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

View on watch Lady of Heaven by Sheikh Al Habib

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

I think our brothers in Iran are blissfully unaware about what's going on in the rest of the world.

It's very easy to play "unity unity" when living in the echo chamber that is the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the Shia are in majority and there are hardly any sunnis, let alone wahabis and nasibis.

To avoid going into boring details, the ground reality isn't like that in the rest of the world. Unity is necessary, but unity among shia takes priority. Also, bending over backwards and compromising our beliefs for "unity" is actually harming our school in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
39 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

He says "wa inkanu" which means "in reality", not "if".

Salam It's classical arabic of Hawza which clearly usese for  " if-then" clause which " inkanu" true translation is " if they are/were/have/had-been"

 

Quote

فَلْيَأْتُوا بِحَدِيثٍ مِّثْلِهِ إِن كَانُوا صَادِقِينَ ‎﴿٣٤﴾

 Let them produce a discourse like it if they are true in their claim. (34)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sarwar/52:34

 

Quote

وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلِ أَن يُنَزَّلَ عَلَيْهِم مِّن قَبْلِهِ لَمُبْلِسِينَ ‎﴿٤٩﴾‏

 at the rainfall, though before that they had been in despair. (49)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sarwar/30:49

 

Quote

الَ بَلْ فَعَلَهُ كَبِيرُهُمْ هَٰذَا فَاسْأَلُوهُمْ إِن كَانُوا يَنطِقُونَ ‎﴿٦٣﴾

He replied, "I think the biggest among them has broken the smaller ones. Ask them if they are able to speak". (63)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sarwar/21:63

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
18 hours ago, Sumerian said:

1- According to most scholars, sabb (insulting) is not unconditionally haram. It can be haram, such as against the mu'min (Imami), or it can be mustahab, in fact it can be wajib in certain cases where you are combatting a propogator of bid'ah.

The laws are similar to backbiting, which can go from haram to mustahab aswell. 

2- There are hadiths, one of them authentic, which calls for insulting the people of innovation. A thread was started on this topic years ago, and you will find the fatwas of the scholars regarding sabb, and how it isn't all bad, and in fact it can be a good or rewarding thing.

3- Some scholars have insulted the so-called companions in their own writings.

Please review this thread.

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031376-the-controversial-hadith-of-dawood-bin-sarhan/?do=findComment&comment=2821199

Like I said, at the end of the day, follow your marja.

Yes, I am familiar with this thread. If you read the whole thing, there is much more evidence against his point than for it. There are many posts like this

That you would have to ignore in order to hold the position that insulting and mocking people who are considered 'people of bidah' is allowed in any way. The YH fans do exactly the same thing that the Zionist Christians do (although their source material is different). They find any type of evidence, even very weak and illogical evidence, that backs up their beloved position and ignore everything else and anyone who disagrees with them they classify as 'people of bidah' so then it's ok to insult them and mock them. They insult and mock marjaa' talqleed, who spent their entire lives studying hadith.

Any reasonable person can see what kind of slippery slope this is, even without the mountains of evidence to the contrary (to their position). There are some who are quite clearly 'people of bidah' and the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) have already pointed out who these people are and what their bidah was. There is no controversy over that. The problem comes in when you start to say 'if I think someone is a person of bidah, then there is no more obligation to keep my aklaq'. Even with the people who were very clearly people of Bidah, the Imams((عليه السلام)) still kept their aklaq with them, and also pointed out where they were doing bidah. You can do both

There are too many examples of this, but a few are how Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) treated Aisha after the battle of Jamal. She led an army against the Imam of her time and thousands of mumineen died in that battle. What worse kind of bidah can you possibly do ? Yet see how Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) treated her after the battle was over. He didn't insult her, he didn't mock her, he treated her with respect and returned her to her house with the only one in his army who was mahram to her, i.e. her brother Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. There are lots of ways he could have broken his aklaq, even in any small way, after that battle. He((عليه السلام)) didn't, not even in any small way. If someone calls themself a follower of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), i.e. a Shia of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), they must behave in the same way he behaved, or at least make that his goal. Otherwise, he is not a follower of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) and is only pretending to be so. 

In the famous hadith where a person asked lady Fatima((عليه السلام)), 'Who are your followers, i.e. Shia'. She said 'The ones who do what we do, and keep away from what we keep away from. If they do this, they are our followers, otherwise no'. 

If you want more example, I have many more. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
43 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

I think our brothers in Iran are blissfully unaware about what's going on in the rest of the world.

It's very easy to play "unity unity" when living in the echo chamber that is the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the Shia are in majority and there are hardly any sunnis, let alone wahabis and nasibis.

To avoid going into boring details, the ground reality isn't like that in the rest of the world. Unity is necessary, but unity among shia takes priority. Also, bending over backwards and compromising our beliefs for "unity" is actually harming our school in the long run.

We have Taliban in our borders also we have had ISIS/Daesh near to our borders also we have had struggle with sunni countries in sought of Persian Gulf & majority sunni population inside of our borders with other countries besides of our struggles with America & Israel & Britain , so therefore , we know what's happening in the rest of world & we know how much unity is crucial & valuable nevertheless I agree with your stance about priority among Shias but on the other hand we have not compromised our belief which in contrast we get rid of many prejudices about Sunnis also in our struggles & debates with wahabists we could get rid of wrong teaching & clear our doubts about our teaching due to answering their vicious doubts .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

If you read rest of hadiths, they literally declare All others except for shias as Kuffar. And thoses are in abundance. From Aima (عليه السلام). what sort of unity is that?

Unity is not mocking or insulting them openly to avoid fitnah. But compromising on exposing their deeds and expressing our aqeedah is not unity. Its falsehood.

You play with words just for proving your nonsense because all Islamic sects are monotheist & belive to Allah  in contrast with Kuffar nevertheless expect Shias rest of sects have been misguided by fallible &  non divinly appointed Imams .

Unity is  finding common ground & protecting all muslims whether Sunni or Shia against our enemies  by having clear understanding from our teaching & expressing it clearly without prejudice & without wrong man-made traditions likewise Tatbir or insulting everyone whithout evidence & whitout compromising our belief & neglecting our red lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Bro Muawiyah etc are from muqaddasat of Ahle Sunnah.

Plus i have quoted ziarat e ashuru as a reply to Hadi who asked where have imams cursed others in hadiths.

Muawiah(la)  status between Ahle Sunnah is very controversial which they prefere to remain silent about him because they consider him as rest of companions which they can't judge him however some of educated & fair sunnis are diassociating from him which It seems their number is increasing between sunnis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

expressing it clearly without prejudice & without wrong man-made traditions likewise Tatbir

Ayatullah Al-Uzma Bashir Najafi has allowed it and there are two traditions one from Imam Ali Ibn Hussein (عليه السلام) and one from Bint Ali (عليه السلام) where they hit there heads against something in grief which caused blood to come out of there head.

I think no one before Khamenai called it haram. If anyone did, do tell me about it. Bashir Najafi even mocked Khamenai for his fatwa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

You play with words just for proving your nonsense because all Islamic sects are monotheist & belive to Allah

If they believed in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), they would've followed what he (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said. I am not playing with words. Have you read hadiths i quoted above? Anyways. Carryon. I'll not be posting here anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 9/26/2021 at 6:55 PM, Debate follower said:

were fair skinned and not from Sub-Saharan Africa as portraited in the movie. 

The indigenous Arabs of Hijaz (where our holy Imams are born) were normally dark skinned; a colour referred to in Arabic as ‘Asmar’ (brunet), as a result of prolonged exposure to the sun.

DID SOME IMAMS OF AHLUL BAYT HAVE DARK SKIN COLOUR?

Quote

Question:

From one of your lectures, my understanding is that about 7 Imams of Ahlul Bayt ((عليه السلام)) had African mothers, and that our Imams were deliberately marrying them to break the widespread racist thoughts and teach people that piety is what truly matters.

In our narrations, do we get a sense of the appearance of some of our Imams having black skin colour?

From my experience, I have never heard any narration that refers to any of our Imams as اسود or ‘dark-skinned’. Can you comment on this, especially as dominant popular imaginations and visual representations of the Imams represent them as being ‘Arab-looking’ in colour?
 

 

Quote

Answer:

Bismillah.

Let’s begin by noting that according to the teachings of the holy Qur’an we are all from Prophet Adam’s ((عليه السلام)) family, and hence often the Almighty Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) addresses all humans as ‘children of Adam’ (e.g. 37:26). No human’s place of birth, skin colour or nationality makes him Islamically superior or inferior to others. Islam clearly proclaims that “the most honourable of you (humans) with Allah are the ones who are most pious” (49:13).

The indigenous Arabs of Hijaz (where our holy Imams are born) were normally dark skinned; a colour referred to in Arabic as ‘Asmar’ (brunet), as a result of prolonged exposure to the sun.  

 

Quote

The mothers of seven Imams of Ahlul-Bayt [Imam Sajjad, Imam Kadhem, Imam Redha, Imam Jawad, Imam Hadi, Imam Askari and Imam Mahdi peace be upon them) were non-Arab. These particular Imams had African mothers, with the exception of Imam Sajjad ((عليه السلام)) and Imam Mahdi (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف). In fact, in addition to having African mothers, even some of the holy Imams ((عليه السلام)) themselves are described as being dark skinned.

For example, Ibn Enaba, a renowned Shi’a genealogist of the 8th century (A.H), describes Imam Kadhem ((عليه السلام)) in the following way:  


Apparently amongst all the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt ((عليه السلام)), Imam Jawad ((عليه السلام)) is more known for his dark skin. He is referred to in some narrations as

حَائِلَ‏ اللَّوْن

which means the one whose skin colour is different from his paternal ancestors and is much darker.

 

Quote

The late al-Kulayni reports a narration that some of the brothers and uncles of Imam Redha ((عليه السلام)) denied Muhammad al-Jawad to be his biological son because “there has never been amongst us an Imam whose skin colour is so different from his paternal ancestors”! They thought Imam Redha ((عليه السلام)) had fostered a slave boy! Finally, they engage an expert in physiognomy who could identify the biological traits of people by their common body language, and that expert confirms that Muhammad al-Jawad was Imam Redha’s biological son! Upon that Imam Redha ((عليه السلام)) cries and reminds his brothers and uncles of a prophecy where the holy Prophet (P) had said about Imam Jawad ((عليه السلام)): “How dear to me is the son of the most virtuous female slave[1], the son of a lady from Sudan whose breath is sweet and whose womb is divinely chosen.”


Similarly, Imam Hadi and Imam Askari (peace be upon them) were reportedly dark skinned.    

Answered by: Sheikh Mansour Leghaei

[1]  The expression of ‘a female slave’ here may have two meanings; she was originally taken as a slave, and/or that she was a slave of God, which is a very honourable title in monotheistic religions.

 

http://www.askthesheikh.com/did-some-imams-of-ahlul-bayt-have-dark-skin-colour/

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

muqaddasat of Ahle Sunnah.

 

Quote

There are a number of Sunni scholars in the Muslim world shaping a new discourse on the role and history of the Household of the Prophet (ahl al-bayt), Hadith Criticism, and rationalist legal theory.  They are staunchly pro-Alid in their views on history, very critical of Wahhabism and its use of Hadith,  and well-versed in dialectical theology.  These Muslim leaders complicate any attempts to characterize the Sunni tradition as uniform in its views on history and theology.  Their contributions to the Sunni intellectual tradition deserve academic study.  Scholars representative of this trend include: 

Adnan Ibrahim [عدنان إبراهيم]

Hasan b. Farhan al-Maliki [حسن بن فرحان المالكي]

Hasan Saqqaf [السيد حسن السقاف]

Muhammad b. Aqil al-‘Alawi[السيد محمد بن عقيل العلوي]

Abu Bakr b. Shihab al-‘Alawi [السيد أبو بكر ابن شهاب العلوي]

Mahmud Sa‘id Mamduh [محمود سعيد ممدوح]

‘Abd Allah al-Harari [عبد الله الهرري]

http://www.monazh.com/portal/

https://scholar.princeton.edu/links/pro-alid-sunnis-المنزهون من اهل الحديث

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

image.jpeg.333913a45494dc306ea78160497d0024.jpeg
 Hasan b. Farhan al-Maliki [حسن بن فرحان المالكي]
23:03
Shaykh Hassan Farhan al-Maliki explains his view on Mu'awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Yes, I am familiar with this thread. If you read the whole thing, there is much more evidence against his point than for it. There are many posts like this

That you would have to ignore in order to hold the position that insulting and mocking people who are considered 'people of bidah' is allowed in any way. The YH fans do exactly the same thing that the Zionist Christians do (although their source material is different). They find any type of evidence, even very weak and illogical evidence, that backs up their beloved position and ignore everything else and anyone who disagrees with them they classify as 'people of bidah' so then it's ok to insult them and mock them. They insult and mock marjaa' talqleed, who spent their entire lives studying hadith.

Any reasonable person can see what kind of slippery slope this is, even without the mountains of evidence to the contrary (to their position). There are some who are quite clearly 'people of bidah' and the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) have already pointed out who these people are and what their bidah was. There is no controversy over that. The problem comes in when you start to say 'if I think someone is a person of bidah, then there is no more obligation to keep my aklaq'. Even with the people who were very clearly people of Bidah, the Imams((عليه السلام)) still kept their aklaq with them, and also pointed out where they were doing bidah. You can do both

There are too many examples of this, but a few are how Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) treated Aisha after the battle of Jamal. She led an army against the Imam of her time and thousands of mumineen died in that battle. What worse kind of bidah can you possibly do ? Yet see how Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) treated her after the battle was over. He didn't insult her, he didn't mock her, he treated her with respect and returned her to her house with the only one in his army who was mahram to her, i.e. her brother Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. There are lots of ways he could have broken his aklaq, even in any small way, after that battle. He((عليه السلام)) didn't, not even in any small way. If someone calls themself a follower of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), i.e. a Shia of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), they must behave in the same way he behaved, or at least make that his goal. Otherwise, he is not a follower of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) and is only pretending to be so. 

In the famous hadith where a person asked lady Fatima((عليه السلام)), 'Who are your followers, i.e. Shia'. She said 'The ones who do what we do, and keep away from what we keep away from. If they do this, they are our followers, otherwise no'. 

If you want more example, I have many more. 

I don't think you read the thread properly my brother, Sayyed Al-Qazwini made a lecture arguing against the sahih hadith of Dawood bin Sarhan, and brothers  such as@Ibn al-Hussainand others gave proof of the views of the scholars regarding sabb, and they are contrary to Qazwini's claim to why we shouldn't accept this hadith. And it wasn't one scholar, or two, or three, but rather tens of scholars.

Brother, you literally said follow the scholars, and when the fatwas of the scholars were quoted to you, and an authentic hadith was presented, you start arguing against it.

The sahih hadith, authenticated by tens of scholars, literally a golden chain:

The Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: “When you will find people of bid`ah (innovation) and doubt/suspicion after me, do baraa’ (disassociation) from them and increase in your insults (sabihim) to them, and oppose (them) and bring evidences against them so they may not become greedy in bringing fasaad (corruption) to Islam. You must warn people against them and do not learn their bid`ah (innovation). Allah will write for you hasanaat (good deeds) for this, and will raise you darajaat (levels) in the next life.’”

http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/12/exposing-bidah-reward-for-doing-so.html?m=1

I don't care about Yasser Al-Habib, you told us there is no evidence of insulting in the Shari'ah, and contrary evidence and views by some of our greatest scholars were presented, where someone like Al-Khoei said insulting can even be wajib sometimes.

In your previous post you completely threw sabb out the window as wrong in anyway shape or form.

And your point about Aisha is indeed very weak, this is why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) treated Aisha the way she was treated as explained by Ahlulbayt (as);

إنّ عليـًا «عليه السلام» إنما منّ عليهم كما منّ رسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله» على أهل مكة، وإنما ترك عليٌ «عليه السلام» لأنه كان يعلم أنه سيكون له شيعة وأن دولة الباطل ستظهر عليهم، فأراد أن يقتدى به في شيعته، وقد رأيتم آثار ذلك هو ذا يسار بسيرة علي «عليه السلام»، ولو قتل علي أهل البصرة جميعا وأتخذ أموالهم لكان ذلك له حلالا، لكنه منَّ عليهم ليمنّ على شيعته من بعده.

Imam Al-Sadiq (as): Imam Ali (عليه السلام) pardoned them (people of Jamal) the same way the Prophet (saww) pardoned the people of Mecca, and Imam Ali (عليه السلام) desisted because he knew there will be followers to him afterwards and that the State of falsehood will rule upon them, so he wanted to be followed in regards to his Shi'a, and you have seen the results of that, as his methods have been followed, and if he wanted to kill the people of Basra completely, and to take their property, that would have been permissible for him, but he pardoned them so that they may pardon his followers after him. Ilal Al-Shara'i by Shaykh Al-Saduq.

This hadith shows why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) treated them the way he treated them, not because they deserve it, they were murderers who quite literally apostates and more evil than those who fought the Prophet, but it was for his follower's sake.

I am not supporting Yasser's method my brother, I am pointing out that sabb has its place in Islam, and to argue against that is to argue against the ulama who say it is wajib and mustahab in certain times.

Edited by Sumerian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam It's classical arabic of Hawza which clearly usese for  " if-then" clause which " inkanu" true translation is " if they are/were/have/had-been"

Habibi, the same set of words in Arabic can mean something different depending if the context is for taqreer or otherwise. Anyone who understands basic Arabic can pinpoint the meaning to which Sayyed Al-Khomeini was alluding to.

وأن can carry more than one definition, 

وَإنْ :

- even if; although; despite

And you can see in the Holy Qur'an aswell;

He is the One Who raised for the illiterate ˹people˺ a messenger from among themselves—reciting to them His revelations, purifying them, and teaching them the Book and wisdom, for indeed they had previously been clearly astray—

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I believe brother @Islamic Salvationsummed it up quite well in quoting the lecture of Sayyed Hashim, and I will be quoting his post for the sake of this thread, highlighting key sections of his post:

__________

QUOTE:

__________

And Sabb like other forbidden acts, example lying, has different extenuating circumstances, so it may be permissible at times, in fact, it may even be obligatory at other times, which means that claiming to demonstrate precaution in the religion by avoiding Sabb totally, even in instances when it is actually obligatory is an explicit opposition to the religion.

And Ayatullah al-Udhma al-Mirza al-Tabrizi says:

“Then know that the prohibition of Sabb, that is, the Sabb of the believer, is so as to preserve his honor, consequently it is not forbidden when the one against whom Sabb is done has no honor or respect (due to him), such as the one who openly sins the greater sins, as it will come in the discussion on backbiting (where a similar ruling applies), for the implication of the allowance of backbiting him is the related allowance of making Sabb of him, and as for its obligatoriness for the purpose of commanding the good and forbidding the evil then it is legalized but restricted under its conditions which have been mentioned in that chapter (on commanding the good and forbidding the evil), and this ruling is also extended beyond the one who commits openly the greater sins to the innovator, rather, the permissibility in his (i.e. the innovator’s) case is even more obvious.

And it is enough also in establishing this - the like of the Sahiha of Dawud b. Sirhan from Abi Abdillah who said: the messenger of Allah said: if you see the people of doubt and innovation after me - then - disassociate from them openly, and increase in insulting them and speaking negatively about them and slandering (back-biting) them and accusing (defaming) them - so that they do not feel hopeful in spreading corruption in Islam, and the people become warned of them, and they (the people) do not learn from their innovations, Allah shall write for you by that the good deeds and raise you by that in stations in the hereafter". [irshad al-Talib vol. 1 Pg. 161]

And what is to be given attention to in this authentic report is that the gracious messenger does not only merely call for the Sabb of the innovators and the people of doubts, rather, he calls for the increase in doing so, and the command is by the verbal clause that evidences obligatoriness, from which we can extrapolate the obligatoriness of Sabb in the instances of forbidding the evil which calls for that.

And al-Sayyid al-Khoei has confirmed this in his Fiqhi discussions – noting that Sabb can actually be obligatory [ref. Misbah al-Faqaha Vol. 1 Pg. 548]

Similarly, it is to be noted in this report that the ruling of disassociating and increasing in Sabb and Waqi’a which means backbiting - is not exclusive to the innovator alone, but it also covers the people of doubts, that is, those whose work it is to create doubts among the believers regarding those matters that are agreed upon and from the core of the religion.

And what is strange is that someone (a scholar) has attempted to isolate the wordings of the report from its primary meanings so that he can originate for us a new Madhhab in the understanding of the reports based on a methodology of voiding the meanings of words, so he has interpreted the Sabb and the Waqi’a of the people of doubt and innovations in the saying of the messenger to mean censure and rebuke!

And the great jurists of the Imamiyya have clearly stated that Sabb of the believer is permitted in some cases – rather that the one who performs it is deserving of the reward.

Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 413) says: “And the saying of the sayer to a Muslim: you are contemptible (Khasis), ignoble (Wadhi’), stupid (Raqi’), villainous (Nadhl), lowly (Saqit), impure (Najis), filth (Rijs), dog (Kalb), pig (Khinzir), disfigured (miskh), or something akin to that – becomes deserving of Ta’zir (discretionary punishment) and Ta’dib (disciplining), and there is no delineated Hadd (defined penal code). So if the one to whom this is said is deserving of this disparagement because of his misguidance from the truth, it is not incumbent upon the sayer (of such Sabb) any punishment, and he is rewarded for this disparagement” [al-Muqnia Pg. 796]

And al-Shahid I (d. 786) said: “And likewise he is to be penalized for all that which is hurtful in its intent, such as saying O sinner, and O drinker of wine - while he (the one he insults) does so in secret (does not drink openly), and likewise saying O pig, dog, fool, and/or ignoble - except if the one so addressed deserves such disparagement” [al-Lu’ma Pg. 168]

And al-Shahid II (d. 965) said – while commenting on the statement of al-Muhaqiq al-Hilli: “And if the one to whom this is said is deserving of disparagement then there is no Hadd or Ta’zir”

And also:

“The meaning of the one addressed by such insults to be deserving of such disparagement is that he is a sinner who exposes his sin openly, for then there is no sanctity for him, because of what has been narrated from al-Sadiq “If a sinner sins openly then there is no sanctity for him nor backbiting”. And in some reports “From the perfectness of worship is the speaking bad (backbiting) of the people of doubt”. And Dawud b. Sirhan narrates in a Sahih report from Abi Abdillah: the messenger of Allah said: if you see the people of doubt and innovation after me then disassociate publicly from them, and increase in insulting them and speaking against them and backbiting ….” [Masalik al-Ifham Vol. 14 Pg. 424, and something similar is mentioned by Sayyid Ahmad al-Khawansari in his Jami al-Madarik Vol. 7 Pg. 98]

And al-Fadhil al-Hindi (d.1137) says: “And if the one so addressed [by Sabb] is deserving of disparagement because of Kufr (disbelief) or innovation or open sinning – the requirement of Ta’zir (of the insulter) is dropped, rather, he is rewarded (gets Thawab) as a result, because it is from the forbidding of evil, and it has come (in a report) that the perfectness of worship is backbiting the people of doubt …” [Kashf al-Litham Vol. 10 Pg. 523].

And the jurists of the Imamiyya have said similar things in their jurisprudential manuals [mostly using similar passages] which proves that there exists an exception of the prohibition on Sabb of some categories of people.

Ref.: al-Kafi fi al-Fiqh Pg. 489 (Abu Salah al-Halabi), al-Wasila Pg. 422 (Ibn Hamza al-Tusi), Talkhis al-Maram Pgs. 324-325 and Irshad al-Adhhan Vo. 2 Pg. 178 (Allamah al-Hilli), Tahrir al-Wasila Vol. 2 Pg. 426 (al-Khumayni) etc.

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031376-the-controversial-hadith-of-dawood-bin-sarhan/?do=findComment&comment=2821535

 

Edited by Sumerian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, all this is just transient noise.

HE(عزّ وجلّ) insured it. Unless people don't pray or just make verbal noise. 

صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ الْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا الضَّالِّينَ {7}

[Pickthal 1:7] The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Want to clear some things which I found as wrong assumptions here:

1. Actually there are quite good amount of proofs that Shirazi ayatullahs are not even ayatullahs as they have no sanad of ijtihad. Some of them I saw on Memri TV even supported Saddam's massacre against Iran. Although Iran is not holy to us, but Saddam was definitely Yazeed of the time. And even Ayatullah khoei supported the shabaniyah uprising against him.

2. Supporting and following the course of Unity doesn't mean we are compromising with our shia belief which Tauheed, Adl, Nabuwwat, Imamate, Qiyamat. Also, as addressed by brothers here, Shia muslims should give priority to seeking unity within themselves. Let me tell you, that these disagreements are based on perspectives and wrong and right ijtihad of scholars. Imam Khomeini may not agree with Sayyid al Khoei somewhere, Imam Khamenei may not agree with Sayyid al Sistani somewhere and vica-versa. Historically, sheikh al Mufid disagreed with Sheikh al Saduq on many many things. Akhbaris disagree with Usoolis. 

Now, let us understand what the FITNA actually is:

Fitna is that we, the general shias (who should not even care about such disagreements) have taken these to the throat. We call ourselves Usooli and Akhbari while we are not. We call ourselves pro-WF and against WF while we are not. We are just muslims, Shias, Imamis Ithnasheris and nothing ahead of it. We follow the scholars but we should not assume that WF or Akhbarism or Usoolism or anything that might come in future is a kind of doctrine created. This is a very crucial thing to understand. More crucial than anything. 

Avoid bringing these conflicts within Marjas and highly esteemed scholars in public. On social media forums or anywhere. Don't call other shias Akhbaris, Usoolis or pro-WF or even pro-Shirazis. Disputes regarding methodology, perspective among the scholars should remain limited to them. They are researchers and scholars for god's sake. They can have different views regarding anything based on their own research. Nothing is authentic other than Quran and no one is masoom other than whom we all know. I don't mean to say that stop trusting scholars. But my point is that, as we start discussing all this online and publicly in front of others, these disagreements and difference in views becomes a fitna.

Wassalam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 9/25/2021 at 10:58 AM, Sirius_Bright said:

Also, people are forgetting their deen, literature and Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) for the so-called unity which is never possible to achieve. Followers of Omar killed shi'as yesterday and they will kill you today, no matter you curse or not. So it is better that movie should be used for propagating the haqq. The idea is very good.

It is not unity which has caused this divide. It is the weakness in belief. The scholars who have supported unity have done great works to show the shia Aqeeda. They have played a good role in bringing Shiism in light. They have written books and researches on all the necessary topics. Now, if someone picks the banner of unity and doesn't even tries to open these books to understand his own belief in the first place then it is not the fault of the very idea of unity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Sayyid Sadiq al-Husayni al-Shirazi is also a Marj-e-Taqlid.

We should Not be held hostage to a countries internal politics. So, Respect starts from Respecting ALL Jursits (Marha-e-Taqlid) , you don't have to follow but you do not comment on their rulings. Keep the party system/country politics out . 

Enemies will play this card, and divide and conquer. It is expected that the Jurists must have this kind of insight and wisdom. They should not comment on others opinions or hold a private meeting as adults/leaders. If leaders act in a way which is not prudent, they loose leadership credentials. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Habibi, the same set of words in Arabic can mean something different depending if the context is for taqreer or otherwise. Anyone who understands basic Arabic can pinpoint the meaning to which Sayyed Al-Khomeini was alluding to.

Salam it's true nevertheless   Imam Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه) has used clearly "if..then" in mentioned text 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 9/26/2021 at 6:55 PM, Debate follower said:

Doing Justice – murdered

I couldn't understand what this part means however you consider Umar as symbol of justice based on fabricated  narrations  about his justice which in reality it has been cruelty  & bullying  & threatening  womaen & spying  on people against clear order from holy Quran about non investigation  in affairs of people  howver according to majority  of muslims even non muslims Imam Ali(عليه السلام) has been most just leader in human history  after prophet  Muhammad (pbu) which his wife & two sons ,Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) & Imam  Hussain(عليه السلام) has martyred  in way of justice which procedure of infallible  Imams from progeny  of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) has been supporting & establishing  justice which all of them have been  martyred  in order of bringing  justice to world which according  to both of Sunni & Shia narrations the 12th infallible  Imam from progeny  of prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) will bring justice to the world  after it filled with injustice .

The Passion Play in Sunni Tradition and Building Intra-Muslim Unity

An Interview with

Ustadh Ali Ataie

Quote

On the 9th night of Muharram (November 2nd) Ummah Wide was invited to a reading of Ustadh Ali Ataie’s passion play, The Passion Narrative of Imam Husayn b. Ali: A Rendering of the Dialogical Aspect of Ta’ziyyah in Sunni Imagination at Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California. Performed as a dress reading by students from Zaytuna, the play was a powerful call to intra-Muslim understanding and remembrance of Imam Husayn and the events that took place leading to his martyrdom in 61 AH/ 680 CE. As Ustadh Ali Ataie says in his introduction to the play

 

Quote

You mentioned at the play this idea of the Husseini archetype throughout history, can you talk more about this idea and the importance of Imam Hussein as an example for all Muslims?

A Husayni Archetype is anyone who stands up for justice by selfless service of humanity. Malcolm X, MLK Jr., Medgar Evers, Rachel Corrie, Nelson Mandela, and Ghandi are just a few that come to mind. Often times these people are killed by tyrants and oppressors because they want to make people aware of societal inequalities or civic oppression.

Imam Husayn’s stand against tyranny is one the greatest examples of selfless courage in history. He is a symbol for the subaltern, the weak, oppressed, the down-trodden, and the marginalized.

 

Quote

“The oft-repeated statement “Every day is ‘Aashurah and every land is Karbala” captures succinctly the metamorphic and cosmic significance of Imam Husayn’s (al-Mazlumstand against corruption and tyranny.”

 

Quote

(Footnotes appear at the end of the excerpt)
Shah ast Husayn, badshah ast Husayn Din ast Husayn, din panah ast Husayn, Sar daad na daad dast dar daste Yazid, Haqqa ke binaae la ilaaha ast Husayn
Husayn is King, Husayn is Emperor Husayn is true religion, Husayn is the hope of religion He gave his head and not his hand into the hand of Yazid Husayn is the reality of which negation of deities is built upon. (1)
—Muinuddin Chishti (d. 1230 CE/625 h)

 

Quote

“The greatest struggle (jihad) is a word of truth in the face of a tyrant.” (3)

Afdhalu jihaadi man qaala kalimata haqqin ‘enda sultanin jaa’ir (Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Ibn Maajah).

Husayn: By Him who holds my soul in His Hand (wallathee nafsi bi-yadihi) (12), the actions of the so called Caliph do not warrant the mercy of the Lord of Lords. O son of Ziyad! Haven’t you heard the Speech of God, the Sublime and Exalted,
“God only wants to remove all stains from you O People of the House, and render you pure and spotless?”(13)

Husayn: Indeed. Haven’t you heard the Speech of God, the Sublime and Exalted,
“Say (O Muhammad): No reward do I ask of you for this except that you love the family.” (15)

 

 

Quote

Ummah Wide: Can you talk about the origins of this play and why you decided to write it?

Ustadh Ali Ataie: I took a class as a second year doctoral student called “Karbala: Islam and Liberation” at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley and the instructor gave us a choice whether to write a final research paper or some sort of art project. After reading several ta’zaiyat (passion plays) written by Shi’a scholars, even some written by British colonial officers (!), I decided that it was time to look at the passion of Imam Husayn through the lens of a Sunni, who make up 85–90% of Muslims.

 

Quote

My sources are mainly Sunni (exegeses, hadith, and scholarly works), although at times I reference Shi’a sources as well. The Shi’a ‘ulema were very pleased with the play, and at least one of them thought that I was a Shi’i who was attempting to refute Sunni positions in a artful yet polemical way.

 

Quote

It is crucially important; although we should not intend of solving the issues. This only leads to more animosity and polemics. Our intentions should be to inform and to come together as an Ummah on broad-based principles. One of these principles is the love of the Prophet’s family. All Muslims love the Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophets family) and this should be the focus of Sunni/Shi’a intra-religious dialogue. Also, with all of the sectarian violence that is being attributed to Islam by the media, people of all walks of life want to know what the deal is with Sunni and Shias. I believe this play will open the hearts and minds (God Willing!) of all Muslims and bring them together in a spirit of love and brotherhood

 

Quote

Ummah Wide: Can you talk about the origins of this play and why you decided to write it?

One student in particular was instrumental. Her name is Zainab Syed, and she is the only Shi’i at Zaytuna College as far as I know. She came to my office hours one day and we began talking about Sunni — Shi’a differences; she is actually a student in my freshman creedal theology class. I told her about the play then emailed it to her. She loved it. She took it to the Dean of Student life, Imam Bilal Ansari and asked if we could have a public reading of it in the Zaytuna Library. Imam Dawood agreed.

https://medium.com/ummah-wide/the-passion-of-imam-husayn-e51b9c956322

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam it's true nevertheless   Imam Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه) has used clearly "if..then" in mentioned text 

wa alaykum al salam

If you want to believe that, that is up to you. Anyone who knows Arabic - even a little bit - would tell you otherwise.

Thank you anyway.

Edited by Sumerian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam it's true nevertheless   Imam Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه) has used clearly "if..then" in mentioned text 

وإن in that case means "even if" or "although" not "if". It doesn't make sense if it means "if" considering the previous and following words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Quote

 

The indigenous Arabs of Hijaz (where our holy Imams are born) were normally dark skinned; a colour referred to in Arabic as ‘Asmar’ (brunet), as a result of prolonged exposure to the sun. 

The mothers of seven Imams of Ahlul-Bayt [Imam Sajjad, Imam Kadhem, Imam Redha, Imam Jawad, Imam Hadi, Imam Askari and Imam Mahdi peace be upon them) were non-Arab. These particular Imams had African mothers, with the exception of Imam Sajjad ((عليه السلام)) and Imam Mahdi (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف). In fact, in addition to having African mothers, even some of the holy Imams ((عليه السلام)) themselves are described as being dark skinned.

For example, Ibn Enaba, a renowned Shi’a genealogist of the 8th century (A.H), describes Imam Kadhem ((عليه السلام)) in the following way: 

Apparently amongst all the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt ((عليه السلام)), Imam Jawad ((عليه السلام)) is more known for his dark skin. He is referred to in some narrations as:  حَائِلَ‏ اللَّوْن

which means the one whose skin colour is different from his paternal ancestors and is much darker.

 

http://www.askthesheikh.com/did-some-imams-of-ahlul-bayt-have-dark-skin-colour/

 

So, why do all the portraits depict Imams looking more like Persians rather that like what they were in real life?

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/3916/3644/1600/286492/Imam.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
17 hours ago, Debate follower said:

So, why do all the portraits depict Imams looking more like Persians rather that like what they were in real life?

Salam these pictures are imaginary  drawings which has no value but because first drawings  have been drawn by Persian artists , so consequently  they have drawn portraits  likewise Persians which later has been  copied by others .

Quote

Q103: What about drawing of human or animal portraits that are not three-dimensional?

A: It is permissible. (FM, p. 410)

http://www.sistani.org/index.php?p=251364&id=50&pid=2455

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
19 hours ago, Muhammad Al-Hurr said:

وإن in that case means "even if" or "although" not "if". It doesn't make sense if it means "if" considering the previous and following words.

Absolutely. It is clear to anyone that understands basic Arabic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
20 hours ago, Muhammad Al-Hurr said:

وإن in that case means "even if" or "although" not "if". It doesn't make sense if it means "if" considering the previous and following words.

 

Quote

Translation of this phrase according to the narrations of the opponents: Whoever goes out against the Commander of the Faithful, for any reason, likewise Aisha, Talha, Zubair and Mu'awiyah are not Najis {even} if they are more malice  than dog and pig , alhough  they are not Najis.

Answer: Fairness has not been observed in translating this phrase of the Imam (note that each paragraph that has a separate meaning has been separated by a paragraph. In fact, the continuity of the Arabic text in the words of the Imam has caused the opponents to make the mistake that the Imam Has compared Aisha to a dog)

The principle of the translation is this: And as for the rest of the Nasibi groups, but the Kharijites, although their punishment is more severe than the infidels, but there is no reason for their impurity.

Therefore, if a Sultan rebelled against the Amir al-mu'minin, not as a religious cause, but because of opposition on the property, or for other purposes, such as Aisha, Zubair, Talha, Mu'awiyah, and the like (the discussion of Aisha, etc. was over), these are also proofs. They are not impure

(Starting a separate topic) or a person to Amir al-Mu'minin or one of the Imams not as  religious cause but because of the enmity of the Quraysh or Bani Hashim or the Arabs or because he is the killer of his son or father and ... has an enmity, apparently none of These will not cause apparent impurity, although Nasibis  are also more malie than dogs and pigs.

Therefore, according to this phrase, "either a person with them or one of the Imams, not as  religious cause , but because of the enmity of the Quraysh or the Bani Hashim ... although the Nawasib are even more evil than dogs and pigs", it turns out that the Imam likens the Nawasib To the dog, not Aisha

https://www.adyannet.com/fa/news/12448

Quote

ان ,It is a conditional word. If it enters the past tense, it does not mean the past tense, but the past participle. Here, too, it becomes  before the past tense. It is not possible to say: Although Aisha and Talha were more evil than dogs and pigs!
..but in translation  :even  if they be more malice than dog and pig , nevertheless  there is  not reason about their impurity . 
On the other hand, if a لام  came on Akhbath, they were right. Because if Laam came on Akhbath, the translation would be: They are definitely worse than dogs and pigs. But because لام  
 didn't come on Akhbath ,The translation is as follows: (Even) if these are worse than dogs and pigs, they are not impure again.

https://article.tebyan.net/396663/شبهه-امام-خمینی-و-توهین-به-عایشه

https://www.aparat.com/v/R28xr/نظر_امام_خمینی_در_رابطه_با_عایشه_(_پاسخ_به

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

  

Quote

In Arabic, it is stated that the right of the condition is to precede its own answer, but here, the answer of the condition is given priority, and in any case, the sentence is the conditional sentence.

https://article.tebyan.net/396663/شبهه-امام-خمینی-و-توهین-به-عایشه

Quote

Al-Makāsib al-muḥarrama (Arabic: المَکاسِب المُحَرَّمَة, literally: forbidden businesses) refers to businesses that are haram (forbidden) in Islam. In fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), forbidden businesses and transactions are referred to as "al-makasib al-muharrama". They include buying and selling alcoholic drinks, pigs, and gambling tools, as well as receiving bribes and selling weapons to the enemies of Islam. Standard books of fiqh refer to 5 types of forbidden businesses.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Al-Makasib_al-Muharrama

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346487790_The_Role_of_Jurisprudence_in_Explaining_the_Methods_of_Rulings_Enforce-_ment

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/key/"مکاسب محرمه"

http://wikifeqh.ir/المکاسب_المحرمه_(امام_خمینی)

http://lib.eshia.ir/10051/1/1/المجلد

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...