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
Shamati

Akhbari Manual Of Islamic Laws?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

With all due respect to our akhbari brothers, I would rather reject 100 true sayings of an imam than accept one Dai'f saying that will lead many to misguidance. Fear Allah swt, we all need to change and reform, i found shi'sm, you are all Shias too, join us. Without rijal you believe even an accursed fabricator or ghali whom our imam a.s warned us about. By Allah ghalis have hurt us more than any salafi calling for our necks.

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rejecting the true saying of the Imams A.S is equated to kufr. So saying such words to outplay those who do not consider hadiths as you think they are, you are blantently insulting the integrity of our Imams A.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rejecting the true saying of the Imams A.S is equated to kufr. So saying such words to outplay those who do not consider hadiths as you think they are, you are blantently insulting the integrity of our Imams A.S

you misunderstood me brother. I would rather have many very weak Hadith rejected which could have been true , than accept very weak Dai'f Hadith which I accept and aren't true and misguide many. Unless the Dai'f Hadith in content is confirmed or by consensus does not contain anything that could misguide and is confirmed by strong reliable Hadith etc. Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why hasn't someone compiled a resalah that just quotes the most reliable ahadith concerning each of the practices in Furu Al-Din? Just thinking about it, I'm more inclined towards following the reports instead of the taqleed system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

On 5/29/2015 at 3:29 PM, Shamati said:

Why hasn't someone compiled a resalah that just quotes the most reliable ahadith concerning each of the practices in Furu Al-Din? Just thinking about it, I'm more inclined towards following the reports instead of the taqleed system.

Besides the fact that there do exist such books from the past [al-Faqih of Saduq is famous], in one way or another, even if it was done today there would still be taqleed involved. You would be blindly following [for those who love translating taqleed like that] the individual's own methodology of verifying and weakening narrations.

Not to mention that many of today's issues do not have any narrations regarding them.

Gleave's book is: Inevitable Doubt: Two Theories of Shii Jurisprudence (Studies in Islamic Law and Society)

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al-Hassan, I was referring to this work of his which is a study of Akhabrism itself: Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbari Shi'i School by Robert Gleave

Go to Mirrors above the description and click on libgen.in

The book br. Ibn al-Hussain linked also looks good. I havn't read it myself. Seems I've found something to add to my holidays to-read list (if I can find an online PDF :P ) Jzk! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2015 at 11:57 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

(salam)

Besides the fact that there do exist such books from the past [al-Faqih of Saduq is famous], in one way or another, even if it was done today there would still be taqleed involved. You would be blindly following [for those who love translating taqleed like that] the individual's own methodology of verifying and weakening narrations.

Not to mention that many of today's issues do not have any narrations regarding them.

Gleave's book is: Inevitable Doubt: Two Theories of Shii Jurisprudence (Studies in Islamic Law and Society)

Wassalam

Salam,

I'm not against taqleed. I know to little about these issues to say the one is better than the other. But it feels like the ahadith's are to be given more authority than the faqih's but I trust that the faqih only report faithfully what has been the reported practice of the Prophet (saws) & the Imam's (as)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2015 at 9:24 AM, Shamati said:

Salam,

I'm not against taqleed. I know to little about these issues to say the one is better than the other. But it feels like the ahadith's are to be given more authority than the faqih's but I trust that the faqih only report faithfully what has been the reported practice of the Prophet (saws) & the Imam's (as)

From what I understood from ahlulbayt words, those who understand hadith have more authority than the hadith itself.

We had 11 imam. Non of them wrote a book and asked the shi'a to memorize it and act upon it. But when they were asked how to get answers of religious issues when shi'a have no access to imam (due to geography or due to political reason) imams pointed to some of their best companions and set them as source of getting answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2015 at 9:32 AM, Chaotic Muslem said:

From what I understood from ahlulbayt words, those who understand hadith have more authority than the hadith itself.

We had 11 imam. Non of them wrote a book and asked the shi'a to memorize it and act upon it. But when they were asked how to get answers of religious issues when shi'a have no access to imam (due to geography or due to political reason) imams pointed to some of their best companions and set them as source of getting answers.

But it seems to me that it can only make sense if the validity of the hadith in question is doubtful. Shi'ism depend on the Hadith as it's the reports that tell us that Ali (as) was chosen by Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى to lead the community & be it's Imam after the Muhammad (saw). Certain events are so widely narrated that there is no doubt as to the veracity of its reports.

Taqleed is fine, but it's counter intuitive to me pledge allegiance to 1 specific individual instead of just following the latest scholarship based on ones own reasoning as to the validity & extent of the research of the scholar in question. Most would still be following one specific individual but what if one scholar is specialized as to the halal & haram of certain modern problems such as genetic engineering for example.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2015 at 11:07 AM, Shamati said:

Taqleed is fine, but it's counter intuitive to me pledge allegiance to 1 specific individual

Who said you're pledging allegiance to anyone? This isn't Sufism bro lol. 

You aren't at a level to derive legal rulings to act upon yourself since you have not undertaken the proper training and lack the neccessary skills. So you refer to an individual whom you regard as the most knowledgable regarding fiqh. That's really all it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2015 at 8:04 PM, Tawheed313 said:

With all due respect to our akhbari brothers, I would rather reject 100 true sayings of an imam than accept one Dai'f saying that will lead many to misguidance. Fear Allah swt, we all need to change and reform, i found shi'sm, you are all Shias too, join us. Without rijal you believe even an accursed fabricator or ghali whom our imam a.s warned us about. By Allah ghalis have hurt us more than any salafi calling for our necks.

You seem to be ignorant of the purpose of having Imams. The Imams came to guide. Rejecting hundreds of 'true' hadith equals not having guidance which is very likely to lead to misguidance. It's a very silly comment to make. 

Even within the narrations, we are not always asked to reject narrations, or throw them against the wall. We have also been advised to refer them back, or leave them for their 'Ahl' (people) - meaning those who understand them (the Ahlulbayt). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 

أبي رحمه الله قال حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله عن أحمد بن أبي عبد الله عن محمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع عن جعفر بن بشير عن أبي حصين عن أبي بصير عن أحدهما ع قالوا لا تكذبوا بحديث أتاكم به مرجئي و لا قدري و لا خارجي نسبه إلينا فإنكم لا تدرون لعله شي‏ء من الحق فتكذبوا الله عز و جل فوق عرشه
From Abee BaSeer from one of them (عليه السلام) they said: “Do not deny a hadeeth that comes to you from the murji’, qadari, and khaariji that is attributed to us, for verily you do not know that maybe it is something from the truth, then you have rejected Allaah (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) above His throne”
Source:

  • al-Sadooq, `ilal al-Sharaa'i`, vol. 2, ch. 131, pg. 395, hadeeth # 13
(salam)

 

 

There's a difference between rejecting, and not relying upon, brother Tawheed313. I advise you to not reject ahadith unless they contradict the Holy Qur'an (if you understand the Holy Qur'an) or maybe some other proofs which may show that such reports were fabricated.

Edited by al-Ibrahimi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2015 at 11:07 AM, Shamati said:

But it seems to me that it can only make sense if the validity of the hadith in question is doubtful. Shi'ism depend on the Hadith as it's the reports that tell us that Ali (as) was chosen by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì to lead the community & be it's Imam after the Muhammad (saw). Certain events are so widely narrated that there is no doubt as to the veracity of its reports.

Taqleed is fine, but it's counter intuitive to me pledge allegiance to 1 specific individual instead of just following the latest scholarship based on ones own reasoning as to the validity & extent of the research of the scholar in question. Most would still be following one specific individual but what if one scholar is specialized as to the halal & haram of certain modern problems such as genetic engineering for example..

I'm not sure about the extent of your exposure to the volume of Shia hadith traditions, but if you are well exposed, you won't say such things.

Know that akhbari movement was a correction movement of that time. They did not had the luxury of huge compilation of hadiths in one book nor books that are well categorizing the hadiths were widely available. The akhbari movement was to draw attention of scholars rather than ordinary men that every question has answer in the hadiths , we don't need philosophical answers while answers drawn from hadiths are available.

After that, books were printed and distributed. I am speculating that many half learned men who wanted to jump to the top declared themselves as scholars because they could afford to buy the books. Their understanding was not holistic and they had many gaps, they deliberately or mistakenly misguided people.

Usooli movement came with its roots in our hadiths. Akhbari and Usooli schools clashed over the role of aql in deriving the law from hadiths.

You are missing many parts of this puzzle. It is long long story . I'm not sure why men like to discuss it over and over again. I'd rather go and make sure I know the basics of religion properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why hasn't someone compiled a resalah that just quotes the most reliable ahadith concerning each of the practices in Furu Al-Din? Just thinking about it, I'm more inclined towards following the reports instead of the taqleed system.

How will you act with issues that are not mentioned in narrations?

Edited by mina313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2015 at 11:40 AM, al-Ibrahimi said:

There's a difference between rejecting, and not relying upon, brother Tawheed313. I advise you to not reject ahadith unless they contradict the Holy Qur'an (if you understand the Holy Qur'an) or maybe some other proofs which may show that such reports were fabricated.

Salamunalaikum,

Thanks for calling this out. I should have clarified this earlier:

I believe that a hadith being dai'f does not necessarily mean it is a lie, and a hadith being saheeh does not necessarily mean it is true, and there are many reasons for each, some i am yet to learn and some i know. So yes, it would be wrong to call a dai'f hadith a lie, with a slim chance it may have come from an Imam.

However, i would rather, unless a Dai'f hadith is already mentioned in more reliable hadiths or its content does not contradict what is in the religion/Quran/etc, i would never base my imaan or act on that hadith.

It's very subtle, and i thank you for reminding me to clarify this dear brother. I should be more careful with how i phrase it.

On 5/24/2015 at 10:39 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

(salam)

^Have you actually read the arguments of the Akhbaris (like Astarabadi or Hurr al-Amili) for why they consider all the narrations of some of the books completely reliable? Furthermore, have you read the arguments of an Usuli like Muhaddith Nuri who considered al-Kafi reliable?

Wassalam

Salamunalaikum,

I have heard some Akbari views as to why the hadiths are all entirely reliable, such as the narrative that the twelfth Imam a.s himself checked the book and named it 'the sufficient' , and that was found on the desk of Thiqat-ul-Islam, Sheikh Kulayni r.a

In my view, while i hold up my hands and say i do need to do a true and deep analysis of akbari views, the premise that the four major books of hadith are all entirely authentic, or even that Al Kafi is entirely authentic, is easily refutable. We have other bodies of works, such as Rijal Kashi, as well as many others aspects to Rijal which questions certain narrators.

If one studies the history of shia islam, the extreme groups at times, the basic common sense that dictates not all narrators are equal in piety, some are liers, others are not, there are some extremely questionable dai'f hadiths, and many such issues.

Even Sheikh Kulayni himself stated we must compare the hadiths to the Quran and throw out ones that contradict it(which itself raises many questions).

In my view, i don't think what i stated or my position at all is unfairness to the Akhbari's. I feel the importance of Rijal, and the error of Akbharism for some of the reasons i have mentioned make it just, fair, and extremely logical to not be an Akbari.

There really is nothing more for me to add at this point. I don't think i have made wild claims or made any points that deserve scrutinty and refutation. I have given a sensible opinion held by the majority of the ummah, including sunni's and shia's, and the roughly 0.1% who disagree are really following a very incorrect ideaology.

Additionally, Akhbari's also reject our marja system to the best of my knowledge.

With all due respect, is there a convincing element of Akhbarism that you felt i have not yet come across, or is their group considered a valid group to follow in ideaology, that you questioned me in this manner, or was it simply a general enquiry to see if i make due judgements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How will you act with issues that are not mentioned in narrations?

either according to ones own judgement or according to the judgement of the experts in the particular field concerned. I guess it depends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2015 at 6:07 PM, Shamati said:

either according to ones own judgement or according to the judgement of the experts in the particular field concerned. I guess it depends.

Wa`aslam

Such action is heavily condemned if your a mere layman. I would suggest not going there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

On 5/30/2015 at 5:27 PM, Tawheed313 said:

With all due respect, is there a convincing element of Akhbarism that you felt i have not yet come across, or is their group considered a valid group to follow in ideaology, that you questioned me in this manner, or was it simply a general enquiry to see if i make due judgements?

Whether an element is convincing or not would have to be judged by yourself based on a firm methodology [once you develop it], but before you can do that, you would have to be familiar with their actual arguments. So yes, my inquiry was because I wasn't sure why you were first of all putting all the Akhbaris under the same umbrella, and then rejecting the view with the assumptions that the only argument they have for accepting all these narrations is something futile, especially when you haven't actually read their arguments. They themselves were not ignorant of the fact that many of the narrations in these books have weak narrators or that they were not all trustworthy, or that they were ignorant of the influence and history of the Ghullat. So their reasons for accepting these narrations - especially from the 4-main books - was clearly something else, so you should spend some time actually looking through their arguments, and then look at the refutations that other scholars have presented to them. I don't think a lot of the discussions will make sense to you at this stage regardless as knowledge in any subject isn't an overnight thing, it is a gradual process that can take years of effort. Discussion on the testimonies of the authors, what the authors have written in their introductions to their works and what can be understood from it, the reason why Kulayni spent 20 years compiling the book and only put in a limited number narrations as opposed to how many narrations that actually were around at the time, discussions on establishing wuthuq and sudur, what was meant by the usage of Sahih - which Hurr al-Amili goes through in the last volume of his Wasael etc. these things amongst many others need to be understood before you can actually do an ijtihadi judgement between the two sides.

For example, Astarabadi - probably the most extreme Akhbari - argued that all the narrations are Qat'iyyah al-Sudur [as he says: کلها قطعیه الصدور عن المعصوم ] in his Fawaid al-Madaniyyah. The same might also be true for Mulla Khaleel Qazwini, whereas Faydh Kashani in his al-Wafi argued that the narrations in the 4-main books are Qati'yyah al-I'tibar [قطعیه الاعتبار] and Muhaddith Nuri (zahiran an Usuli scholar) at the end of his Mustadrak brings evidence for the narrations of al-Kafi being Qati'yyah al-I'tibar.
 
Engaging in discussions to learn is a good thing, but just don't be hasty in making final conclusions - especially when you are doing it based off of a taqleedi methodology and it just sounds right to you.
 
Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you're in a situation where you for example is going to travel to space or are performing medical or scientific experiments & these are condemned for whatever reason as haram, although he himself knows they're harmless & perhaps even essential for the advancement of medical science.

There must be areas of knowledge where the ulema are not competent to give judgements considering the amount of information around these days. It's not like during the middle ages where a scholar could be an expert doctor, astronomer, alchemist & alim at the same time.

Perhaps it's cuz I've grown up in a protestant culture that I feel a person should be able to pick up a book & read for himself what it says. I might be biased in that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2015 at 5:27 PM, Tawheed313 said:

I believe that a hadith being dai'f does not necessarily mean it is a lie, and a hadith being saheeh does not necessarily mean it is true, and there are many reasons for each, some i am yet to learn and some i know. So yes, it would be wrong to call a dai'f hadith a lie, [1] with a slim chance it may have come from an Imam.

Salamunalaikum,

[2] I have heard some Akbari views as to why the hadiths are all entirely reliable, such as the narrative that the twelfth Imam a.s himself checked the book and named it 'the sufficient' , and that was found on the desk of Thiqat-ul-Islam, Sheikh Kulayni r.a

In my view, while i hold up my hands and say i do need to do a true and deep analysis of akbari views, [3] the premise that the four major books of hadith are all entirely authentic, or even that Al Kafi is entirely authentic, is easily refutable. We have other bodies of works, such as Rijal Kashi, as well as many others aspects to Rijal which questions certain narrators.

[4] Even Sheikh Kulayni himself stated we must compare the hadiths to the Quran and throw out ones that contradict it(which itself raises many questions).

In my view, i don't think what i stated or my position at all [5] is unfairness to the Akhbari's.[6] I feel the importance of Rijal, and the error of Akbharism for some of the reasons i have mentioned make it just, fair, and extremely logical to not be an Akbari.

There really is nothing more for me to add at this point. I don't think i have made [7] wild claims or made any points that deserve scrutinty and refutation. [8] I have given a sensible opinion held by the majority of the ummah, including sunni's and shia's, and the roughly 0.1% who disagree are really following a [9] very incorrect ideaology.

[10] Additionally, Akhbari's also reject our marja system to the best of my knowledge.

[11] With all due respect, is there a convincing element of Akhbarism that you felt i have not yet come across, or is their group considered a valid group to follow in ideaology, that you questioned me in this manner, or was it simply a general enquiry to see if i make due judgements?

Bismillah

[1] If by dha`īf narration, you mean according to the definition as used today, then it does not equal ' a slim chance it may have come from the Imam'. Today, dha`īf is a description of the chain and not the narration itself. Also, what makes a chain dha`if is also a matter of dispute. 

[2] There is a big difference between hearing and reading (from original sources). One of our problems with non-Muslims or non-Shias - and you seem to scream this aloud all the time - is that they don't get information about our madhhab directly from its sources, they just go by what they have heard. Why do we apply double-standards when judging others? Should you even be speaking about the issue if you haven't read it from its sources? 

[3] It isn't 'easily' refutable, and if you spend some time examining the discussions regarding this matter you would see this. Usūlī scholars have also held this opinion and some continue to do so. I recently was listening to a recording of a Rijāl lesson/discussion by Ayt. Shaykh Mahdi ShabZindehDar (one of the teachers of Dars Kharij in the holy shrine of Sayyida Ma`suma, and a future prospective marja') who is as Usūlī as they get, holds the view that all the narrations of al-Kafi can be relied upon. The are different arguments for this, and it's not in your capacity as someone who hasn't even scratched the surface of hadīth or rijāl studies to make such judgments.

Your reference to the Rijal of Kashi again implies that you think the classical scholars graded scholars as the contemporary scholars do. This is a grave mistake. The classical scholars did not all just grade a narration based on its chain. Even Shaykh Tusi, who is the person we have to thank for preserving Rijal Kashi for us, and having his own book on the subject too, included narrations in his books that in terms of there 'chain' would be considered weak by some scholars of today. 

[4] In the introduction of his 'Al-Kafi', Shaykh Kulayni ® says the following (after mentioning narrations about judging reports through the Quran):

فاعلم يا أخي أرشدك اللّه أنّه لا يسع أحدا تمييز شي‏ء، ممّا اختلف الرّواية فيه عن العلماء عليهم السّلام برأيه، إلّا على ما أطلقه العالم بقوله عليه السّلام: «اعرضوها على كتاب اللّه فما وافى كتاب اللّه عزّ و جلّ فخذوه، و ما خالف كتاب اللّه فردّوه» و قوله عليه السّلام: «دعوا ما وافق القوم فإنّ الرشد في خلافهم» و قوله عليه السّلام «خذوا بالمجمع‏

عليه، فإنّ المجمع عليه لا ريب فيه» و نحن لا نعرف من جميع ذلك إلّا أقلّه‏ و لا نجد شيئا أحوط و لا أوسع من ردّ علم ذلك كلّه إلى العالم عليه السّلام و قبول ما وسّع من الأمر فيه بقوله عليه السّلام: «بأيّما أخذتم من باب التسليم وسعكم».

I don't want to translate this, and i'm hoping you will try to translate it yourself - with minimum help from Arabic speakers. Just get a tiny taste of what it means to read and understand things from their sources. For more clarification on what is meant by the red part, you can also refer to the noted of Shaykh Ali Akbar Ghafari (he has a footnote here). 
 
[5] It is unfairness after you admit not having done proper research or show you haven't even looked at their arguments first hand and are going of the weakest of their arguments. 
 
[6] You have not mentioned any strong enough or good reasons, just conjecture and un-sourced statements. It's extremely illogical to judge a school of thought without actually knowing what they say, and especially if you are getting information about them from their opponents. The importance of Rijāl becomes irrelevant to the Akhbaris after accepting the four books. You can't use that as part of your discussion. I can't think of the English term, but such an argument is called 'musadirah bi l-matlūb' in Arabic. It is not acceptable. 
 
[7] So far, your post has been mostly 'wild claims'.
 
[8] You really need to stop using the 'majority' argument where it suits you. Otherwise its plain outright double standards. In other discussions you argue against what the majority of the Shia scholars and followers believe in today. Also, there was a period in time where the Akhbari scholars and school made up the majority of the Shia school. The reminiscence of their thoughts and ideas can still be seen in some hawzaat/seminaries (whole cities) across the Shia world, and even among some of the top Shia maraaje' today. If they have not been influenced in all of the subjects (Fiqh, Usul, Hadith, Quran etc), they have in some. To understand this, you need to study the history of the Usuli and Akhbari schools - both pre-Astrabadi and post-Astrabadi. 
 
[9] Again, you are not in a position to make that statement. I urge you to refrain from speaking about matters in which you have little or no knowledge.The study of Hadith and Rijal is not so simple that you draw all your conclusions 'over night' (as a brother stated) and without thinking through properly or reading actual books. 
 
[10] Is that supposed to be an argument? Most people who know what an Akhbari is, are aware of this. 
 
[11] You haven't read any books or their arguments to say 'i haven't come across', this is quite amusing. If you want to get a general idea, there are books in English, some mentioned earlier (especially the one mentioned by br. Ali Musa). Also, the fourty differences between Akhbari's and Usulis by Samahiji (Translated by Andrew J Newman - although i've only read the Arabic and not the translation, so not sure how good it is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wallah a lot of people here are talking nonsense especially the ones claiming to be Akhbari . 

In The Akhbari methodology when something is not clearly mentionned as Haram we practice "Ihtiyat" (Recommended precaution) and we abstain from it contrary to the usulis who try to derive laws by analyzing The chain of narrations , using logic etc . The Imams (As) condemded using qiyas and our own opinion like Abu hanifa did . 

Ilm al rijal and all these things usulis use to give a grade of truthfulness come from Shafi3 school and the mut3zila . The Imams(As) asked us to submit to the reports and the saying they have been given . If you indeed do not trust our great scholars and the great companions of Ahlul -Bayt (As) who compiled our hadith books how can ypu trust those who compiled the Quran who were among the worst people to walk on earth ? 

last thing, the Imams (AS) said to accept hadiths even from Waqifis ,Zaydis and ghalis because the hadiths may contain some truth in them 

if anyone needs further information i will be happy to discuss in pm 

Wasalam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2018 at 6:41 PM, TheBalkanicShiite said:

Wallah a lot of people here are talking nonsense especially the ones claiming to be Akhbari . 

In The Akhbari methodology when something is not clearly mentionned as Haram we practice "Ihtiyat" (Recommended precaution) and we abstain from it contrary to the usulis who try to derive laws by analyzing The chain of narrations , using logic etc . The Imams (As) condemded using qiyas and our own opinion like Abu hanifa did . 

Ilm al rijal and all these things usulis use to give a grade of truthfulness come from Shafi3 school and the mut3zila . The Imams(As) asked us to submit to the reports and the saying they have been given . If you indeed do not trust our great scholars and the great companions of Ahlul -Bayt (As) who compiled our hadith books how can ypu trust those who compiled the Quran who were among the worst people to walk on earth ? 

last thing, the Imams (AS) said to accept hadiths even from Waqifis ,Zaydis and ghalis because the hadiths may contain some truth in them 

if anyone needs further information i will be happy to discuss in pm 

Wasalam 

Salam Balkanshiite..I am a new member here looking for some serious answers about Akhbarism... Which I don't wish to discuss on a public forum, but I'm not able to pm you...please help! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SeekingmySoul said:

Salam Balkanshiite..I am a new member here looking for some serious answers about Akhbarism... Which I don't wish to discuss on a public forum, but I'm not able to pm you...please help! 

You must have 25 post before you can privately message the brother.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...