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  
Lonely warrior

Faith Of Kulayni

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

Starting this thread with a little fear. I was told that here people are getting banned when they are giving embarrassing questions.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what you would say on opinion of some top shia scholars regarding faith of your greatest hadith scholar ever.

1) Muhammad Baqir Majlisi said in his book “Miratul Uqul” :

æ ÇÎÊáÝ ÃÕÍÇÈäÇ Ýí Ðáß¡ ÝÐåÈ ÇáÕÏæÞ ÇÈä ÈÇÈæíå æ ÌãÇÚÉ Åáì Ãä ÇáÞÑÂä áã íÊÛíÑ ÚãÇ ÃäÒá æ áã íäÞÕ ãäå ÔíþÁ¡ æ ÐåÈ Çáßáíäí æ ÇáÔíÎ ÇáãÝíÏ ÞÏÓ Çááå ÑæÍåãÇ æ ÌãÇÚÉ Åáì Ãä ÌãíÚ ÇáÞÑÂä ÚäÏ ÇáÃÆãÉ Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã¡ æ ãÇ Ýí ÇáãÕÇÍÝ ÈÚÖå¡ æ ÌãÚ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä ÕáæÇÊ Çááå Úáíå ßãÇ ÃäÒá ÈÚÏ ÇáÑÓæá Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Âáå æ Óáã æ ÃÎÑÌ Åáì ÇáÕÍÇÈÉ ÇáãäÇÝÞíä Ýáã íÞÈáæÇ ãäå

“And our companions differed in this matter (tahrif in Quran). As-Saduq ibn Babaveyh al-Qummi and group hold opinion that Quran is exactly in such form as it was revealed, nothing changed or omitted from it. And Kulayni with sheikh Mufid … and group turned to opinion that gathered Quran with imams (alaihuma salam), as for the (verses) in mushaf it’s (only) some of it, and commander of faithful (salawatullah alaihi) gathered (Quran) as it was revealed after prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and brought it to hypocrites companions, which didn’t accept it from him…”.

2) Abul Hasan al-Alami said:

It should be known, as it apparent from words of siqatul Islam Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Kulayni, (he) did believe in tahrif in Quran and omission. Because he gave a lot of place to ahadeth about that in his book “al-Kafi”. He expressed that he believe in ahadeth that he narrated in the beginning of his book……. And is the same way (acted) his sheikh Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi.

(quoted from “Muqadimatu Tafsir al-Burhan”.)

3) Al-Sayid Ali Al-Faani Al-Asfahani in Araa’ Hawla Al-Quran (Views surrounding the Quran) p. 88:

Question 5: Who are those who view [that the Quran was subject to] Tahreef (i.e. alteration), and what is their evidence?

Answer: The Answer [is] that a number of Muhaditheen (narrators) and memorizers of traditions deduced from narrations that [the Quran was subject to] Alteration by deductions [made from it]. For that reason they adopted that [the Quran] was subject to Tahreef (alteration) by deducting [from it].

The first from among them, in what I know, is Ali ibn Ibrahim in his Tafseer. Since it was mentioned in it: Abu Al-Hasan Ali Ibn Ibrahim Al-Hashimi Al-Qumi said:

“From the Quran is Nasikh and Mansoukh (i.e. Abrogated verses and Abrogating verses) … and from it is a letter [placed] in place of another, and from it is what was Muharaf (altered), and from it is contrary to what
Allah
-Exalted is He- has revealed” … until he said … “As for what is Altered (Muharaf) from it is like His saying: {But
Allah
bears witness to that which He has revealed to you} about Ali, that is how it was revealed {… He has sent it down with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness [as well]}[Al-Nisaa 166], and His saying: {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord …} about Ali {… and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message} [Al-Maeda 67]*. And His saying: {Indeed, those who disbelieve and commit wrong [or injustice] …} [in regards to] the rights of the Household of Mohammed {… – never will
Allah
forgive them, nor will He guide them to a path} [Al-Nisaa 168]**. {And those who have wronged …} the Household of Mohammed their rights {… are going to know to what [kind of] return they will be returned} [Al-shu'araa 227]. And His saying:{And if you could but see} those who have wronged Mohammed’s household their rights {are in the overwhelming pangs of death} [Al-Anaam 93], and from these are plenty which we will mention in its location [1]. What was intended from his speech has been complete.

That (i.e. that view of Tahreef) also appears from Al-Kulayni where he narrates traditions
apparent in that and does not comment on it. Al-Sayid Al-Jazae’iri also goes to [that view of] Tahreef in his explanations on the two Tahzeebs, and has mentioned an elongated research on that matter in a Treatise which he named -Manbaa’ Al-Haya-”

4) Sayed Tayeeb Mosawi al-Jazairi inhis saying on commentary of Qummi, wrote:

æáßä ÇáÙÇåÑ ãä ßáãÇÊ ÛíÑåã ãä ÇáÚáãÇÁ æÇáãÍÏËíä ÇáãÊÞÏãíä ãäåã æÇáãÊÃÎÑíä ÇáÞæá ÈÇáäÞíÕÉ ßÇáßáíäí æÇáÈÑÞì¡ æÇáÚíÇÔí æÇáäÚãÇäí¡ æÝÑÇÊ Èä ÇÈÑÇåíã¡ æÇÍãÏ Èä ÇÈì ØÇáÈ ÇáØÈÑÓí ÕÇÍÈ ÇáÇÍÊÌÇÌ æÇáãÌáÓì¡ æÇáÓíÏ ÇáÌÒÇÆÑí¡ æÇáÍÑ ÇáÚÇãáí¡ æÇáÚáÇãÉ ÇáÝÊæäí¡ æÇáÓíÏ ÇáÈÍÑÇäí æÞÏ ÊãÓßæÇ Ýí ÇËÈÇÊ ãÐåÈåã ÈÇáÂíÇÊ æÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÇáÊì áÇ íãßä ÇáÇÛãÇÖ ÚäåÇ æÇáÐí íåæä ÇáÎØÈ Çä ÇáÊÍÑíÝ ÇááÇÒã Úáì Þæáåã íÓíÑ ÌÏÇ ãÎÕæÕ ÈÂíÇÊ ÇáæáÇíÉ.

“and what is obvious from the words of those other than them, from the early and later scholars of hadith, is the proponence of [the belief in] omission. Such as: al-Kulayni, al-Barqi, al-Ayashi, an-Nomani, and Furat ibn Ibrahim (al-Koofe), Ahmad ibn Abu Talib a-Tabrasi author of “al-Ihtijaj”, al-Majlisi, sayed Jazairi, al-Hurr al-Amili, allama al-Fattuni, sayed al-Bahrani. They have held on tightly to the verses and narrations, that cannot possibly be looked away from, to establish their opinion. The thing that makes disaster less than it is, they said tahrif happen in very small proportion, only in verses on wilayat”.

5) Faiz Kashani in Tafsir as-safi” vol 1, p 52

“As for (the opinion of) OUR SCHOLARS (may
Allah
be pleased with them (!!!)) on this topic, then what is obvious from Thiqatul Islam Muhammad bin Ya’kub AL-KULAYNI that he believed in the MANIPULATION AND LOSS in the QURAAN because he recorded narrations of this meaning in his book Al-Kafi without criticizing it at all, besides he mentioned at the beginning of his book that he trusted in what he had narrated and also (this applies to) his teacher Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Qummy (may
Allah
be pleased with him (!!!)) since his tafsir is full of that (manipulation of the Quraan) and he has some extremism on this topic and also Sheikh Ahmad bin Abi Talib Al-TABRASSI (may
Allah
be pleased with him (!!!)) since he followed these two (on this matter) exactly in his Al-Ihtijaj”

So Fayz Kashani, Fani Isfahani, Tayeeb Mosawi al-Jazairi, Majlisi, Amali. They weren't wahabis, salafis, sunnis, sufis. They were 5 shia scholars. At least 3 from them well known. And they said that Kulaini, your muhadith number 1 did believe that Quran has been tampered. So look from whom you are taking your religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why fear?

u only quoted what shia alim said.

if u think you will be banned, then shia member SAVED will also be banned bcoz he opened same thread like yours.

& i think to know the faith of kulayni is enough to see the narations of tahreef al-quran in al-kafi.

& almost all these type of narrations reach to infallible imams, & seems good in the view of kulayni.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[so Fayz Kashani, Fani Isfahani, Tayeeb Mosawi al-Jazairi, Majlisi, Amali. They weren't wahabis, salafis, sunnis, sufis. They were 5 shia scholars. At least 3 from them well known. And they said that Kulaini, your muhadith number 1 did believe that Quran has been tampered. So look from whom you are taking your religion.

Shaykh al-Kulayni (ra) has NEVER said himself that he believed in Tahrif. They have based their conclusions on the fact that he has recorded Tahrif Hadiths in his book. Of course, that is NOT sufficient evidence for their claim. Shaykh al-Kulayni (ra) himself has asked us to compare whatever he has written in his book with the Qur'an and accept only that which agrees with the Qur'an.

In any case, even if we were to agree that al-Kulayni (ra) believed in Tahrif, what exactly do you want to achieve with this?

You folks follow Ibn Abbas (ra) and heavily rely upon him. Yet, this same Ibn Abbas (ra) claimed that there is a scribal error in the Qur'an! Why don't you look at the ones from whom you take your religion?

You also take your religion from Mujahid. Al-Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr al-Andalusi in his al-Tamhid, vol. 4, p. 275, commentary of Hadith 21 (1967 ed) records:

æÑæì ÃÈæäÚíã ÇáÝÖá Èä Ïßíä ¡ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÓíÝ ¡ Úä ãÌÇåÏ ¡ ÞÇá :

ßÇäÊ ÇáÃÍÒÇÈ ãËá ÓæÑÉ ÇáÈÞÑÉ Ãæ ÃØæá ¡ æáÞÏ ÐåÈ íæã ãÓíáãÉ ÞÑÂä ßËíÑ ¡ æáã íÐåÈ ãäå ÍáÇá æáÇ ÍÑÇã

Mujahid said:

Surat al-Ahzab was as big as Surat al-Baqarah or even bigger. But on the day of (the battle with) Musaylamah, MUCH OF THE QUR'AN WAS LOST! But verses pertaining to halal and haram matters were not lost.

Note that al-Tamhid is only a commentary upon the Hadiths of Muwatta of Imam Malik.

In case, you are wondering about the authenticity of this report, well then, it is authentic.

Abu Na'im al-Fadl ibn Dakin is "Trustworthy! Firm!" according to al-Taqrib, p. 446, Number 5401. Sayf too is "Trustworthy! Firm!" as in al-Taqrib, p. 262, Number 2722.

The question to you is: DO YOU TAKE YOUR RELIGION FROM IBN ABBAS (ra) AND HIS STUDENT MUJAHID OR NOT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaykh al-Kulayni (ra) has NEVER said himself that he believed in Tahrif. They have based their conclusions on the fact that he has recorded Tahrif Hadiths in his book. Of course, that is NOT sufficient evidence for their claim. Shaykh al-Kulayni (ra) himself has asked us to compare whatever he has written in his book with the Qur'an and accept only that which agrees with the Qur'an.

lol.

he never said, but he wrote vast narration dedicated to imams about tahreef & he never claimed that these narrations are weak or fabricated.

PROOF IT; HE EVER SAID AFTER WRITING THESE TYPE OF NARRATION THAT THESE ARE WEAK.

You folks follow Ibn Abbas (ra) and heavily rely upon him. Yet, this same Ibn Abbas (ra) claimed that there is a scribal error in the Qur'an! Why don't you look at the ones from whom you take your religion?

You also take your religion from Mujahid. Al-Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr al-Andalusi in his al-Tamhid, vol. 4, p. 275, commentary of Hadith 21 (1967 ed) records:

وروى أبونعيم الفضل بن دكين ، قال حدثنا سيف ، عن مجاهد ، قال :

كانت الأحزاب مثل سورة البقرة أو أطول ، ولقد ذهب يوم مسيلمة قرآن كثير ، ولم يذهب منه حلال ولا حرام

Mujahid said:

Surat al-Ahzab was as big as Surat al-Baqarah or even bigger. But on the day of (the battle with) Musaylamah, MUCH OF THE QUR'AN WAS LOST! But verses pertaining to halal and haram matters were not lost.

Note that al-Tamhid is only a commentary upon the Hadiths of Muwatta of Imam Malik.

In case, you are wondering about the authenticity of this report, well then, it is authentic.

Abu Na'im al-Fadl ibn Dakin is "Trustworthy! Firm!" according to al-Taqrib, p. 446, Number 5401. Sayf too is "Trustworthy! Firm!" as in al-Taqrib, p. 262, Number 2722.

The question to you is: DO YOU TAKE YOUR RELIGION FROM IBN ABBAS (ra) AND HIS STUDENT MUJAHID OR NOT?

& i think jahil can only compare: kulayni [who wrote his own book from his own hands] with ibn abbas (ra) [whose narration are not written by him but it is written by others]. Both case are extremely opposite & non comparable.

Edited by ibn.askari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaykh al-Kulayni (ra) has NEVER said himself that he believed in Tahrif. They have based their conclusions on the fact that he has recorded Tahrif Hadiths in his book. Of course, that is NOT sufficient evidence for their claim. Shaykh al-Kulayni (ra) himself has asked us to compare whatever he has written in his book with the Qur'an and accept only that which agrees with the Qur'an.

well if he considers the hadees he brings in his books are sahi then that means he believed in those... And its ONLY we who understood that in this manner which more plausible but EVEN your own scholars understood that in the same way that he way he counted him among those who believed in tahreef.

In the introduction of al-Kāfī, he explicitly said:Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled. (al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran]

In any case, even if we were to agree that al-Kulayni (ra) believed in Tahrif, what exactly do you want to achieve with this?
it shows that from where does most of your deen came to you..
You folks follow Ibn Abbas (ra) and heavily rely upon him. Yet, this same Ibn Abbas (ra) claimed that there is a scribal error in the Qur'an! Why don't you look at the ones from whom you take your religion?
well the argument was destroyed and crushed and we didnt receive any sensible reply for that.. but just weak answers which are run arounds of the arguments which were already answered..

And to remind you be take our deen frrom those none of whom believed that quran as it was revealed from prophet(Saw) was not there with them...unlike kulayni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You also take your religion from Mujahid. Al-Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr al-Andalusi in his al-Tamhid, vol. 4, p. 275, commentary of Hadith 21 (1967 ed) records:

æÑæì ÃÈæäÚíã ÇáÝÖá Èä Ïßíä ¡ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÓíÝ ¡ Úä ãÌÇåÏ ¡ ÞÇá :

ßÇäÊ ÇáÃÍÒÇÈ ãËá ÓæÑÉ ÇáÈÞÑÉ Ãæ ÃØæá ¡ æáÞÏ ÐåÈ íæã ãÓíáãÉ ÞÑÂä ßËíÑ ¡ æáã íÐåÈ ãäå ÍáÇá æáÇ ÍÑÇã

Mujahid said:

Surat al-Ahzab was as big as Surat al-Baqarah or even bigger. But on the day of (the battle with) Musaylamah, MUCH OF THE QUR'AN WAS LOST! But verses pertaining to halal and haram matters were not lost.

well Mujahid ibn Jabr was born in Makkah in year 21 of the Islamic calendar, i.e. in the reign of Umar ibn Al-Khattab, the second Caliph. Where as battle of yamama (with musaylamah) took place in around 12hijri.. So this is a mirsal narrations is not acceptable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well Mujahid ibn Jabr was born in Makkah in year 21 of the Islamic calendar, i.e. in the reign of Umar ibn Al-Khattab, the second Caliph. Where as battle of yamama (with musaylamah) took place in around 12hijri.. So this is a mirsal narrations is not acceptable...

This is your problem. You lack basic comprehension abilities. Look at yourself and ibn asakir:

1. To both of you, the reports about Ibn Mas'ud rejecting Surat al-Falaq and Surat al-Nas are weak even though they have SEVERAL authentic chains (according to your highest ranking Hadith scientist, Ibn Hajar, and according to Suyuti and Mawdudi and a host of others). Yet, the relatively weaker and fewer reports that favour Ibn Mas'ud are accepted!

2. You claim that to say that the Qur'an contains a scribal error is NOT Tahrif! Even though the error is the personal mistake of the scribe, it is still the Kalam of Allah! According to you folks, to deny the error is to deny the Qur'an!

3. You guys accept that SIX of the seven revealed ahruf of the Qur'an are now lost, and that is NOT Tahrif!

To be honest, I wish I had more sensible people to debate with.

You are coming here, claiming that the report of Mujahid is mursal and therefore weak!

Well, my focus with Mujahid's report is on Mujahid himself and not on the correctness of his claim. It is true that he made the claim. Whether he is correct in his claim or not is another thing. Yes, Mujahid's opinion is clearly tantamount to Tahrif - unless youn play your dumb game again and assert that claiming that much of the Qur'an has been lost is not Tahrif!

Lastly, (although this is irrelevant to the discussion), according to your science of Hadith, the mursal of senior Tabi'in like Mujahid are regarded as Sahih:

the Marasil of elder Successors such as Sa'id b. al-Musayyab (d. 94) and 'Ata' b. Abi Rabah (d. 114) are acceptable because all their Marasil, after investigation, are found to come through the Companions only.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/asb2.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is your problem. You lack basic comprehension abilities. Look at yourself and ibn asakir:

1. To both of you, the reports about Ibn Mas'ud rejecting Surat al-Falaq and Surat al-Nas are weak even though they have SEVERAL authentic chains (according to your highest ranking Hadith scientist, Ibn Hajar, and according to Suyuti and Mawdudi and a host of others). Yet, the relatively weaker and fewer reports that favour Ibn Mas'ud are accepted!

it seems you have comprehension understanding problems , or it is that you dont want to understand what answers you..

for the first point i said this:

however just for a sake of argument lets suppose that he didnt even recite because he didnt consider those to be part of kalam Allah..(its just an assumption actual answer is in point 2)

Now if you have some knowledge on this issue then you may know that:

The reason for ibn masood(ra) not including the last two surahs in quran was not because of his personal opinion but because of the teaching he got from prophet,(though he didnt knew that later prophet(Saw) said that they are part of quran)

Now he believed that what he had along with him as quran was actually kalam Allah as taught by prophet(Saw).. Correct.. So this means that he believed that the kalam of Allah is still preserved along with him in correct and appropriate form as it shoud have been..so when he believes this that quran he has is the same as what prophet(Saw) taught him , then how could he believe in tahreef of quran. Because according to him.. quran was still present in correct form along with him.

(i hope you will understand my point)

NOw lets see what is the shia belief: the shia belief of tahreef is no way comparable to what ibn masood(ra).. because ibn masood(ra) believed quran HE HAD was correct and appropriate as revealed to prophet(Saw), where as shias believe that its not the way it shoud have been. And they dont have the correct mushnaf along with him unlike ibn masood(ra). So its the classical case of comparing apples with oranges

And the bottom line is that it is impossible to accuse a sahabi for believing in tahreef, because they learned quran from prophet(Saw).. and even if a sahabi disagrees with another sahabi on certain issue regarding quran then it will not be labelled as tahreef, because at end of the day both of them got quran learned quran from prophet(Saw) and both of them believed that they had the correct and appropriate kalam of Allah along with them.. and that there was no tahreef done in what they considered to be correct which is opposite to what shias believe.....

2. You claim that to say that the Qur'an contains a scribal error is NOT Tahrif! Even though the error is the personal mistake of the scribe, it is still the Kalam of Allah! According to you folks, to deny the error is to deny the Qur'an!

again a clear example of understanding simple sentences

I said this:

And regarding ibn abbas(ra)'s words then its comes under the issue of 7 ahruf...:It is possible that that was upon one of the 7 Ahruf just like how Umar(ra) denied one recitation of a man then when they came to the Prophet(saw) both recitations were approved by the Prophet. So as hz umar(ra) thought that the recitation of another man was incorrect similalry hz ibn abbas(ra) thought the other word he read was an error of scribe, but it was correct and what he recited too was correct. what he believed was that he knew the correct word and still the kalam of Allah was there with him in correct and appropriate form then how can he be labelled for believing in tahreef.. As i said that what he believed was also correct and what he considered to be error of scribe was also correc... this can only be pondered by people with brain.

3. You guys accept that SIX of the seven revealed ahruf of the Qur'an are now lost, and that is NOT Tahrif!

again an example, that either you cant even understand simple words or you dont want to , I said this for this one: Dhikr IS OF 7 TYPES..... AND Allah PROTECTED ONE TYPE OF DHIKR WHICH MEANS HE SAVED DHIKR.. this is quite simple to understand you dont need to be a phd to understand such sim[le explanation..

To be honest, I wish I had more sensible people to debate with.

i wish i could have debated a honest person, who would have not ran in circles just inorder to escape from accepting his mistake..
You are coming here, claiming that the report of Mujahid is mursal and therefore weak!

Well, my focus with Mujahid's report is on Mujahid himself and not on the correctness of his claim. It is true that he made the claim. Whether he is correct in his claim or not is another thing. Yes, Mujahid's opinion is clearly tantamount to Tahrif - unless youn play your dumb game again and assert that claiming that much of the Qur'an has been lost is not Tahrif!

nopes, since there is gap of around 9 years.. thus it seems that he was just narrating what some people used to believe.. Since we know that quran was not revealed in the form of a mushaf that if certain portion is lost then we loose the quran, And quran was memorized by several sahaba(ra) including hz zaid(ra) who was alive many years after the battle of yamama until the khilaphat of hz usman(ra) , so naturally even if a certain mushaf was lost that wouldn't have erased from the mind of the sahaba(ra) who had memorized it and other sahaba(ra) who had thier own mushafs.. So this point of common sense leads me to conclude that either it was mistake from the narrator who didnt mention that what mujahid said was regarding belief of some people..

Lastly, (although this is irrelevant to the discussion), according to your science of Hadith, the mursal of senior Tabi'in like Mujahid are regarded as Sahih:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/asb2.html

well maraseel of sahaba(ra) are considered sahi, but not tabi'in... And even when they do against common sense... by the way plz quote me those who specifically said that maraseel of mujahid are sahi.. i prefer to see a specifc statement here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few issues here,

1) Thiqatul Islam al-Kulayni (ra) placed these types of narrations in the Nawader category, showing he found them to be odd and not normal.

2) You assume your salafi bigotted interpretation of the traditions is the interpretation of the traditions held by Kulayni (ra)

3) Shaykh Ibn Babuwayh al-Qummi who in his work al-Itiqadat could have easily condemned Kulayni for having a deviant opinion on the integrity of the Qur'an, being his student. Yet he doesn't seem to even mention Kulayni holding such an opinion, suggesting he probably didnt. Mufid also doesn't mention Kulayni has holding such a view in his work, Awa'il.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abdaal,

Do you have a further clip where Imam al Asi explains what he believes Kulayni meant by that statement? He says he will discuss it later in the clip you provided.

I cut all the details, since the 12rs of today didn't believe in it. I went to Imam Al Asi's website, and sadly all the historical clips are now gone.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...