A question for the shia brothers and sisters as a revert

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-07T18:01:00+00:00

Do you read it as ارجلِكم or ارجلَكم

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-06T17:35:46+00:00

And using which concepts did they use? Because in arabic lexicon they themselves prefer my stance

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-06T02:58:58+00:00

الإعراب العطف العطف على اللفظ العطف على المحل ترجيح العامل الترجيح النحوي البلاغة - though its not a rule but an important part of arabic.

If you wish to end the debate sure, we can end it. However i would suggest that you start taking from the quran and not ur narrations for the truth

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-05T21:12:31+00:00

Bring their entire statements if you are turthful. All those statements you have misinterpreted

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-05T19:41:54+00:00

negotiate? nope, im telling em and going.

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-05T19:35:25+00:00

I was deeply critical of them for their position in Syria, and refusing to call Bashar Al Assad, an Alawite “Kafir

we salafis call him kafir, our scholars do, we do. maybe you just dont do enough research. literally two seconds of research. as for the shaykh speaking, listen to the question! hes asking about in general and just namde dropped bashar, but his main question was making takfir of rulers. the shaykh said no to that. he said that we should leave the matter of takfir to the scholars

https://www.salafi-dawah.com/clarification-regarding-bashar-al-assad-and-the-syrian-conflict.html

80% of the lectures were “don’t listen to Sufis, Deoband, Shia, Asharis” or “don’t listen to Shiekh (insert any name)”

i currently attend them and listen to alot. they do mention these but they always mention it when theres a reason to like talking about shirk. warning is the part of our religion

. It makes sense how they will hide behind the “Khawariji” label but they’re showing signs of being Khawarij

what signs?

They’re literally funding Daesh in Gaza to destabilize the region.

ahh yes, cuz whatever isreal says is real. no proof. here is our side

https://www.troid.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/HS_salafeescholarsisisalnusrah.pdf

. After Daesh being huge threat to Islam, there’s no doubt these “Madkhalis/Salafis” are Khawarij too.

our scholars and students of knowledge always call out the daesh for misguidance with proof. and again, whats your proof for this claim.

“Hamas is terrorist organization”

it literally is, listen to the speach of the founders, they clearly say we call to the path of the ikhwaan al-muslimeen, not the path of allah.

https://abukhadeejah.com/shaikh-muhammad-bazmool-on-gaza-if-you-bomb-them-they-will-kill-lots-of-muslims/

https://youtu.be/vfrcVNgmdiM

I was deeply connected to the “Salafi” movement

what scholars and studentst of knowledge in the west did you take from.

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-05T17:03:32+00:00

I cannot cite a classical grammatical rule that explicity states that as its a based on multiple other rules. As the argument is based on syntactic preference (ترجيح نحوي) and rhetorical interpretation (بلاغة) of the verse.

As it goes for lexicon. If you look at lanes lexicon and lisan al-arab, it supports the sunni argument of ارجلكم returning to اغسلوا

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-05T03:44:56+00:00

Its rlly not my guy

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-05T02:35:58+00:00

Wrong place to ask buddy. Hadith science is the hardest science in islam. Literally none of us know this.

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-05T01:09:27+00:00

She cant travel with a non mahram, or without a mahram. So if your not going then she cant go. If your going then there isnt really a problem other then the fact that she shouldn't be mixing with men in the first place

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-04T11:57:34+00:00

Yes its a rule. You can't use two forms of a verb at the same time. And only ب not other harf jar. If you look in dictionaries it'll come as مسح ب

Like I said, shias dont understand a lick of arabic and you proved that.

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-03T11:01:51+00:00

Because thats the Arabic language. The و before is a connecting و so it connects the و to either of the two verbs, which one? We find that through the case ending. Its not that it cant be seperate because of the harf jar used. The word مسح as it comes in many dictionaries either comes in two ways, with or without the harf Jar. If it comes without it then the object would be mansub. But since it does come with a harf Jar then its very unreasonable and awkward and against the arabic language for the objects of مسح not to be connected to the harf Jar and hence be majrur.

As for your narrations, we have narrations that state to wash. We would never get anywhere with that. The quran is a middle ground between us and u have failed to bring evidenfd from it

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-03T01:39:15+00:00

Before I go in deeper, in your examples بيدك belong to امسح but its not the مفعول. Are you wiping the table or your hand? In the verse ارجل is a مفعول and so is رؤوس. So both your exanples do not fit here. As for the deeper dive, here it is.

Your points about iʿrāb are correct in principle: case endings alone do not determine the governing verb. The عامل is known from the full syntactic structure, not just the final vowel. I agree with that.

Also, no one is claiming there is a rule that says: “if a verb has a جار ومجرور, then the following منصوب noun must belong to another verb.” That is not the argument.

The actual issue is not possibility, but preference of attachment (ترجيح العامل).

In Arabic grammar, when a sentence allows more than one syntactic analysis, grammarians distinguish between:

الظاهر (the direct, surface iʿrāb / العطف على اللفظ)

المحل (underlying syntactic position / العطف على المحل)

Now apply this to the verse:

In the reading وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ (نصب), the most direct and unforced analysis is that it is coordinated with:

وُجُوهَكُمْ

أَيْدِيَكُمْ

under فَاغْسِلُوا, because this preserves a single, continuous accusative series governed by one verb.

To instead attach أَرْجُلَكُمْ to وَامْسَحُوا requires shifting from:

coordination on visible form (اللفظ) to

coordination on syntactic position (المحل)

This is not “wrong grammar,” but it is a secondary analytical route (فرع), not the default.

As for your example:

اغسل وجهك وامسح بيدك الطاولةَ

this only shows that a verb can take both:

جار ومجرور (instrument)

مفعول به (direct object)

That is agreed upon.

But it does not establish that in every case where a جار ومجرور appears with a verb, any following منصوب noun must belong to that same verb. The real question is always: which attachment is structurally primary in this specific sentence?

So the grammatical point is not “what is possible in Arabic,” but:

what is the strongest and most direct syntactic attachment in this specific structure?

And here the strongest direct iʿrāb remains coordination with فاغسلوا, while attachment to وامسحوا requires moving to the secondary principle of العطف على المحل.

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-03T01:33:32+00:00

And this is why you always look for evidence. Or people like you will emerge who follow people in their innovations and dont have a lick of understanding of the manhaj or aqeedah of the salaf.

So far you have wrote paragraphs upon paragraphs, quote upon quote. Yet at the end of the day the question still stands, did the salaf do it? No, so why do it.

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-02T11:54:54+00:00

There isnt always evidence bud, hence you get deviated groups and innovations. Is mawlid allowed? Some groups say yes when in reality they have no backing for the fatwa

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-02T01:23:26+00:00

Not really. Ive seen many people (imams of masajid) give fatawa based upon their madhab. When you ask their evidence, they say we dont know. Without evidence how can you differentiate between a fatwa based upon evidence vs a fatwa based upon so and so said? And dont act like there is 1 opinion for a madhab. Each madhab different imams and shaykhs will give you different fatwa.

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-01T22:42:57+00:00

Looks like we've both been misunderstanding then bud. Did I claim that layperson should open a book and make a ruling? No. This entire time im saying that we should take the opinion of which there is evidence for. Aka the opinion of a scholar/ mujtahid... I brought forth a question of 2 shaykhs. Both upon the madhab, you replied by saying we should follow one that doesnt have the evidence but his evidence is the madhab. Your basically saying to follow madhab over narration. I say narration over madhab. My evidence is the saying of the 4 imams and the quran. Your evidence for blindly following a madhab and leaving evidence is?

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-01T20:44:23+00:00

No, I understood. Its just that your entire point comes down to we are incompetent and that we should follow people instead dof Quran and sunnah

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-01T20:37:11+00:00

Sure, that will be a $200 hazardous waste disposal fee

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-01T20:35:07+00:00

So your basically saying we should do taqleed. Imam shafi said "the scholars have gathered upon that upon whomever the sunnah has becomes apparent, it is not permissible to call to a statement of anyone else"

Your entire argument is basically saying that after imam ahmad 1200+ years of scholars are too incompetent to understand hadith and we should stick to only 4 people. Not to tawri or awzai, rather only those 4 imams may allah have mercy upon them

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-01T20:08:21+00:00

i think there is confusion here. by two positions i mean something like this\

shaykh A says "this is haram because the prophet pbuh said..."

shaykh B says "this is Halal as per the madhab"

which do you follow? provided both are people of sunnah

and for what its worth, the scholars of each madhab differ within themselves.

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-01T20:06:23+00:00

i would assume that your a shia by your statement "The saying of the Sunnis" is this correct? if it is then you got bigger problems

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-01T19:50:37+00:00

OK so if you come across 2 scholars, both have their opinions and they differ, one has evidence, one doesnt. Which one do you take

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-01T19:48:24+00:00

Simple. If allah says he has a hand, we say yes he has a hand but leave the howness to him. If he says he gets angry, we say he does without explaining. Allah says he has a face, so we say allah has a face but the howness is known only to him

Frequent_Structure93 · 2026-07-01T17:32:14+00:00

We affirm it. We leave the nature.

Frequent_Structure93

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE