https://youtu.be/Ugw-QE6aCgU?feature=shared

In today’s day and age, we find ourselves living under a political system of governance, which defines itself a liberal and secular. As Muslims, we adopt a different outlook on the nature of how governance should be undertaken. However, what makes any political system valid? How does it provide itself legitimacy? And why does the social contract theory fail to solve this conundrum in the case of a liberal political philosophy?

Watch the video to see the Sayyid pose some criticisms and questions regarding this theory of political governance.

YouTube

A Critique of Liberal Secularism | Sayyid Ali Abu al-Hasan

This video examines the conditions necessary for a political system's acceptability, critically evaluating the legitimacy of liberal and secular forms of governance. It questions whether these systems are genuinely suitable for the societies they purport…

The Concern of Imam al-Husayn | Sayyid Ali Abu al-Hasan

https://youtu.be/0_IlLmLOQt4?si=uBhk5tNFbNLJQJz-

YouTube

The Concern of Imam al-Husayn | Sayyid Ali Abu al-Hasan

The Concern of Imam al-Husayn Sayyid Ali Abu al-Hasan Follow the Purified Truth: Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/purifiedtruth Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thepurifiedtruth/ Telegram: https://t.me/thepurifiedtruth

Shaykh Ammaar Muslim:

What was the Messenger of Allah shrouded in? Not an inconsequential question for Muslims who seek to model all aspects of their lives on that of a man whom they consider their exemplar par excellence.

A strange thing happens, however, when one begins to dig into this seemingly innocuous question, for there exists a great disparity of answers preserved in the sources depending on the authority one consults.

In this paper, I investigate the answer given by the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt such as ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, Muḥammad al-Bāqir, and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq which is shown to be highly consistent across both the Sunni and Shīʿī corpus, before discussing reasons why it eventually came to be sidelined.

https://shiiticstudies.com/2024/07/03/the-mystery-of-the-shroud/

Shiitic Studies

The Mystery of the Shroud

The Mystery of the Shroud A Comparative Study of Shīʿī and Sunni Reports   Introduction What was the Messenger of Allah shrouded in? Not an inconsequential question for Muslims who seek to mod…

?️Prioritising Certain Supplications Over Others?️

Our goal when reading supplications of the Imams is to communicate with Allah in the best way and with the best words. This is why reciting supplications that are authentically transmitted from the Imams is important. This does not mean it is impermissible to recite supplications which have reached us with weak chains, but you should recite these supplications with the hope they are from the Imam so long as they are in line with the Qurʾān, Sunna, and the way our Imams supplicated. It's problematic when we recite supplications which have spurious origins and proceed to attribute these to them or ignore what has been reliably transmitted from them. We merely desire a level of confidence that the supplication is from the Imam, this is done by using the tools of ḥadīth sciences, the Arabic language and principles of Uṣūl al-Fiqh. Do not overemphasise dubious supplications and give them more importance in our religion than they deserve.

https://x.com/ammaar_muslim/status/1742177153309880631?s=46

In this latest installment of the Taḥrīf series, I provide additional evidence to support the thesis that the key term Ḥarf referred to the Qirāʾa of a companion, with the Seven Aḥruf reports seeking to legitimize all these Qirāʾāt (which had substantial differences in wording) as divine in origin and equally valid.

I shed more light on Ibn Masʿūd’s dissent against ʿUthmān’s decision to canonize a single Ḥarf and destroy all alternatives, but go further by documenting how dissent against this decision was more widespread, playing a role in the rebellion against ʿUthmān and ultimately his assassination.

I also probe ʿAlī’s reaction to ʿUthmān’s decision, something which became a point of great contention with apologetic reports depicting him both in favour and opposed.

Finally, I turn my attention to an extremely significant report in which ʿAlī supposedly points out a mistake in the ʿUthmānic standard in Q. 56:29 before proposing a correction.

Link to article:

https://shiiticstudies.com/2024/01/02/tahrif-or-not-a-shii-perspective-on-the-seven-ahruf-reports-pt-iv/

X (formerly Twitter)

Ammaar Muslim (@ammaar_muslim) on X

The latest installment of the Taḥrīf series is now up on the blog: https://t.co/D8WGT32aSr

?al-Sharīf al-Raḍī’s Grammatical Pun?

Sharīf al-Raḍī, at the tender age of 10, was once present in the class of the famous grammarian Abū Saʿīd al-Ḥasan b. al-Ṣīrāfī, who asked him:
"If we were to say: 'I saw ʿAmr.' What is the marker for the accusative ending (naṣb) in him?"

al-Radi wittily responded:
“The hatred of ʿAlī.”

This is a clever play on words, as the Shīʿa pejoratively call opponents of ʿAlī and his descendants “Nawāṣib”, that is those who manifest (naṣabu) hostility towards the Imams. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ was one of the bitterest opponents of ʿAlī, hence the grammatical pun.

? Wafayāt al-ʿAyān wa Anbāʾ al-Zamān, Ibn Khallikān, Vol. 4, pg. 414

“The Importance of Memorising the Quran”

A short clip going over the narrations of Imam al-Ṣādiq and the true value of memorising this sacred text, in addition to the Imam’s reaction upon hearing a companion forgetting some of it.

Watch now:

youtu.be/H6XOlAdMEOM

YouTube

The Importance of Memorising the Quran | Sayyid Ali Abu al-Hasan

In this short talk given by the Sayyid, some reports regarding the greatness and importance of memorising the Qurʾān are shared and commented over. Some of the reports within have already been translated in the following compendium by Ammaar Muslim (may Allah…

? The words of the two Imams of the Zaydiyya, Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Hārūnī and Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn b. Abī Hāshim, regarding establishment of an attack on the house of Fāṭima (upon her be peace)

Originally written in Arabic by Shaykh Ibrāhīm Jawād:

The Imam of the Zaydiyya, Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Hārūnī (d. 411 AH) said in his book al-Tabṣira, when discussing the non-consensus regarding the Caliphate of Abu Bakr:

“And it is such that the one who claims consensus regarding the Imamate of other than him (i.e. ʿAlī), does not claim the pledge of allegiance of each individual from the Companions, anyhow we simply say:

We have found them (i.e. the Companions) during the end of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate; either having had paid allegiance to him or showing pleasure [with his caliphate], or silence. And silence does not have signification of pleasure, unless the context was calm. And it has been established that matters occurred during this time which were coercive, forceful and compelling in nature, and silence in these conditions does not demonstrate pleasure.

If it is said: And what are these matters that you claim involve coercion, force and compulsion?

It is said to them: They are what the reports have spoken of, and the reliable traditions that have reached us, that al-Zubayr when refusing to pledge allegiance, was pressured, and the matter reached a point where his sword was broken. And that ʿAmmār b. Yāsir was beaten up, and that Salmān was mocked, and that they attacked the house of Fāṭima— upon her be peace— when ʿAlī (upon him be peace) delayed the pledge of allegiance. And that when Saʿd b. ʿUbādah displayed his displeasure, he was forced into leaving Medīna, then he was struck by an arrow in the days of ʿUmar and was killed. And if what we have mentioned is reliable— and it is but a small number of many [incidents]— then it is clear that silence with such an environment does not demonstrate pleasure [of the caliphate].” (See: al-Tabṣira Fī al-Tawḥīd wa al-ʿAdl, Ed: ʿAbd al-Karīm Jadbān, pg. 79-83)

And also, his student Imam Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn b. Abī Hāshim, who is known as «Mankdīm» (d. 441 AH) used this as proof, for he has said in the response to the same claim as has been aforementioned:

“And our answer is that this is only to be deemed as correct (i.e. the consensus on Abu Bakr’s Caliphate), if the Companions were categorised as having been either: One who has pledged allegiance, or someone following [the rulership], or silence— a silence of which demonstrates pleasure [with the rule], this is the form of a [true] consensus.

We do not submit to this, since it is known that when ʿAlī (upon him be peace) did not pledge allegiance, they attacked the house of Fāṭima, and likewise ʿAmmār was beaten up, Zubayr’s sword was broken, and Salmān was mocked, so how is one to claim that there is a consensus with all this?! And how does one make the silence of the one who remained silent [in such a context], a proof of pleasure [with the Caliphate]?!”

(See: Sharḥ al-Uṣūl al-Khamsa, pg. 756)

A recurring claim is that the Shīʿa are those who disparage the Companions of the Prophet… is this really the case? How do they differentiate the wheat from the chaff?

The Lions of the Jungle: The Companions of the Messenger of Allah | Hassan al-Qadri

youtu.be/q3mvQUVqb_c?si

YouTube

The Lions of the Jungle: The Companions of the Messenger of Allah | Hassan al-Qadri

#sahaba #lions #thepurifiedtruth In the name of Allah, Very often one will hear the regurgitated statements “the Shīʿa hate the Ṣaḥāba”, “the Shīʿa say all the companions are apostates except three”, “the Shīʿa condemn and disassociate from the great companions…

Developing a Relationship with the Shīʿī Corpus || Shaykh Ḥasan Fawzī Fawwāz al-ʿĀmilī

Instagram link:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzUbRAgLNPl/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==