that you obtain Islamic knowledge from credible sources before preaching it to others.

Thankyou for your concern. My source of knowledge is backed by well esteemed scholars of Sunni and shia Islam who have provided references to the teachings of Ehl-ul-Bait.

Fi-Amanillah

Edited by inshaAllah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed the point. When the aqeeda is not on the right track, it helps very little to reach to the right fiqhi conclusions.

The point that you missed is that you are deriving fiqhi issues based on aqeedah. Hence you end up doing qiyas, which is haram.

Syeds are Aal-e-Rasul.

Are you SURE that only aal-e-Rasul are Syeds?

Some Useful references as a daleel :

Syed Hassan Abtahi writes, " Just like, in the first century hijri, it was a disrespect for a non-syed to propose a Syedzaadi, it is a disrepect for all the non-syeds to propose syedzaadis till Qayamah. " ( Anwaar Zahra s.a - Matbua e Iran )

This is not a reference to the teaching of the Ahlulbayt.

Allama Sheikh Abbas Qummi writes in his Mutahi ul Amaal, " Imam Musa Kazim a.s had 21 daughters. None of them were married because there was no Syed Shehzaada available for them. There were however non-Syed momineen but they were not their Kufv... " He then continues to write, " The daughters of the pure house did not consider their marriage valid (jaez) with non-syeds... "

First, you have the name of the book wrong. It's called Muntaha al-Amaal.

Second, Imam Musa Kazim had 18 daughters, not 21.

"Shaykh Mufīd (d. 413 A.H) writes that Imam al-Kāđim (A) had 37 children (whom he has named), 19 sons and 18 daughters; and that two of these daughters were named Fatima – Fatima al-Kubrā and Fatima al-Sughrā."

http://al-islam.org/masumaqum/3.htm

Third, while it is true that none of Imam Musa's daughters married, the reason that you quote is NOT given in the book that you are referring to. There is reference that no compatible husbands were found, but the part about "there was no Syed Shehzaada available for them" is fabricated, and is NOT in the book.

Nor is this written in the book: "The daughters of the pure house did not consider their marriage valid (jaez) with non-syeds..."

It was already obvious that you had never read that book by Shaykh Abbas Qummi (else you would know it's real name), but you are also trying to deceive me by quoting statements from the books of scholars that do NOT exist. So if you want to give any more "references", make sure you either give an online link to the source, or scan the page and upload it, so that I know that you are not posting false references.

The wasiyat of Imam Musa Kazim, " My son is well aware of the relations of his nation. If He wills, He may and maynot marry his sisters. I have advised this to my daughters as well " ( Bihar Vol 48, P:280 )

Utterly irrelevant. This does not show how marriage of syeda's with ghayr-syeds is impermissible.

Syed Abdul Azeez, well known historian of Egypt, writes in Kitab Syeda Zainab page 21, " Ash'at Bin Qais, a non-Syed, asked for the rishta of Syeda Zainab from Maula Ali. Maula Ali became furious and told him to leave. Aha't bin qais later became the enemies of Ehl-ulBait. "

Again, utterly irrelevant. There is no mention of the reason for rejection of the proposal here. He could have been rejected for his lack of piety.

Hazrat Eisa bin Zaid Bin Zain al Abideen is known by Ulema e Rijaal as the student & companion of Imam Jafar Sadiq. Allama Abdul Razaq Mauswi used to say that He was a Zahid, Abid and Mutaqqi. This student of Imam Jafar Sadiq lived a life of Taqiyah and didn't tell people that He was a Syed. He married a non-syed and had a daughter from her. When His daughter grew elder, his wife wanted to marry their daughter to a rich person. However, Hazrat Eisa objected because he didn't believe that the marriage of his Syeda daughter is jaez with a non-Syed since the non-syed was not the kufv of his daughter. ( Zaid Shaheed P 171, 177 )

Again, irrelevant. You are supposed to give reference to the teachings of the Ahlulbayt. If Imam Ja'far Sadiq taught this to Eisa bin Zaid, then show a single hadith by Imam Ja'far where he declares marriage of a syeda with a ghary-syed to be impermissible.

There is a very long narration that I remember reading. When Marwan was the governor of Madina, He was sent, by Muawiyah, to Imam Hussain to ask for his son's rishta. He specifically mentioned that it is nowadays hard to find kufv like Muawiyah's son. He mentioned that by doing this, the adawat ( enmity ) between them will be removed, all the debts will be eliminated and they will pay heavy haq mehr. Imam Hussain gave a detailed reply, with patience. In the end He mentioned, " Kufv does not change by gaining wealth and power..... Our daughters are only for our sons. Only our sons are for our daughters. "

"There is a very long narration" ?

Is that your "reference"?

And why do you refer to a hadith that you yourself reject? It forbids the marriage of syeds with ghayr-syeda as equally as it forbids its converse. But no one uses this hadith to reject the validity of marriage of syeds with ghayr-syedas. So you are simply picking and choosing parts of ahadith to suit your invalid claims.

OK then, lets stick to the teachings of Ehl-ul-Bait. I will give you references of the teachings of our Imams to support my aqaed. And it is only fair that you do the same.

Not only did you give references from sources other than the Ahlulbayt, you even gave a fabricated reference. So please provide valid links or scans to the pages the next time you give any reference.

Sheikh Mufid, "If a Syed is present, then a non-syed has no right to lead Namaaz e Janaza."

Shaheed e Saani, " Preference to a non-syed over a Syed, in Namaaz e Jamaat, is not jaez "

Again no reference. Because there probably is none. All scholars agree that non-syeds can lead jama'at prayer even in the presence of syeds.

Take a look at these pictures of Ayatullah Fazel Lankarani (ghayr syed) leading a jama'ah with syeds present:

Lankarani_055_L.jpg

Lankarani_056_L.jpg

Lankarani_061_L.jpg

So I'm quite sure neither of the scholars you have "quoted" have said what you are attributing to them. It probably another false story that someone with the same beliefs narrated to you.

You completely missed the point of Ayatullah Syed Muhammad Sherazi.

Actually, there wasn't any "point" to miss. You just posted a quote that you claim is from Ayatullah Shirazi without giving any reference. And if you really respect his opinions then you would accept that syedas can marry ghayr-syeds. Since Ayatullah Shirazi ALLOWS this. This is from his (and his younger brother's joint) website:

Practices such as those outlined in your email, and discrimination on grounds of ethnic backgrounds have no place anywhere in Islamic teachings and Islam does not condone such practices whether in the case of marriage or any other aspect of life.

The criteria in marriage, as specified by Rasulollah, peace be upon him, are adherence to Islam and good manners.

http://www.shirazi.org.uk/marriage.htm#ethnics

If you don't believe this, then you can send an e-mail to his office and ask for confirmation yourself. This is the e-mail: webmaster@shirazi.org.uk

But I doubt you will do this, because you already know that he allows marriage of syedas with ghayr-syeds. You are just picking the parts of his statements that suit your belief, and applying qiyas on them to support your claim.

My source of knowledge is backed by well esteemed scholars of Sunni and shia Islam

No it isn't. Your source of knowledge is hearsay from someone very ignorant of Islam. Had he the slightest knowledge about Islam, he would have known that the Arabic letter "ya" at the end of 'muntaha' (in 'muntaha al-Amaal') does not have dots beneath it, and hence should be pronounced like an 'alif'. Which is why the name is pronounced 'muntahA', not 'muntahI'.

And maybe you should visit Najaf and Qum and teach all these ignorant Ayatullahs who allow syedas to marry ghayr-syeds, and allow syeds to follow a ghayr-syed in jama'at, some lessons in fiqh. And correct their flawed aqeedah as well. Apparently spending their lives in hawzahs studying the teachings of the Ahlulbayt wasn't enough to give them a correct aqeedah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam

how can every one just ignore quran and listen to other words .. quran says halal anyone else who says the opposite is clearly wrong

Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-

24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should read a tafsir of the Qur'an once. You'll find out.

due to incompatibility they seperated, after this event, which imam let his daughter marry outside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point that you missed is that you are deriving fiqhi issues based on aqeedah. Hence you end up doing qiyas, which is haram.

(salam)

I do not understand what you mean. Do you think, if are aqaed are wrong, our fiqhi rulings can still be correct ?

Are you SURE that only aal-e-Rasul are Syeds?

Well Yes, to the best of my knowledge.. Feel free to shed more light, if you believe other wise. My understanding is that ‘Syed’ is an Ism e Zaati only for Aal e Rasul. And It is only an Ism e Wasfi for Olaad e Abdul Mutalib who embraced Islam. The opinion that Zainab the cousin of the Prophet, and the grand daughter of Abdul Mutalib, was married to Zaid, cannot be used to support the view that marriage of syedzaadis is allowed with nonsyed sons.

You need to have a look at the Nasb of Zaid. Some historians mention him as Zaid Bin Haris Bin Abdul Mutalib. Others mention him as Zaid Bin Harisa Bin Sharaheel Qalbi. Maulana Farman Ali marhum writes that after studying Riyaaz e Ansaab ( by Syed Maqsud Naqvi) he did not find any reference that Qalaab had any son named Harisa. The only reference he found was that of Harisa Bin Adnan who was from the Nasl of Hazrat Ismael a.s. So in light of this, his opinion is that Zaid was the son of Haris who was the son of Abdul Mutalib and the brother of Hazrat Abdullah and Abu Talib.

This means that Zainab, the cousin of the Prophet, was also the cousin of Zaid as well. Which makes them the Kufv of each other.

This is not a reference to the teaching of the Ahlulbayt.

I think we should be fairly open minded and realise that we are discussing the grandchild of Imam Zain al Abediiin a.s who was also a student and companion of Imam Jafar a.s. I don't think, having learn't Islam from Imams, his beliefs were based on Qayas. Rather, what He believed was most likely what he learn't from Imams. So this reference is very relevant to this discussion.

First, you have the name of the book wrong. It's called Muntaha al-Amaal.

I always thought it’s Muntahi since there is no pronunciation mark on the “yay” of Muntahi to give me a clue to it’s sound.

Second, Imam Musa Kazim had 18 daughters, not 21.

"Shaykh Mufīd (d. 413 A.H) writes that Imam al-Kāđim (A) had 37 children (whom he has named), 19 sons and 18 daughters; and that two of these daughters were named Fatima – Fatima al-Kubrā and Fatima al-Sughrā."

http://al-islam.org/masumaqum/3.htm

This number (18) is not the only reference in history. While mentioning the daughters of Hazrat Musa Kazim a.s, Sheikh Abbas Qummi has mentioned 21 daughters.

The names not mentioned in Sheikh Mufid's book, Irshad, are Umme Asma' , Allayhe, Ammeneh, Hasaneh Barbarieh & Abbaseh e.t.c. Also compare the names in Kashful Ghamma and Irshad. There are differences.

We discussed all these names in various sources just recently in the thread below:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...t=0&start=0

Third, while it is true that none of Imam Musa's daughters married, the reason that you quote is NOT given in the book that you are referring to. There is reference that no compatible husbands were found, but the part about "there was no Syed Shehzaada available for them" is fabricated, and is NOT in the book.

Nor is this written in the book: "The daughters of the pure house did not consider their marriage valid (jaez) with non-syeds..."

I have to admitt that I didn't bother quoting word to word from the book and wrote it down as I remembered it. Apologies for this error. It was unintentional and carelessness on my behalf. Here is how it is exactly quoted:

“ Razaiya Sadaat did not marry their daughters because they couldn’t find the HamSar (Equals) and HumKufv of their daughters. Hazrat Imam Musa Kazim had 21 daughters and no one married and that became their habit..... “

It’s in Volume 2 of Muntahi ul Amaal, P: 243

Again, utterly irrelevant. There is no mention of the reason for rejection of the proposal here. He could have been rejected for his lack of piety.

Doesn’t look like he was rejected because of his lack of piety because Imam Ali did not question his piety. Rather He said, " ...You have become proud after Ibn Abi Qahafa has given you his daughter. But you should know that his daughter is not from Fatmiyaaat "

( Aqd al Fareed Vol 6, P:136 )

"There is a very long narration" ?

Is that your "reference"?

And why do you refer to a hadith that you yourself reject? It forbids the marriage of syeds with ghayr-syeda as equally as it forbids its converse. But no one uses this hadith to reject the validity of marriage of syeds with ghayr-syedas. So you are simply picking and choosing parts of ahadith to suit your invalid claims.

Imam Hussain didn't say that our sons are only for our daughters. He said, Our daughters are only for our sons. And Only our sons are for our daughters. So the restriction applies to his daughter's who are only for syeds sons and only syeds sons are the kufv for them. Just like Imam Ali a.s was the only Kufv of Syeda Faitma s.a. But Imam Ali himself married non-syedas after the death of Syeda Fatima. If syed sons were not to marry non-syed daughters, then our Imams and their sons wouldn't have practised it themselves.

Sorry I do not recall and have the exact source which is why I didn’t mention any. But it exists in various shia books with a little difference in wordings. I also recall that even our Prophet once said that our daughters are for our sons and our sons for our daughters. Although there was no restriction of “only” for either gender in this hadith. Perhaps a search of Kufv chapters in Kafi, Bihar or Man La Yahzur Faqiya will do the job. I’ll see if I can find it online.

Actually, there wasn't any "point" to miss. You just posted a quote that you claim is from Ayatullah Shirazi without giving any reference. And if you really respect his opinions then you would accept that syedas can marry ghayr-syeds. Since Ayatullah Shirazi ALLOWS this. This is from his (and his younger brother's joint) website:

http://www.shirazi.org.uk/marriage.htm#ethnics

If you don't believe this, then you can send an e-mail to his office and ask for confirmation yourself. This is the e-mail: webmaster@shirazi.org.uk

But I doubt you will do this, because you already know that he allows marriage of syedas with ghayr-syeds. You are just picking the parts of his statements that suit your belief, and applying qiyas on them to support your claim.

The reference of Ayatullah Shirazi was not used to argue 'Syeda marriage with Syeds'. Look at the context of the discussion. It was provided as a hujjah to stress the Ehtaram and Maqaam of Sadaaat in Islam which is accepted by the scholars considered muhtarim by the community who sees ehtaram of Sadaat as a joke and a cultural practise !

No it isn't. Your source of knowledge is hearsay from someone very ignorant of Islam. Had he the slightest knowledge about Islam, he would have known that the Arabic letter "ya" at the end of 'muntaha' (in 'muntaha al-Amaal') does not have dots beneath it, and hence should be pronounced like an 'alif'. Which is why the name is pronounced 'muntahA', not 'muntahI'.

You keep on stressing on the pronunciation. The Arabic letter "Ya" does not have dots beneath it, neither does it have a punctuation mark to suggest a particular sound i-e Muntaha or Muntahi. Which is why I have always thought that it’s Muntahi and I don’t see big deal about this ?

And maybe you should visit Najaf and Qum and teach all these ignorant Ayatullahs who allow syedas to marry ghayr-syeds, and allow syeds to follow a ghayr-syed in jama'at, some lessons in fiqh. And correct their flawed aqeedah as well. Apparently spending their lives in hawzahs studying the teachings of the Ahlulbayt wasn't enough to give them a correct aqeedah.

It is supposed to be an Ilmi-discussion, not an emotional one. There is nothing wrong in questioning ideological issues or in believing otherwise. Najaf and Qum are not the only learning centres of Islam. You have to accept the fact that there are other jaleel al Qadar scholars and Arifeen in other parts of the world and a number of them do not follow the exact ideological and fiqhi stance as that of the scholars of Najaf and Qum.

Fi-AManillah

Edited by inshaAllah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been discussed soooo many times. For the people who do taqleed, refer to your marja (and as far as I know, they ALL allow syedas to marry non-syeds). As for those who are smarter than our marjas and derive their own rulings, do as you wish and remember that you will be answerable on the Day of Judgment.

Anyways, one such thread.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=82429

Edited by Whizbee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
refer to your marja (and as far as I know, they ALL allow syedas to marry non-syeds).

actually theres a arab syed, syed hassan abtahi he doesnt allow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not understand what you mean.

never mind.

Do you think, if are aqaed are wrong, our fiqhi rulings can still be correct ?

yes. not all, of course, but some.

Well Yes, to the best of my knowledge..

then Syeda Zahra married a ghayr syed. since imam Ali is not Aal-e-Rasool. hence syedas can marry ghayr syeds.

You need to have a look at the Nasb of Zaid. Some historians mention him as Zaid Bin Haris Bin Abdul Mutalib.

Zayd was a slave bought by our prophet. He was not a relative of our prophet.

In the market of Akkaz Zayd bin Harith was being sold as a slave. The Holy Prophet purchased him and adopted him as his son. The father of Zayd was a man of means. When he came to know that his kidnapped son was sold as a slave, he approached Abu Talib to obtain the freedom of Zayd from his nephew. The Holy Prophet at once set him free and gave him permission to go with his father, but Zayd decided to remain with the Holy Prophet.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 33:4]

The claim that Zaid was a descendant of Abdul Muttalib is utterly ridiculous. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh&hp) would not buy his own cousin and keep him as a slave and adopted son! if Zayd was a family member of the prophet, our prophet would have bought and returned him to his family. our Prophet would not have waited till his "uncle" approached him before setting his own cousin free to go with his father. I don't know how people come up with such nonsense.

I think we should be fairly open minded and realise that we are discussing the grandchild of Imam Zain al Abediiin a.s who was also a student and companion of Imam Jafar a.s.

except that there is no evidence that he was a student of imam ja'far a.s. you only claim that he was so. if you provide ahadith from our imams, then i can check them up and determine the validity of your claim. the beliefs of non-ma'sumeen are utterly irrelevant if they cannot be corroborated by those of the ma'sumeen.

so since you claim that he was a student of imam ja'far a.s., then are you aware of a single hadith by our imam that confirms your belief that syedas are not allowed to marry ghayr-syeds? this is a yes/no question.

This number (18) is not the only reference in history. While mentioning the daughters of Hazrat Musa Kazim a.s, Sheikh Abbas Qummi has mentioned 21 daughters.

The names not mentioned in Sheikh Mufid's book, Irshad, are Umme Asma' , Allayhe, Ammeneh, Hasaneh Barbarieh & Abbaseh e.t.c. Also compare the names in Kashful Ghamma and Irshad. There are differences.

that's the whole point!

since there are differences in ahadith, then why do you accept that particular one? you do not know which ahadith are authentic, but because you feel that certain ahadith back up your beliefs, you accept them over the others.

I have to admitt that I didn't bother quoting word to word from the book and wrote it down as I remembered it. Apologies for this error. It was unintentional and carelessness on my behalf. Here is how it is exactly quoted:

“ Razaiya Sadaat did not marry their daughters because they couldn’t find the HamSar (Equals) and HumKufv of their daughters. Hazrat Imam Musa Kazim had 21 daughters and no one married and that became their habit..... “

It’s in Volume 2 of Muntahi ul Amaal, P: 243

and as expected there is no mention that the daughters weren't married because of lack of syeds. that was something you made up because it suited your belief.

Doesn’t look like he was rejected because of his lack of piety because Imam Ali did not question his piety. Rather He said, " ...You have become proud after Ibn Abi Qahafa has given you his daughter. But you should know that his daughter is not from Fatmiyaaat "

( Aqd al Fareed Vol 6, P:136 )

the whole point is that you don't know why he was rejected. but you tried attributing an unsubstantiated interpretation to this hadith because it fit your beliefs.

Imam Hussain didn't say that our sons are only for our daughters. He said, Our daughters are only for our sons. And Only our sons are for our daughters.

wrong again. you have added the "only" in that statements because it supports your belief. it is not there in the actual words of our imam.

I also recall that even our Prophet once said that our daughters are for our sons and our sons for our daughters. Although there was no restriction of “only” for either gender in this hadith. Perhaps a search of Kufv chapters in Kafi, Bihar or Man La Yahzur Faqiya will do the job. I’ll see if I can find it online.

this anti-taqleed site refers to the hadith:

In Mun la Yah Zahra Hul Faqih chapter of Nikah, page 249, under the tradition.

“Prophet (pbuh) looked at the children of Ali (as) and Jaffar (ra) and said;

“OUR daughters are for OUR sons and OUR sons for OUR daughters”

The above tradition is also given in Usool – E – Kaafi volume 5 Urdu, with slight variation. Prophet (pbuh) looked at Ali (as) and Jaffar (ra) and said; “OUR daughters are for OUR sons and OUR sons are for OUR daughters”. The same tradition is further supported by Sunni sources in their various books like Anwar – E – Namaania and Ahkaam – E – Sharayya, the books of high authenticity.

http://hubeali.com/new/marriageofsayadani.php

The reference of Ayatullah Shirazi was not used to argue 'Syeda marriage with Syeds'. Look at the context of the discussion. It was provided as a hujjah to stress the Ehtaram and Maqaam of Sadaaat in Islam

but no one was arguing about the respect for syeds. the discussion was about the validity of marriage between syedas and ghayr-syeds. and again, how can his opinion have any meaning for you when you reject his other opinion about the permissibility of marriage between syedas and ghayr-syeds? you agree with one opinion and reject the other, because the first agrees with your beliefs, while the second doesn't.

You think Ayatullah Shirazi didn't have respect for sadaat? But even with this respect, he declared that marriage of syedas with ghayr syeds is permissible! and this is the point that you just refuse to see. respect for sadaat does NOT imply that syedas cannot marry ghayr-syeds. if one says that because we should respect sadaat, we should not allow syedas to maary ghayr-syeds, then this person is doing QIYAS! he is applying the principle of respecting sadaat to the case of marriage where it is utterly wrong to do so. this is because the qur'an and ahadith both have confirmed that the criterion for marriage is piety and akhlaq - NOT family background.

You keep on stressing on the pronunciation. The Arabic letter "Ya" does not have dots beneath it, neither does it have a punctuation mark to suggest a particular sound i-e Muntaha or Muntahi. Which is why I have always thought that it’s Muntahi and I don’t see big deal about this ?

the big deal about this is that for some one to pronounce rulings on fiqh, i would expect him to at the least know arabic. declaring that something is haraam requires immense research into the qur'an and ahadith. and both these are in arabic. the translations do not carry the full meaning, and are often misleading. so if a person who doesn't even know arabic makes a declaration that something is impermissible, when all the scholars who have spent their lives studying the qur'an and ahadith have declared it permissible, then please excuse me for pointing out the difference in the level of knowledge of the actual scholars, and the person disagreeing with them.

Najaf and Qum are not the only learning centres of Islam. You have to accept the fact that there are other jaleel al Qadar scholars and Arifeen in other parts of the world and a number of them do not follow the exact ideological and fiqhi stance as that of the scholars of Najaf and Qum.

the only problem is that on this issue, practically all the mujtahids in history have been united.

so what we have here is:

1. the quran doesn't declare the marriage of syedas with ghayr-syeds haraam

2. there is no hadith that declares this to be haraam

3. practically all the mujtahids in the history of islam have said that this is permissible.

then why is it that a certain group of pakistani punjabis so vehemently insist that this marriage is haraam? why don't any arabs or iranians have this same sort of belief?

oh wait . . . pakistanis are all from greater india. a land with predominant hindu culture. and, guess what, orthodox hinduism has a similar caste based marriage system!

this concept of syedas not being allowed to marry ghayr-syeds is a hindu belief that has crept into pakistani (especially punjabi) shias. it has nothing to do with islam. respecting sadaat is different issue. but the prohibition of marriage is unislamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
then why is it that a certain group of pakistani punjabis so vehemently insist that this marriage is haraam? why don't any arabs or iranians have this same sort of belief?

syed hassan abtahi an arab also shares this view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
syed hassan abtahi an arab also shares this view

so you claim.

from what i've read, he thinks it's makrooh, not haram. so even he allows it.

guess you won't like this scholar either now. how dare he disagree with your educated islamic opinions!?!?!??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so you claim.

from what i've read, he thinks it's makrooh, not haram. so even he allows it.

guess you won't like this scholar either now. how dare he disagree with your educated islamic opinions!?!?!??

he doesnt have the right to make things halal and haram, so he sticks to the safe choice, read his book anwar e zehra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he doesnt have the right to make things halal and haram, so he sticks to the safe choice, read his book anwar e zehra

you said that he "shares this view" when he doesn't. he considers marriage of a syeda with ghayr-syed halal, unlike our profoundly knowledgeable punjabi brothers from pakistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I'd just to quickly add to this discussion that not all Punjabi Pakistanis beleive that syed/non syed marriages are disallowed. :)

ws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you said that he "shares this view" when he doesn't. he considers marriage of a syeda with ghayr-syed halal, unlike our profoundly knowledgeable punjabi brothers from pakistan.

he disagrees with it, if he had a choice between halal and haram he woulld make it haram read anwar e zahra, where he tells a story of something like a syed who wishes for his daughters death then rather marry to some fish monger (non syed)

Edited by Oranje

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, i don't mean all paki punjabis, obviously, since i'm a paki punjabi (and syed) myself.

are your sisters or daughters looking to get married? i got a few black friends looking for marriage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are your sisters or daughters looking to get married? i got a few black friends looking for marriage

LOL yeah, since you were unable to get any proof to back up what you are saying, it would be best to resort to personal attacks now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Whizbee the guy does tabarrah against non Syed Mujtahids. I think that says it all!

These guys are ignorant to say the least. They are like sheep they act without proof, follow with explanation and preform without any knowledge!

he disagrees with it, if he had a choice between halal and haram he woulld make it haram read anwar e zahra, where he tells a story of something like a syed who wishes for his daughters death then rather marry to some fish monger (non syed)

Some Scholar he must be calling a non syed a fish monger or is that an addition by you to display your 'perfect' akhlaq?

Edited by A follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DjibrilCisse

The followers of Ghazanfar Abbas should beat him up for marrying an alwiya (syeda)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL yeah, since you were unable to get any proof to back up what you are saying, it would be best to resort to personal attacks now.

its nothing personal, its the truth, two black friends both converts, r looking to get married to a shia

and that syed fyst doesnt mind who his sisters/daughters get married to so i thought i would ask him

Edited by Oranje

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some Scholar he must be calling a non syed a fish monger or is that an addition by you to display your 'perfect' akhlaq?

that was the guys job, i dont think thats name calling as u r trying to assume, anyway i cant remember exactly what his job was, but he was not a syed, u can read it in anwar e zahra written by ayatollah syed hassan abtahi

Edited by Oranje

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that was the guys job, i dont think thats name calling as u r trying to assume, anyway i cant remember exactly what his job was, but he was not a syed, u can read it in anwar e zahra written by ayatollah syed hassan abtahi

I wasnt trying to assume read your response that I quoted you put it like that. Why not get the book and write the exact words?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasnt trying to assume read your response that I quoted you put it like that. Why not get the book and write the exact words?

i am trying to get the book myself but i think i will need to go iran or iraq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
of course it's allowed, my father is a seyed and my mother isn't

i didnt say that isnt allowed as the imams did it, what im saying is a syed lady isnt allowed to marry a non syed man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i didnt say that isnt allowed as the imams did it, what im saying is a syed lady isnt allowed to marry a non syed man

uhhh.....i am a "syed lady"(a3lwiya) and i think i know who i am allowed to marry, and i am allowed to marry anyone i want, however if i marry a non-seyed, than my children will not be syeds/a3lwiyahs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if he had a choice between halal and haram he woulld make it haram

And that's the point! He doesn't have a choice. Because Islam isn't the name given to the racist preferences of weed-smoking punjabi malangs. Islam is the way of life of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh&hp) and his Ahlulbayt. So since they have not declared the marriage of a syeda with a ghayr-syed haram, no Islamic scholar has the right to do so either.

are your sisters or daughters looking to get married?

Nope. No daughters, and sister is already married.

i got a few black friends looking for marriage

I would have had no problem if my sister wanted to marry a non-syed black person. It's better for syeda females to marry pious non-syed africans, than it is for them to marry syeds with Hindu beliefs.

Edited by fyst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kufv/compatibility argument as applied by someone earlier in this thread is the lamest ever. How does it make any logical sense that the compatibility of two people can be based on lineage? Does lineage affect your personality? No. Does having a wonderfully pious father make me exactly like him? No. If my father were an Ayatollah, would I automatically be an Ayatollah by virtue of being his child? No. Newsflash: I've got to make my own way in this world. On the Day of Judgment, it's not going to matter whether I was a syed girl who married a non-syed guy or not. We don't have the concept of Original Sin for a reason. We are not bound by the mistakes (or noble deeds) of our parents.

All kinds of marriages fail and all kinds succeed. A non-syed+syed marriage is not inherently going to fail.

Also, to sofia naqvi who said to check out this link: http://molaali.com/marriage%20of%20syedani.pdf. The stuff presented here has logical fallacies. On page 2, it says that "women of greater nobility than the man will feel disgraced and hence will remain under a psychological disturbance causing further social stress." Throwing around fancy words (like "psychological") does not make the argument any stronger. Also, Islam promotes equality among all people. It doesn't elevate one lineage over another. So by saying that the syed line has greater nobility negates the very core of Islam. I don't know the exact reference and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Imam Ali caution against being proud of one's lineage in the Nahjul Balagha?

In conclusion, Syeds and Non-Syeds can marry each other. A syed girl can marry a non-syed guy. A syed guy can marry a non-syed girl.

Edited by BabyBeaverIsAKit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...