Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

With whom sacrifice of Ismail a.s was ransomed?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

ÑóÈøö åóÈú áöí ãöäó ÇáÕøóÇáöÍöíäó {100}

ÝóÈóÔøóÑúäóÇåõ ÈöÛõáóÇãò Íóáöíãò {101}

ÝóáóãøóÇ ÈóáóÛó ãóÚóåõ ÇáÓøóÚúíó ÞóÇáó íóÇ Èõäóíøó Åöäøöí ÃóÑóì Ýöí ÇáúãóäóÇãö Ãóäøöí ÃóÐúÈóÍõßó ÝóÇäÙõÑú ãóÇÐóÇ ÊóÑóì ÞóÇáó íóÇ ÃóÈóÊö ÇÝúÚóáú ãóÇ ÊõÄúãóÑõ ÓóÊóÌöÏõäöí Åöä ÔóÇÁ Çááøóåõ ãöäó ÇáÕøóÇÈöÑöíäó {102}

ÝóáóãøóÇ ÃóÓúáóãóÇ æóÊóáøóåõ áöáúÌóÈöíäö {103}

æóäóÇÏóíúäóÇåõ Ãóäú íóÇ ÅöÈúÑóÇåöíãõ {104}

ÞóÏú ÕóÏøóÞúÊó ÇáÑøõÄúíóÇ ÅöäøóÇ ßóÐóáößó äóÌúÒöí ÇáúãõÍúÓöäöíäó {105}

Åöäøó åóÐóÇ áóåõæó ÇáúÈóáóÇÁ ÇáúãõÈöíäõ {106}

æóÝóÏóíúäóÇåõ ÈöÐöÈúÍò ÚóÙöíãò {107}

My Lord! grant me of the doers of good deeds. [surah Saf'aat Ayat 100]

So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance. [surah Saf'aat Ayat 101]

And when he attained to working with him, he said: O my son! surely I have seen in a dream that I should sacrifice you; consider then what you see. He said: O my father! do what you are commanded; if Allah please, you will find me of the patient ones.[surah Saf'aat Ayat 102]

So when they both submitted and he threw him down upon his forehead, [surah Saf'aat Ayat 103]

And We called out to him saying: O Ibrahim! [surah Saf'aat Ayat 104]

You have indeed shown the truth of the vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good: [surah Saf'aat Ayat 105]

Most surely this is a manifest trial. [surah Saf'aat Ayat 106]

And We ransomed him with a Feat sacrifice. [surah Saf'aat Ayat 107]

Any Sunni can tell me that with which sacrifice Allah almighty ransomed the sacrifice of Ismail (as)?

There are many allegation on Shia muslims that they exaggerate the virtues and merits of Ahlul bait (as) and they are exaggerators and this exaggeration have led them astray. So dear Sunni brothers present your tafseer of "Zibhul Azeem" and let me compare it with Shia interpretation of it, so that i can find the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

salam bro aabiss and nice topic

i don't think so any suuni or nasbi will reply you on this topic,

i did not found any sunni alim like Ahmed raza khan (kanzul iman) writes any thing about the ayat 107 or any nasbi alim like ibn kaseer in his tafseer writes any thing about the ayat 107

they only discuss other ayat and explain the tafeer of other ayats but not 107.

both alims discuss the matter either he was ismail a.s or eshaq a.s and only writes the whole incident

when, who, why, ibrahim a.s take his son, but when the matter of ayat 107 came. they kept slint and move forward without writtin any thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Çÿ ãیÑÿ ÑÈ! ã̪ÿ Çی˜ ÕÇáÍ (ᚘÇ) ÚØÇ ˜Ñ 100

101. Ó Àã äÿ ÇÓÿ Çی˜ ᚘÿ Íáã æÇáÿ ˜ی ÎæÔÎÈÑی Ïی

102. ªÑ ÌÈ æÀ ÇÓ ˜ÿ ÀãÑÇÀ áäÿ ªÑäÿ áÇ ˜ÀÇ Çÿ ÈیŠÿ! Èÿ Ô˜ ãیŸ ÎæÇÈ ãیŸ Ïی˜ªÊÇ ÀæŸ ˜À ãیŸ Ê̪ÿ ÐÈÍ ˜Ñ ˜Ñ ÑÀÇ ÀæŸ Ó Ïی˜ª ÊیÑی ˜یÇ ÑÇÆÿÀÿ ˜ÀÇ Çÿ ÇÈÇ! Ìæ ͘ã  ˜æ ÀæÇ Àÿ ˜Ñ ÏیÌیÆÿ  ã̪ÿ ÇäÔÇÇááå ÕÈÑ ˜Ñäÿ æÇáæŸ ãیŸ ÇÆیŸ ÿ

103. Ó ÌÈ ÏæäæŸ äÿ ÞÈæá ˜Ñ áیÇ ÇæÑ ÇÓ äÿ یÔÇäی ˜ÿ Èá Çá ÏیÇ

104. ÇæÑ Àã äÿ ÇÓÿ ˜ÇÑÇ ˜À Çÿ ÇÈÑǪیã!

105. Êæ äÿ ÎæÇÈ ÓÇ ˜Ñ ϘªÇیÇ Èÿ Ô˜ Àã ÇÓی ØÑÍ Àã ÇÓی ØÑÍ äی˜æ ˜ÇÑæŸ ˜æ ÈÏáÀ ÏیÇ ˜ÑÊÿ ÀیŸ

106. ÇáÈÊÀ یÀ ÕÑیÍ ÂÒãÇÆÔ Àÿ

107. ÇæÑ Àã äÿ Çی˜ ÈšÇ ÐÈیÍÀ Ç Ó˜ÿ ÚæÖ ÏیÇ

107. ÇæÑ Àã äÿ Çی˜ ÈšÇ ÐÈیÍÀ Ç Ó˜ÿ ÚæÖ ÏیÇ

With whom Sacrifice of Ismail a.s was ransomed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It was a lamb with whose sacrifice was exchanged with that of Ismael a.s. Hence we commemorate Eid-Aladha. If it was Imam Hussein then we should have been commemorating it on 10th Muharram and not in ZilHajj

Bias has no eyes and i feel sorry about those people Quran says >> And We ransomed him with a Feat sacrifice. [surah Saf'aat Ayat 107]. If the sacrifice with which the sacrifice of Hazrat Ismail (as) was ransomed was a lamb then that lamb if not greater than Ismail (as) at least be equal in rank to a great prophet (Ismail a.s). Does this make any sense? lol goat a great sacrifice. huhhh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^^ Yes brother. But i want to know Sunni view of it. They call it exaggeration.

Is there any sahih hadith from Imams(a) which interprets this ayah as sacrifice of Imam al-Hussain(a)?

A/c to Syed Fadhlallah(ha), the correct interpretation is the ram (ÇáßÈÔ).

Ó: (æÝÏíäÇå ÈÐÈÍ ÚÙíã) .. åá ÕÍíÍ Çä ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÐÈÍ ÇáÚÙíã åæ ÇáÇãÇã ÇáÍÓíä Ú¿

Ì: áÇ Èá åæ ÇáßÈÔ ÇáÐí ÝÏì Çááå ÊÚÇáì Èå ÅÓãÇÚíá æÃÕÈÍ Ðáß ãäÓßÇð Ýí ÇáÍÌ.

http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/marjaa/qa.aspx?id=96

w/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It is hard for me to digest that a "Male Sheep" can be a "Feat sacrifice". One more thing i like to mention is that the holy Quran has manifest and hidden meanings. May be there are not saying of Imam (as) that this verse is about Imam Hussain (as) still there can be hidden meanings of this verse. Even it is said that time interprets Quran and it happened when the incident of Karbalah took place.

Wallahu Alam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It is hard for me to digest that a "Male Sheep" can be a "Feat sacrifice". One more thing i like to mention is that the holy Quran has manifest and hidden meanings. May be there are not saying of Imam (as) that this verse is about Imam Hussain (as) still there can be hidden meanings of this verse. Even it is said that time interprets Quran and it happened when the incident of Karbalah took place.

Wallahu Alam.

huhhh

and it became a bias allegation to wallah u alam, how pathetic

atleast be careful when it comes to Quran, b4 propagating ur own ideas as divine signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

تفسير الإمام الرضا (ع) في قوله فديناه بذبح عظيم

حدثنا عبد الواحد بن محمد بن عبدوس النيسابوري العطار بنيسابور في شعبان سنة اثنتين و خمسين و ثلاثمائة قال حدثنا محمد بن علي بن محمد بن قتيبة النيسابوري عن الفضل بن شاذان قال سمعت الرضا (عليه السلام) يقول لما أمر الله تبارك و تعالى إبراهيم (عليه السلام) أن يذبح مكان ابنه إسماعيل الكبش الذي أنزله عليه تمنى إبراهيم (عليه السلام) أن يكون يذبح ابنه إسماعيل (عليه السلام) بيده و أنه لم يؤمر بذبح الكبش مكانه ليرجع إلى قلبه ما يرجع إلى قلب الوالد الذي يذبح أعز ولده بيده فيستحق بذلك أرفع درجا ت أهل الثواب على المصائب فأوحى الله عز و جل إليه يا إبراهيم من أحب خلقي إليك فقال يا رب ما خلقت خلقا هو أحب إلي من حبيبك محمد (صلى الله عليه وآله) فأوحى الله عز و جل إليه ياإبراهيم أ فهو أحب إليك أو نفسك قال بل هو أحب إلي من نفسي قال فولده أحب إليك أو ولدك قال بل ولده قال فذبح ولده ظلما على أعدائه أوجع لقلبك أو ذبح ولدك بيدك في طاعتي قال يا رب بل ذبحه على أيدي أعدائه أوجع لقلبي قال يا إبراهيم فإن طائفة تزعم أنها من أمة محمد (صلى الله عليه وآله) ستقتل الحسين (عليه السلام) ابنه من بعده ظلما و عدوانا كما يذبح الكبش فيستوجبون بذلك سخطي فجزع إبراهيم (عليه السلام) لذلك و توجع قلبه و أقبل يبكي فأوحى الله عز و جل إليه يا إبراهيم قد فديت جزعك على ابنك إسماعيل لو ذبحته بيدك بجزعك على الحسين (عليه السلام) و قتله و أوجبت لك أرفع درجات أهل الثواب على المصائب فذلك قول الله عز و جل وَ فَدَيْناهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ و لا حول و لا قوة إلا بالله العلي العظيم

باب ما جاء عن الرضا (عليه السلام) في قول النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) أنا ابن الذبيحين:

حدثنا أحمد بن الحسين القطان قال أخبرنا أحمد بن محمد بن سعيد الكوفي قال حدثنا علي بن الحسين بن علي بن فضال عن أبيه قال سألت أبا الحسن علي بن موسى الرضا (عليه السلام) عن معنى قول النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) أنا ابن الذبيحين قال يعني إسماعيل بن إبراهيم الخليل (عليه السلام) و عبد الله بن عبد المطلب أما إسماعيل فهو الغلام الحليم الذي بشر الله به إبراهيم العلي العظيم فَلَمَّا بَلَغَ مَعَهُ السَّعْيَ و هو لما عمل مثل عمله قالَ يا بُنَيَّ إِنِّي أَرى فِي الْمَنامِ أَنِّي أَذْبَحُكَ فَانْظُرْ ما ذا تَرى قالَ يا أَبَتِ افْعَلْ ما تُؤْمَرُ و لم يقل يا أبت افعل ما رأيت سَتَجِدُنِي إِنْ شاءَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الصَّابِرِينَ فلما عزم على ذبحه فداه الله بذبح عظيم بكبش أملح يأكل في سواد و يشرب في سواد و ينظر في سواد و يمشي في سواد و يبول في سواد و يبعر في سواد و كان يرتع قبل ذلك في رياض الجنة أربعين عاما و ما خرج من رحم أنثى و إنما قال الله له عز و جل كُنْ فَيَكُونُ فكان ليفدى به إسماعيل فكل ما يذبح في منى فهو فدية لإسماعيل إلى يوم القيامة فهذا أحد الذبيحين .و أما الآخر فإن عبد المطلب كان تعلق بحلقة باب الكعبة و دعا الله أن يرزقه عشرة بنين و نذر لله عز و جل أن يذبح واحدا منهم متى أجاب الله دعوته فلما بلغوا عشرة قال قد وفى الله لي فلأوفين لله عز و جل فأدخل ولده الكعبة و أسهم بينهم فخرج سهم عبد الله أبي رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله) و كان أحب ولده إليه ثم أجالها ثانية فخرج سهم عبد الله ثم أجالها ثالثة فخرج سهم عبد الله فأخذه و حبسه و عزم على ذبحه فاجتمعت قريش و منعته من ذلك و اجتمع نساء عبد المطلب يبكين و يصحن فقالت له ابنته عاتكة يا أبتاه اغدر فيما بينك و بين الله عز و جل في قتل ابنك قال و كيف أغدر يابنية فإنك مباركة قالت اعمد إلى تلك السوائم التي لك في الحرم فاضرب بالقداح على ابنك و على الإبل و أعط ربك حتى يرضى فبعث عبد المطلب إلى إبله فأحضرها و أعزل منها عشرا و ضرب بالسهام فخرج سهم عبد الله فما زال يزيد عشرا عشرا حتى بلغت مائة فضرب فخرج السهم على الإبل فكبرت قريش تكبيرة ارتجت لها جبال تهامة فقال عبدالمطلب لا حتى أضرب بالقداح ثلاث مرات فضرب ثلاثا كل ذلك يخرج السهم على الإبل فلما كانت في الثلاثة اجتذبه الزبير و أبو طالب و أخواتهما من تحت رجليه فحملوه وقد انسلخت جلدة خده الذي كانت على الأرض و أقبلوا يرفعونه و يقبلونه و يمسحون عنه التراب فأمر عبد المطلب أن تنحر الإبل بالحزورة و لا يمنع أحد منها و كانت مائة فكانت لعبد المطلب خمس من السنين أجراها الله عز و جل في الإسلام حرم نساء الآباء على الأبناء و سن الدية في القتل مائة من الإبل و كان يطوف بالبيت سبعة أشواط و وجد كنزا فأخرج منه الخمس و سمى زمزم حين حفرها سقاية الحاج و لو لا أن عمل عبد المطلب كان حجة و أن عزمه كان على ذبح ابنه عبد الله شبيها بعزم إبراهيم على ذبح ابنه إسماعيل لما افتخر النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) بالانتساب إليها لأجل أنهما الذبيحان في قوله ( صلى الله عليه وآله) أنا ابن الذبيحين و العلة التي من أجلها دفع الله عز و جل الذبح عن إسماعيل هي العلة التي من أجلها دفع الذبح عن عبد الله و هي كون النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) و الأئمة المعصومين (صلى الله عليه وآله) في صلبيهما فببركة النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) و الأئمة (عليه السلام) دفع الله الذبح عنهما فلم تجر السنة في الناس بقتل أولادهم و لو لا ذلك لوجب على الناس كل أضحى التقرب إلى الله تعالى بقتل أولادهم و كل ما يتقرب الناس به إلى الله عز و جل من أضحية فهو فداء لإسماعيل (عليه السلام) إلى يوم القيامة

Edited by Ya Allah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÅãÇã ÇáÑÖÇ (Ú) Ýí Þæáå ÝÏíäÇå ÈÐÈÍ ÚÙíã

ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ ÇáæÇÍÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏæÓ ÇáäíÓÇÈæÑí ÇáÚØÇÑ ÈäíÓÇÈæÑ Ýí ÔÚÈÇä ÓäÉ ÇËäÊíä æ ÎãÓíä æ ËáÇËãÇÆÉ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÞÊíÈÉ ÇáäíÓÇÈæÑí Úä ÇáÝÖá Èä ÔÇÐÇä ÞÇá ÓãÚÊ ÇáÑÖÇ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) íÞæá áãÇ ÃãÑ Çááå ÊÈÇÑß æ ÊÚÇáì ÅÈÑÇåíã (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) Ãä íÐÈÍ ãßÇä ÇÈäå ÅÓãÇÚíá ÇáßÈÔ ÇáÐí ÃäÒáå Úáíå Êãäì ÅÈÑÇåíã (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) Ãä íßæä íÐÈÍ ÇÈäå ÅÓãÇÚíá (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÈíÏå æ Ãäå áã íÄãÑ ÈÐÈÍ ÇáßÈÔ ãßÇäå áíÑÌÚ Åáì ÞáÈå ãÇ íÑÌÚ Åáì ÞáÈ ÇáæÇáÏ ÇáÐí íÐÈÍ ÃÚÒ æáÏå ÈíÏå ÝíÓÊÍÞ ÈÐáß ÃÑÝÚ ÏÑÌÇ Ê Ãåá ÇáËæÇÈ Úáì ÇáãÕÇÆÈ ÝÃæÍì Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá Åáíå íÇ ÅÈÑÇåíã ãä ÃÍÈ ÎáÞí Åáíß ÝÞÇá íÇ ÑÈ ãÇ ÎáÞÊ ÎáÞÇ åæ ÃÍÈ Åáí ãä ÍÈíÈß ãÍãÏ (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) ÝÃæÍì Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá Åáíå íÇÅÈÑÇåíã à Ýåæ ÃÍÈ Åáíß Ãæ äÝÓß ÞÇá Èá åæ ÃÍÈ Åáí ãä äÝÓí ÞÇá ÝæáÏå ÃÍÈ Åáíß Ãæ æáÏß ÞÇá Èá æáÏå ÞÇá ÝÐÈÍ æáÏå ÙáãÇ Úáì ÃÚÏÇÆå ÃæÌÚ áÞáÈß Ãæ ÐÈÍ æáÏß ÈíÏß Ýí ØÇÚÊí ÞÇá íÇ ÑÈ Èá ÐÈÍå Úáì ÃíÏí ÃÚÏÇÆå ÃæÌÚ áÞáÈí ÞÇá íÇ ÅÈÑÇåíã ÝÅä ØÇÆÝÉ ÊÒÚã ÃäåÇ ãä ÃãÉ ãÍãÏ (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) ÓÊÞÊá ÇáÍÓíä (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÇÈäå ãä ÈÚÏå ÙáãÇ æ ÚÏæÇäÇ ßãÇ íÐÈÍ ÇáßÈÔ ÝíÓÊæÌÈæä ÈÐáß ÓÎØí ÝÌÒÚ ÅÈÑÇåíã (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) áÐáß æ ÊæÌÚ ÞáÈå æ ÃÞÈá íÈßí ÝÃæÍì Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá Åáíå íÇ ÅÈÑÇåíã ÞÏ ÝÏíÊ ÌÒÚß Úáì ÇÈäß ÅÓãÇÚíá áæ ÐÈÍÊå ÈíÏß ÈÌÒÚß Úáì ÇáÍÓíä (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) æ ÞÊáå æ ÃæÌÈÊ áß ÃÑÝÚ ÏÑÌÇÊ Ãåá ÇáËæÇÈ Úáì ÇáãÕÇÆÈ ÝÐáß Þæá Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá æó ÝóÏóíúäÇåõ ÈöÐöÈúÍò ÚóÙöíãò æ áÇ Íæá æ áÇ ÞæÉ ÅáÇ ÈÇááå ÇáÚáí ÇáÚÙíã

^The sanad is weak b/c the tareeq from Shaykh Saduq (ar) to al-Fadhl b. Shadhan (ra) is daif b/c of lack of tawthiq for Abd al-Wahid b. Muhammad b. Abdus and Ali b. Muhammad b. Qutaibah.

From Mujam ar-Rijal. . .

ÝØÑíÞ ÇáÕÏæÞ - ÞÏÓ ÓÑå - Åáíå : ÚÈÏ ÇáæÇÍÏ Èä ÚÈÏæÓ ÇáäíÓÇÈæÑí ÇáÚØÇÑ - ÑÖí Çááå Úäå - ¡ Úä Úáí Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÞÊíÈÉ ¡ Úä ÇáÝÖá ÇÈä ÔÇÐÇä ÇáäíÓÇÈæÑí ¡ Úä ÇáÑÖÇ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã .

æÇáØÑíÞ ÖÚíÝ ÈÚÈÏ ÇáæÇÍÏ ¡ æÚáí Èä ãÍãÏ

ÈÇÈ ãÇ ÌÇÁ Úä ÇáÑÖÇ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) Ýí Þæá ÇáäÈí (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) ÃäÇ ÇÈä ÇáÐÈíÍíä:

ÍÏËäÇ ÃÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓíä ÇáÞØÇä ÞÇá ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÓÚíÏ ÇáßæÝí ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓíä Èä Úáí Èä ÝÖÇá Úä ÃÈíå ÞÇá ÓÃáÊ ÃÈÇ ÇáÍÓä Úáí Èä ãæÓì ÇáÑÖÇ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) Úä ãÚäì Þæá ÇáäÈí (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) ÃäÇ ÇÈä ÇáÐÈíÍíä ÞÇá íÚäí ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã ÇáÎáíá (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) æ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáãØáÈ ÃãÇ ÅÓãÇÚíá Ýåæ ÇáÛáÇã ÇáÍáíã ÇáÐí ÈÔÑ Çááå Èå ÅÈÑÇåíã ÇáÚáí ÇáÚÙíã ÝóáóãøóÇ ÈóáóÛó ãóÚóåõ ÇáÓøóÚúíó æ åæ áãÇ Úãá ãËá Úãáå ÞÇáó íÇ Èõäóíøó Åöäøöí ÃóÑì Ýöí ÇáúãóäÇãö Ãóäøöí ÃóÐúÈóÍõßó ÝóÇäúÙõÑú ãÇ ÐÇ ÊóÑì ÞÇáó íÇ ÃóÈóÊö ÇÝúÚóáú ãÇ ÊõÄúãóÑõ æ áã íÞá íÇ ÃÈÊ ÇÝÚá ãÇ ÑÃíÊ ÓóÊóÌöÏõäöí Åöäú ÔÇÁó Çááøóåõ ãöäó ÇáÕøóÇÈöÑöíäó ÝáãÇ ÚÒã Úáì ÐÈÍå ÝÏÇå Çááå ÈÐÈÍ ÚÙíã ÈßÈÔ ÃãáÍ íÃßá Ýí ÓæÇÏ æ íÔÑÈ Ýí ÓæÇÏ æ íäÙÑ Ýí ÓæÇÏ æ íãÔí Ýí ÓæÇÏ æ íÈæá Ýí ÓæÇÏ æ íÈÚÑ Ýí ÓæÇÏ æ ßÇä íÑÊÚ ÞÈá Ðáß Ýí ÑíÇÖ ÇáÌäÉ ÃÑÈÚíä ÚÇãÇ æ ãÇ ÎÑÌ ãä ÑÍã ÃäËì æ ÅäãÇ ÞÇá Çááå áå ÚÒ æ Ìá ßõäú Ýóíóßõæäõ ÝßÇä áíÝÏì Èå ÅÓãÇÚíá Ýßá ãÇ íÐÈÍ Ýí ãäì Ýåæ ÝÏíÉ áÅÓãÇÚíá Åáì íæã ÇáÞíÇãÉ ÝåÐÇ ÃÍÏ ÇáÐÈíÍíä .æ ÃãÇ ÇáÂÎÑ ÝÅä ÚÈÏ ÇáãØáÈ ßÇä ÊÚáÞ ÈÍáÞÉ ÈÇÈ ÇáßÚÈÉ æ ÏÚÇ Çááå Ãä íÑÒÞå ÚÔÑÉ Èäíä æ äÐÑ ááå ÚÒ æ Ìá Ãä íÐÈÍ æÇÍÏÇ ãäåã ãÊì ÃÌÇÈ Çááå ÏÚæÊå ÝáãÇ ÈáÛæÇ ÚÔÑÉ ÞÇá ÞÏ æÝì Çááå áí ÝáÃæÝíä ááå ÚÒ æ Ìá ÝÃÏÎá æáÏå ÇáßÚÈÉ æ ÃÓåã Èíäåã ÝÎÑÌ Óåã ÚÈÏ Çááå ÃÈí ÑÓæá Çááå ( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) æ ßÇä ÃÍÈ æáÏå Åáíå Ëã ÃÌÇáåÇ ËÇäíÉ ÝÎÑÌ Óåã ÚÈÏ Çááå Ëã ÃÌÇáåÇ ËÇáËÉ ÝÎÑÌ Óåã ÚÈÏ Çááå ÝÃÎÐå æ ÍÈÓå æ ÚÒã Úáì ÐÈÍå ÝÇÌÊãÚÊ ÞÑíÔ æ ãäÚÊå ãä Ðáß æ ÇÌÊãÚ äÓÇÁ ÚÈÏ ÇáãØáÈ íÈßíä æ íÕÍä ÝÞÇáÊ áå ÇÈäÊå ÚÇÊßÉ íÇ ÃÈÊÇå ÇÛÏÑ ÝíãÇ Èíäß æ Èíä Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá Ýí ÞÊá ÇÈäß ÞÇá æ ßíÝ ÃÛÏÑ íÇÈäíÉ ÝÅäß ãÈÇÑßÉ ÞÇáÊ ÇÚãÏ Åáì Êáß ÇáÓæÇÆã ÇáÊí áß Ýí ÇáÍÑã ÝÇÖÑÈ ÈÇáÞÏÇÍ Úáì ÇÈäß æ Úáì ÇáÅÈá æ ÃÚØ ÑÈß ÍÊì íÑÖì ÝÈÚË ÚÈÏ ÇáãØáÈ Åáì ÅÈáå ÝÃÍÖÑåÇ æ ÃÚÒá ãäåÇ ÚÔÑÇ æ ÖÑÈ ÈÇáÓåÇã ÝÎÑÌ Óåã ÚÈÏ Çááå ÝãÇ ÒÇá íÒíÏ ÚÔÑÇ ÚÔÑÇ ÍÊì ÈáÛÊ ãÇÆÉ ÝÖÑÈ ÝÎÑÌ ÇáÓåã Úáì ÇáÅÈá ÝßÈÑÊ ÞÑíÔ ÊßÈíÑÉ ÇÑÊÌÊ áåÇ ÌÈÇá ÊåÇãÉ ÝÞÇá ÚÈÏÇáãØáÈ áÇ ÍÊì ÃÖÑÈ ÈÇáÞÏÇÍ ËáÇË ãÑÇÊ ÝÖÑÈ ËáÇËÇ ßá Ðáß íÎÑÌ ÇáÓåã Úáì ÇáÅÈá ÝáãÇ ßÇäÊ Ýí ÇáËáÇËÉ ÇÌÊÐÈå ÇáÒÈíÑ æ ÃÈæ ØÇáÈ æ ÃÎæÇÊåãÇ ãä ÊÍÊ ÑÌáíå ÝÍãáæå æÞÏ ÇäÓáÎÊ ÌáÏÉ ÎÏå ÇáÐí ßÇäÊ Úáì ÇáÃÑÖ æ ÃÞÈáæÇ íÑÝÚæäå æ íÞÈáæäå æ íãÓÍæä Úäå ÇáÊÑÇÈ ÝÃãÑ ÚÈÏ ÇáãØáÈ Ãä ÊäÍÑ ÇáÅÈá ÈÇáÍÒæÑÉ æ áÇ íãäÚ ÃÍÏ ãäåÇ æ ßÇäÊ ãÇÆÉ ÝßÇäÊ áÚÈÏ ÇáãØáÈ ÎãÓ ãä ÇáÓäíä ÃÌÑÇåÇ Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá Ýí ÇáÅÓáÇã ÍÑã äÓÇÁ ÇáÂÈÇÁ Úáì ÇáÃÈäÇÁ æ Óä ÇáÏíÉ Ýí ÇáÞÊá ãÇÆÉ ãä ÇáÅÈá æ ßÇä íØæÝ ÈÇáÈíÊ ÓÈÚÉ ÃÔæÇØ æ æÌÏ ßäÒÇ ÝÃÎÑÌ ãäå ÇáÎãÓ æ Óãì ÒãÒã Ííä ÍÝÑåÇ ÓÞÇíÉ ÇáÍÇÌ æ áæ áÇ Ãä Úãá ÚÈÏ ÇáãØáÈ ßÇä ÍÌÉ æ Ãä ÚÒãå ßÇä Úáì ÐÈÍ ÇÈäå ÚÈÏ Çááå ÔÈíåÇ ÈÚÒã ÅÈÑÇåíã Úáì ÐÈÍ ÇÈäå ÅÓãÇÚíá áãÇ ÇÝÊÎÑ ÇáäÈí (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) ÈÇáÇäÊÓÇÈ ÅáíåÇ áÃÌá ÃäåãÇ ÇáÐÈíÍÇä Ýí Þæáå ( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) ÃäÇ ÇÈä ÇáÐÈíÍíä æ ÇáÚáÉ ÇáÊí ãä ÃÌáåÇ ÏÝÚ Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá ÇáÐÈÍ Úä ÅÓãÇÚíá åí ÇáÚáÉ ÇáÊí ãä ÃÌáåÇ ÏÝÚ ÇáÐÈÍ Úä ÚÈÏ Çááå æ åí ßæä ÇáäÈí (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) æ ÇáÃÆãÉ ÇáãÚÕæãíä (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) Ýí ÕáÈíåãÇ ÝÈÈÑßÉ ÇáäÈí (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) æ ÇáÃÆãÉ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÏÝÚ Çááå ÇáÐÈÍ ÚäåãÇ Ýáã ÊÌÑ ÇáÓäÉ Ýí ÇáäÇÓ ÈÞÊá ÃæáÇÏåã æ áæ áÇ Ðáß áæÌÈ Úáì ÇáäÇÓ ßá ÃÖÍì ÇáÊÞÑÈ Åáì Çááå ÊÚÇáì ÈÞÊá ÃæáÇÏåã æ ßá ãÇ íÊÞÑÈ ÇáäÇÓ Èå Åáì Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá ãä ÃÖÍíÉ Ýåæ ÝÏÇÁ áÅÓãÇÚíá (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) Åáì íæã ÇáÞíÇãÉ

^The sanad is not sahih b/c there is no tawthiq for Ahmad b. al-Hussain al-Qattan.

à äøåÇ ÖÚíÝÉ ÇáÓäÏ ÈÃÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä ÇáÞØÇä

http://www.al-khoei.us/books/index.php?id=4689

w/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I do not know much about Rijaal but Matan is good and more logical. Thank you brother Ya Allah for such a nice reply :). So Jondab_Azdi you were looking for a saying of an Imam (as) about "Zibh e Azeem" and you got it now.

I'm already aware of these posted narrations. Read my post again. I asked for sahih hadith.

w/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'm already aware of these posted narrations. Read my post again. I asked for sahih hadith.

w/s

(salam)

Are all the narrations our 'ulema use in Tafseer of the Qur'an Sahih? Or do they sometimes use da'eef reports if the exegesis is supported by the Qur'an? This isn't Fiqh. Don't try and dazzle everyone with the basics you know about Rijal. You might impress the muqallids of Fadhlullah by weakening the fadhaa'il of Ahlul'bayt (as), but I'm not at all amused. After all, we've seen the viewpoint of Fadhlullah on the "wa man 'indahu 'ilm ul-kitab" and "ahlul'dhikr". Da'eef in isnaad means nothing if the Qur'an supports the exegesis of such a narration.

You claimed elsewhere on this site that you use the principles of al-Khoe'i (ra) in grading the validity of narrations... that's pretty interesting, since you disregard Ziyarat 'Ashura by "applying the methodology of al-Khoe'i (ra)", while he himself believed in it. Either your understanding of his methodologies is incorrect, or you are applying his methodologies incorrectly. Which one is it?

Seems like people love to throw around the word "da'eef" a lot... Ha... doesn't look too good... ;)

- Mansab

Edited by mansab.jafri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Are all the narrations our 'ulema use in Tafseer of the Qur'an Sahih? Or do they sometimes use da'eef reports if the exegesis is supported by the Qur'an? This isn't Fiqh. Don't try and dazzle everyone with the basics you know about Rijal. You might impress the muqallids of Fadhlullah by weakening the fadhaa'il of Ahlul'bayt (as), but I'm not at all amused. After all, we've seen the viewpoint of Fadhlullah on the "wa man 'indahu 'ilm ul-kitab" and "ahlul'dhikr". Da'eef in isnaad means nothing if the Qur'an supports the exegesis of such a narration.

You claimed elsewhere on this site that you use the principles of al-Khoe'i (ra) in grading the validity of narrations... that's pretty interesting, since you disregard Ziyarat 'Ashura by "applying the methodology of al-Khoe'i (ra)", while he himself believed in it. Either your understanding of his methodologies is incorrect, or you are applying his methodologies incorrectly. Which one is it?

Seems like people love to throw around the word "da'eef" a lot... Ha... doesn't look too good... ;)

- Mansab

Ahsant ! 'Imu 'l rijaal has its place, but the idea that we should disregard akhbaar because of the use of this imperfect science when analysing their asnaad, no matter the correctness of the matn of these ahadeeth, is the reason so many ridiculous traditions crept into the sahihayn. One man's ghali is another man's 'arif, if you get my drift, and it may be that people have often been wrongly accused of dishonesty or ghuluww ...

Edited by Abdul Qaim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It was a lamb with whose sacrifice was exchanged with that of Ismael a.s. Hence we commemorate Eid-Aladha. If it was Imam Hussein then we should have been commemorating it on 10th Muharram and not in ZilHajj

As the other brother mentioned, we believe in at-ta'weel of the Qur'an, hence the possibility of multiple layers of meaning to an ayah, with the ultimate reality known only by Allah (SWT) ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^None. His student Shaykh al-Radhy has applied it the same way. You can read his works: http://www.alradhy.com

w/s

Wrong. Sheikh Radhy has been refuted many times over. You and Sheikh Radhy both simply don't know where you can accept, and where you can reject. The very fact that Syed ul-Khoe'i (ra) accepts things that you reject by using "his methodologies" is proof of your ignorance in this matter. You don't understand his methodologies well enough just by skimming through some of the books of Syed ul-Khoe'i (ra) online. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have gone through Dars ul-Khaarij for some years, studied all of his works, and that you understand his methodologies well enough to say that you have absolutely no misunderstanding here. I will assume all that for the sake of your dignity. It still is clear, however, that you are applying his methodologies in the wrong places. This is not Fiqh, as I've said before... The same principles do not apply here. This is something quite basic that you should know, and even if you haven't read about it, it should strike you as being common sense. In fact, I'm sure you know it, but are just being difficult. The fact that we have to have this discussion with a Shi'i brother is absolutely ridiculous, and shows everyone how grave the situation is under the guidance of certain scholars.

You still haven't answered my first question to you, Jondab. It would have been better to just admit the fact instead of dodging it.

Are all the narrations our 'ulema use in Tafseer of the Qur'an Sahih? Or do they sometimes use da'eef reports if the exegesis is supported by the Qur'an?

- Mansab

Edited by mansab.jafri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

I am assuming that Jondab is disagreeing with the concept of accepting da`if riwayaat on `aqida. I don't understand it much either, if its not something that conforms with a Sahih, hasan, mawathaqq narration rather obviously and not too tawili, why should it be accepted? Why is there such a distinction between fiqhi and aqaid hadith in this manner?

(salam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

I am assuming that Jondab is disagreeing with the concept of accepting da`if riwayaat on `aqida. I don't understand it much either, if its not something that conforms with a Sahih, hasan, mawathaqq narration rather obviously and not too tawili, why should it be accepted? Why is there such a distinction between fiqhi and aqaid hadith in this manner?

(salam)

(salam)

You can't accept riwaayaat da'eefat in Fiqh. However, you can read through and through that people have accepted Fadhaa'il of Ahlul'bayt (as) with riwaayaat which technically cannot be called riwaayaat saheehat. What Jondab is doing is applying one principle from Fiqh which does not ever rely on narrations which are weak to say halal/haram, but he is ignoring the fact that such a principle has never been applied by our scholars throughout all the sciences. 'Ilm ut-Tafseer is an example. Read Tafseer ul-Mizan, Majma' ul-Bayan, etc. You will find many weak narrations that are used by the 'ulema of tafseer to explain the meaning of some narrations. Similarly, this is done by the Sunni exegetes, as well. To say otherwise is pure nonsense. For him to ask for a Hadith Saheeh wherever Ahlul'bayt (as) are mentioned is a weak position to take.

You yourself were discussing in the thread about Khutbat Shiqshaqiyya that while the asaaneed are da'eef, it does not weaken the reliability of such a Khutbat. The Islamic sciences are many, and for one to apply Fiqhi principles to the Fadhaa'il of Ahlul'bayt (as) is complete nonsense, period.

- Mansab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

You can't accept riwaayaat da'eefat in Fiqh. However, you can read through and through that people have accepted Fadhaa'il of Ahlul'bayt (as) with riwaayaat which technically cannot be called riwaayaat saheehat. What Jondab is doing is applying one principle from Fiqh which does not ever rely on narrations which are weak to say halal/haram, but he is ignoring the fact that such a principle has never been applied by our scholars throughout all the sciences. 'Ilm ut-Tafseer is an example. Read Tafseer ul-Mizan, Majma' ul-Bayan, etc. You will find many weak narrations that are used by the 'ulema of tafseer to explain the meaning of some narrations. Similarly, this is done by the Sunni exegetes, as well. To say otherwise is pure nonsense. For him to ask for a Hadith Saheeh wherever Ahlul'bayt (as) are mentioned is a weak position to take.

You yourself were discussing in the thread about Khutbat Shiqshaqiyya that while the asaaneed are da'eef, it does not weaken the reliability of such a Khutbat. The Islamic sciences are many, and for one to apply Fiqhi principles to the Fadhaa'il of Ahlul'bayt (as) is complete nonsense, period.

- Mansab

(bismillah)

Brother Mansab, I'm not here to argue, I want to learn =] I'm just curious. Yes I did say that about Khutabat-ash Shaqshaqiyya, but the sermon conforms with our authentic hadith quite well.

That aside, why is there a distinction between fiqhi and aqaid hadith? I know there are and that there is probability of a "sahih" chain being a fabricated hadith and a very weak chained hadith to be genuine.

(salam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

As i said earlier that there is "Esoteric Interpretation" of Holy Quran. And this type of interpretation has support from Hadiths reported from Ahl ul bait (as) and also by some great scholars.

An esoteric interpretation of the Qur'an is an interpretation of the Qur’an which includes attribution of esoteric or mystic meanings to the text by the interpreter. In this respect, its method is different from the conventional exegesis of the Qur’an, called tafsir. Esoteric interpretations do not usually contradict the conventional (in this context called exoteric) interpretations; instead, they discuss the inner levels of meaning of the Qur'an. A hadith from Prophet Muhammad which states that the Qur’an has an inner meaning, and that this inner meaning conceals a yet deeper inner meaning, and so on (up to seven levels of meaning), has sometimes been used in support of this view.[1][2] Some Islamic sects impose strict limitations on esoteric interpretations.

Esoteric interpretations are found mainly in Sufism and in the sayings (hadiths) of both Twelver and Ismaili Shi'a Imams.

In Arabic, batin refers to the inner or esoteric meaning of a sacred text, and zahir to the apparent or exoteric meaning. Hence, the term batiniyya is sometimes applied to those who refer to an esoteric interpretation.

Allama Taba'tabatabai says in Al-Mizan

It has been explained that the Holy Qur'an elucidates religious aims through its own words and gives commands to mankind in matters of doctrine and action. But the meaning of the Qur'an is not limited to this level.

Rather, behind these same expressions and within these same meanings there are deeper and wider levels of meaning, which only the spiritual elite who possess pure hearts can comprehend.

The Prophet, who is the divinely appointed teacher of the Quran, says:

The Qur'an has a beautiful exterior and a profound interior. He has also said,

The Qur'an has an inner dimension, and that inner dimension has an inner dimension up to seven inner dimensions.

Also, in the sayings of the Imams there are numerous references to the inner aspect of the Qur'an.

The main support of these assertions is a symbol, which God has mentioned in Chapter XIII, verse 17, of the Qur'an. In this verse divine gifts are symbolized by rain that falls from heaven and upon which depends the life of the earth and its inhabitants. With the coming of the rain, floods begin to flow and each riverbed accepts a certain amount of the flood, depending on its capacity. As it flows, the flood is covered with foam, but beneath the foam there is that same water which is life giving and beneficial to mankind.

As is indicated by this symbolic story, the capacity for comprehension of divine sciences, which are the source of man's inner life, differs among people. There are those for whom there is no reality beyond physical existence and the material life of this world which lasts but a few days.

Such people are attached to material appetites and physical desires alone and fear nothing but the loss of material benefits and sensory enjoyment. Such people, taking into consideration the differences of degree among them, can at best accept the divine sciences on the level of believing in a summary fashion in the doctrines and performing the practical commands of Islam in a purely outward manner without any comprehension. They worship God with the hope of recompense or fear of punishment in the next world.

There are also those who because of the purity of their nature, do not consider their well being to be in attachment to the transient pleasures of the fleeting life of this world. The losses and gains and hitter and sweet experiences of this world are for them no more than and attractive illusion.

Memory of those who have passed before them in the caravan of existence, who were pleasure-seekers yesterday and no more than subjects of stories today, is a warning that is continuously present before their eyes. Such men who possess pure hearts are naturally attracted to the world of eternity. They view the different phenomena of this passing world as symbols and portents of the higher world, not as persisting and independent realities.

It is at this point that through earthly and heavenly signs, upon the horizons and within the souls of men, they "observe" in a spiritual vision the Infinite Light of the Majesty and Glory of God. Their hearts become completely enamored with the longing to reach and understanding of the secret symbols of creation. Instead of being imprisoned in the dark and narrow well of personal gain and selfishness they begin to fly in the unlimited space of the world of eternity and advance ever onwards toward the zenith of the spiritual world.

When they hear that God has forbidden the worship of idols, which outwardly means bowing down before an idol, they understand this command to mean that they should not obey other than God, for to obey means to bow down before someone and to serve him. Beyond that meaning they understand that they should not have hope or fear of other than God: beyond that, they should not surrender to the demands of their selfish appetites; and beyond that, they should not concentrate on anything except God, May His Name be Glorified.

Likewise when they hear from the Qur'an that they should pray, the external meaning of which is to perform the particular rites of prayers, through its inner meaning they comprehend that they must worship and obey God with all their hearts and souls. Beyond that they comprehend that before God they must consider themselves as nothing, must forget themselves and remember only God.

It can be seen that the inner meaning present in these two examples is not due to the outward expression of the command and prohibition in question. Yet the comprehension of this meaning is unavoidable for anyone who has begun to meditate upon a more universal order and has preferred to gain a vision of the universe of reality rather than his own ego, who has preferred objectivity to an egocentric subjectivism.

From this discussion the meaning of the outward and inward aspects of the Qur'an has become clear. It has also become evident that the inner meaning of the Qur'an does not eradicate or invalidate its outward meaning. Rather, it is like the soul, which gives life to the body. Islam, which is a universal and eternal religion and places the greatest emphasis upon the "reformation" of mankind, can never disperse with its external laws which are for the benefit of society, nor with its simple doctrines which are the guardians and preservers of these laws.

How can a society, on the pretense that religion is only a matter of the heart, that man's heart should be pure and that there is no value to actions, live in disorder and yet attain happiness? How can impure deeds and words cause the cultivation of a pure heart? Or how can impure words emanate from a pure heart? God says in His Book,

Vile women are for vile men, and vile men for vile women. Good women are for good men, and good men for good women. (XXIV: 26).

He also says,

As for the good land, its vegetation cometh forth by permission of its Lord, while as for that which is bad, only evil cometh forth (from it) (VII: 58).

Thus it becomes evident that the Holy Qur'an has an outward and an inward aspect and the inward aspect itself has different levels of meaning. The hadith literature, which explains the content of the Qur'an also contains these various aspects.

http://www.almizan.org/new/special/Aspects.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

That aside, why is there a distinction between fiqhi and aqaid hadith? I know there are and that there is probability of a "sahih" chain being a fabricated hadith and a very weak chained hadith to be genuine.

(salam)

^Because they know that if they use same criteria for fiqh and aqaed, they won't be able to justify their exaggerated beliefs and distorted tafseer of Qur'an. Alhamdolillah we have scholars like Syed Fadhlallah, Shaykh Radhy who don't employ this double policy.

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^Because they know that if they use same criteria for fiqh and aqaed, they won't be able to justify their exaggerated beliefs and distorted tafseer of Qur'an. Alhamdolillah we have scholars like Syed Fadhlallah, Shaykh Radhy who don't employ this double policy.

w/s

(salam)

Mashallah. This statement of yours takes the cake. You have some nerve calling the community of the greatest scholars throughout our history "exaggerators". I guess Sheikh Radhy and Fadhlullah saved the day from the mean ol' scholars who are (according to you) exaggerators. You ran away from answering the simple question I asked you. It's clear that your methodologies were applied in the wrong area. Thank you for proving to everyone that your request for "hadith sahih" was meaningless. You didn't have the courage or academic integrity, however, to answer my simple question with a genuine "yes, our 'ulema use riwaayaat da'eefat in tafseer if the Qur'an supports the exegesis". It's not surprising why some people lack credibility.

Back to the more pressing issue which you have indirectly brought up... Basically what you're saying is that we don't really have a single authoritative Tafseer which is (by your standards) not distorted or exaggerated. Not only that, but you claim that Syed ul-Khoe'i (ra) is an exaggerator since he accepts that which you reject based on his Fiqh methodologies. Sheikh Tusi (ra) was an exaggerator. Shareef Radhi (ra) was an exaggerator in compiling Nahj ul-Balagha of Ameer ul-Mu'mineen (as). Ibn Qawlaweeh (ra) was an exaggerator for Kaamil uz-Ziyaaraat. 'Allama Majlisi (ra) was an exaggerator. 'Allama Muhammad Husain Tabataba'i (ra) was an exaggerator for writing al-Mizan fi Tafseer il-Qur'an. Sheikh Tabrasi (ra) was an exaggerator for writing Majma' ul-Bayan fi Tafseer il-Qur'an. Syed Sistani (ra) is an exaggerator. In fact, all of our Maraja' (ra) are exaggerators. In this case, I say... THANK GOD for giving us Fadhlullah and Sheikh Radhy to save us from distortion and ghuluw. But more importantly, THANK GOD FOR JONDAB ON SHIACHAT.COM, because he has saved us all from doing Taqleed of Ghulaat. What amazing comedy. Let's get real. You claimed to use the methodologies of al-Khoe'i (ra), which was proven to be a complete and flat-out lie. Then we find you declaring the entire community of Imami scholars from the ancient times 'til today as Ghulaat. Get a life, bro. :)

Also, it's interesting that you accuse these scholars of employing a double standard, when Fadhlullah is confused as to what criteria constitute a Thabit narration. Meanwhile, you and Sheikh Radhy continually claim to employ the methodologies of Syed ul-Khoe'i (ra), while you leave the story unfinished. You should say instead: "Radhy and I pick and choose where to employ these methodologies of al-Khoe'i (ra), even though we are fully aware that these methodologies serve specific tasks within a specific science (deductive jurisprudence)." And take care to also admit that you have not attended Hawza and the highest level classes on usool ul-fiqh, so there is pretty much no chance that you have understood anything that you skimmed through online regarding the techniques of al-Khoe'i (ra) in Ijtihad. But let's leave aside Fiqh for now. The point is, you are the one with a double-standard, not the Imami scholars. You are being pretty sneaky all the time. This is why I felt like pointing this out.

I invite you to come here and now admit the following points:

1) You and Sheikh Radhy do NOT understand where to utilize the methodologies of al-Khoe'i (ra), though you are fully aware that you are utilizing principles from his books on deductive jurisprudence and NOT tafseer. He accepts Ziyarat 'Ashura, while you claim that you have rejected it based on his methodologies. Please reconcile this discrepancy, or just admit to everyone that you are not being entirely honest.

2) You are not in line with the greatest Imami scholars by asking for a "hadith saheeh" everytime Bibi Fatima (as) or Imam Husain (as) are mentioned.

3) Our 'Ulema use Riwaayaat Da'eefat in non-Fiqh sciences such as Tafseer.

I think you should have the decency and integrity to come and discuss these points.

On a side note, hopefully people are taking some humor out of this and enjoying this discussion.

- Mansab

Edited by mansab.jafri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than arguing over this, have folks bothered looking to see what our tafsirs actually say?

Shaykh Tusi:

ثم قال تعالى { وفديناه } يعني ولد إبراهيم { بذبح عظيم } فالفداء جعل الشيء مكان غيره لدفع الضرر عنه، ومنه فداء المسلمين بالمشركين لدفع ضرر الاشد عنهم، فكذلك فداء الله ولد إبراهيم بالكبش لدفع ضرر الذبح عنه. والعظيم هو الكبير. وقيل: لان الكبش الذي فدي به يصغر مقدار غيره من الكباش عنه بالاضافة اليه. وقال ابن عباس: فدي بكبش من الغنم. وهو قول مجاهد والضحاك وسعيد بن جبير. وقال الحسن: فدي بوعل أهبط به عليه جبرائيل. وقيل: إنه لا خلاف انه لم يكن من الماشية التي كانت لابراهيم او غيره في الدنيا. وقيل: إنه رعى في الجنة أربعين خريفاً. وقال مجاهد: وصفه بأنه عظيم، لانه متقبل. والذبح بكسر الذال المهيأ، لان يذبح. وبفتح الذال المصدر.

No, I'm not going to translate all these right now, but the above states that the dhibh `azhim was الكبش listing different views as to why it might have been called عظيم.

Shaykh Tabrisi:

ثم قال سبحانه { وفديناه بذبح عظيم } الفداء جعل الشيء مكان الشيء لدفع الضرر عنه والذبح هو المذبوح وما يذبح ومعناه أنا جعلنا الذبح بدلاً عنه كالأسير يفدى بشيء واختلف في الذبح فقيل: كان كبشاً من الغنم عن ابن عباس ومجاهد والضحاك وسعيد بن جبير. قال ابن عباس: هو الكبش الذي تقبل من هابيل حين قربه. وقيل: فدي بوعل أهبط عليه من ثَبِير عن الحسن ولِمَ سمّي عظيماً فيه خلاف. قيل: لأنه كان مقبولاً عن مجاهد. وقيل: لأن قدر غيره من الكباش يصغر بالإِضافة إليه. وقيل: لأنه رعى في الجنة أربعين خريفاً عن سعيد بن جبير. وقيل: لأنه كان من عند الله كوَّنه ولم يكن عن نسل. وقيل: لأنه فداء عبد عظيم.

Similar to what Tusi brings also listing different views as to why it was called `azhim and as with him still it is understood to be in reference to the kabsh.

`Allama Tabataba'i:

قوله تعالى: { وفديناه بذبح عظيم } أي وفدينا ابنه بذبح عظيم وكان كبشاً أتى به جبريل من عند الله سبحانه فداء على ما في الأخبار، والمراد بعظمة الذبح عظمة شأنه بكونه من عند الله سبحانه وهو الذي فدى به الذبيح

Also referring to the kabsh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Rather than arguing over this, have folks bothered looking to see what our tafsirs actually say?

Shaykh Tusi:

ثم قال تعالى { وفديناه } يعني ولد إبراهيم { بذبح عظيم } فالفداء جعل الشيء مكان غيره لدفع الضرر عنه، ومنه فداء المسلمين بالمشركين لدفع ضرر الاشد عنهم، فكذلك فداء الله ولد إبراهيم بالكبش لدفع ضرر الذبح عنه. والعظيم هو الكبير. وقيل: لان الكبش الذي فدي به يصغر مقدار غيره من الكباش عنه بالاضافة اليه. وقال ابن عباس: فدي بكبش من الغنم. وهو قول مجاهد والضحاك وسعيد بن جبير. وقال الحسن: فدي بوعل أهبط به عليه جبرائيل. وقيل: إنه لا خلاف انه لم يكن من الماشية التي كانت لابراهيم او غيره في الدنيا. وقيل: إنه رعى في الجنة أربعين خريفاً. وقال مجاهد: وصفه بأنه عظيم، لانه متقبل. والذبح بكسر الذال المهيأ، لان يذبح. وبفتح الذال المصدر.

No, I'm not going to translate all these right now, but the above states that the dhibh `azhim was الكبش listing different views as to why it might have been called عظيم.

Shaykh Tabrisi:

ثم قال سبحانه { وفديناه بذبح عظيم } الفداء جعل الشيء مكان الشيء لدفع الضرر عنه والذبح هو المذبوح وما يذبح ومعناه أنا جعلنا الذبح بدلاً عنه كالأسير يفدى بشيء واختلف في الذبح فقيل: كان كبشاً من الغنم عن ابن عباس ومجاهد والضحاك وسعيد بن جبير. قال ابن عباس: هو الكبش الذي تقبل من هابيل حين قربه. وقيل: فدي بوعل أهبط عليه من ثَبِير عن الحسن ولِمَ سمّي عظيماً فيه خلاف. قيل: لأنه كان مقبولاً عن مجاهد. وقيل: لأن قدر غيره من الكباش يصغر بالإِضافة إليه. وقيل: لأنه رعى في الجنة أربعين خريفاً عن سعيد بن جبير. وقيل: لأنه كان من عند الله كوَّنه ولم يكن عن نسل. وقيل: لأنه فداء عبد عظيم.

Similar to what Tusi brings also listing different views as to why it was called `azhim and as with him still it is understood to be in reference to the kabsh.

`Allama Tabataba'i:

قوله تعالى: { وفديناه بذبح عظيم } أي وفدينا ابنه بذبح عظيم وكان كبشاً أتى به جبريل من عند الله سبحانه فداء على ما في الأخبار، والمراد بعظمة الذبح عظمة شأنه بكونه من عند الله سبحانه وهو الذي فدى به الذبيح

Also referring to the kabsh

(salam)

I am aware of what has been mentioned, and as for me, I didn't say if I agree or not.

Just discussing something different with regards to the techniques of certain people. If these people had referred to our Tafaseer instead of creating their own fantasy-based rules on accepting/rejecting Fadhaa'il of Ahlul'bayt (as), there would be no problem here.

On a second thought, I don't really care about discussing this any further, so my input in this thread is over.

- Mansab

Edited by mansab.jafri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
You claimed to use the methodologies of al-Khoe'i (ra), which was proven to be a complete and flat-out lie.

^Wrong. Grading a weak chain as 'daif' always seems lie to you. By methodologies I've simply meant that I have used works of Syed Khoei just to find the status of narrators esp. those narrators which are not mentioned in other books of rijal (such as Najashi, Tusi, Hilli etc.) So if a narrator is considered majhool by Syed Khoei, then the chain will obviously be considered non-sahih.

1) You and Sheikh Radhy do NOT understand where to utilize the methodologies of al-Khoe'i (ra), though you are fully aware that you are utilizing principles from his books on deductive jurisprudence and NOT tafseer. He accepts Ziyarat 'Ashura, while you claim that you have rejected it based on his methodologies. Please reconcile this discrepancy, or just admit to everyone that you are not being entirely honest.

2) You are not in line with the greatest Imami scholars by asking for a "hadith saheeh" everytime Bibi Fatima (as) or Imam Husain (as) are mentioned.

3) Our 'Ulema use Riwaayaat Da'eefat in non-Fiqh sciences such as Tafseer.

I think you should have the decency and integrity to come and discuss these points.

On a side note, hopefully people are taking some humor out of this and enjoying this discussion.

- Mansab

Syed Khoei may have believed Ziyaraat Ashura as authentic, but it's well known that in the later stage of his life he changed his stance on the narrators in Kamil az-Ziyaraat i.e. only the mashaikhs of Ibn Qawlayah are reliable and not all narrators. This might have changed his stance on Ziyarat Ashura.

Secondly, if your favorite scholars believe in double standard for fiqh and aqaed, that doesn't makes the analysis of Shaykh Radhy wrong. Personally to me this double standard is nothing but a joke. Interesting how a majhool/ghulat/daef narrator in fiqh becomes perfectly relaible when it comes to aqaed.

BTW, thanks for accepting that the posted hadith in this thread are weak and thanks you didn't twist principles of rijal for justifying these hadith as sahih like Jafar Subhani twisted to justify the authenticity of Ziyarat Ashura .

Its not my problem if you (or your favorite 'scholars') wish to take religion from majhool/daif/ghulat narrators. If you don't agree with my analysis of isnad, you can ignore it.

w/s

Rather than arguing over this, have folks bothered looking to see what our tafsirs actually say?

Shaykh Tusi:

ثم قال تعالى { وفديناه } يعني ولد إبراهيم { بذبح عظيم } فالفداء جعل الشيء مكان غيره لدفع الضرر عنه، ومنه فداء المسلمين بالمشركين لدفع ضرر الاشد عنهم، فكذلك فداء الله ولد إبراهيم بالكبش لدفع ضرر الذبح عنه. والعظيم هو الكبير. وقيل: لان الكبش الذي فدي به يصغر مقدار غيره من الكباش عنه بالاضافة اليه. وقال ابن عباس: فدي بكبش من الغنم. وهو قول مجاهد والضحاك وسعيد بن جبير. وقال الحسن: فدي بوعل أهبط به عليه جبرائيل. وقيل: إنه لا خلاف انه لم يكن من الماشية التي كانت لابراهيم او غيره في الدنيا. وقيل: إنه رعى في الجنة أربعين خريفاً. وقال مجاهد: وصفه بأنه عظيم، لانه متقبل. والذبح بكسر الذال المهيأ، لان يذبح. وبفتح الذال المصدر.

No, I'm not going to translate all these right now, but the above states that the dhibh `azhim was الكبش listing different views as to why it might have been called عظيم.

Shaykh Tabrisi:

ثم قال سبحانه { وفديناه بذبح عظيم } الفداء جعل الشيء مكان الشيء لدفع الضرر عنه والذبح هو المذبوح وما يذبح ومعناه أنا جعلنا الذبح بدلاً عنه كالأسير يفدى بشيء واختلف في الذبح فقيل: كان كبشاً من الغنم عن ابن عباس ومجاهد والضحاك وسعيد بن جبير. قال ابن عباس: هو الكبش الذي تقبل من هابيل حين قربه. وقيل: فدي بوعل أهبط عليه من ثَبِير عن الحسن ولِمَ سمّي عظيماً فيه خلاف. قيل: لأنه كان مقبولاً عن مجاهد. وقيل: لأن قدر غيره من الكباش يصغر بالإِضافة إليه. وقيل: لأنه رعى في الجنة أربعين خريفاً عن سعيد بن جبير. وقيل: لأنه كان من عند الله كوَّنه ولم يكن عن نسل. وقيل: لأنه فداء عبد عظيم.

Similar to what Tusi brings also listing different views as to why it was called `azhim and as with him still it is understood to be in reference to the kabsh.

`Allama Tabataba'i:

قوله تعالى: { وفديناه بذبح عظيم } أي وفدينا ابنه بذبح عظيم وكان كبشاً أتى به جبريل من عند الله سبحانه فداء على ما في الأخبار، والمراد بعظمة الذبح عظمة شأنه بكونه من عند الله سبحانه وهو الذي فدى به الذبيح

Also referring to the kabsh

Jazakallah.

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

:!!!:

Speculation, disrespect, and lies. Save your dignity and just stop right there, bro. You've been sent through the washing machine and now you're hanging out to dry. You're getting a bit annoyed it seems. Maybe I touched a nerve?

Next time you disrespect the 'Ulema of the Imamiyya and accuse them of Ghuluw, you should be banned. I'm not going to go around in circles with you again like a carousel.

- Mansab

Edited by mansab.jafri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

In the lineage of Hazrat Ismael (as), history has recorded another sacrifice. One where the grandfather of our Prophet, Hazrat Abdul Muttalib (as), almost sacrificed his son Hazrat Abdullah (as). This is why our Prophet (saww) was also titled "Ibn Zabihayn" or "Son of sacrifices" in reference to the two major sacrifices.

Imam Hussain's sacrifice is, in every aspect, one much greater than the first two. Allah knows best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...