472 replies to this topic

[same2u]

finally from shia side walid [wasil] step-in to debate with farid [lord botta] about most significant narrator.
inshallah all will gain a lot from this discussion.

u can follow this debate here: http://isl amic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=14843

note: reduce gap/space between "l" & "a" from the above link & make the word as "islamic".

Edited by same2u, 12 August 2011 - 04:09 AM.

[Shia_Debater]

For the record guys thats not me I know hes name is Shia Debater .. no worries though inshaAllah he makes good use of the name and does us shia proud

Edited by Shia_Debater, 12 August 2011 - 04:34 AM.

[Immy_110]

Insha'Allah, I hope this debate does not result in any insults but rather an academic discussion which we can all benefit.

[Saimaaa]

Is Farid the same lord boota who used to post here? if yeah then he is a great scholar. His posts here opened my eyes.

[Muntaqim Force]

saima.bukhari, on 13 August 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

Is Farid the same lord boota who used to post here? if yeah then he is a great scholar. His posts here opened my eyes.

[edited]

Edited by inshaAllah, 15 August 2011 - 06:04 AM.
That comment could possibly imply something rude. Please respond to my message and clarify what you mean't.

[Abu Abdullaah]

Go on the forums to check out the debate inshaa' Allaah. It is well underway 18 posts deep.

But so far it is a very civil debate and no name calling. I congratulate Wasil for taking the opportunity to debate Farid and vice versa.

Yes, Farid = LordBotta

Edited by Abu Abdullaah, 13 August 2011 - 11:59 PM.

[twoblade]

Abu Abdullaah, on 13 August 2011 - 11:52 PM, said:

But so far it is a very civil debate and no name calling.

I was surprised, but someone is behaving.

[Muntaqim Force]

I am watching the debate too but not liking any post or comment as for me that Haq Chaar Yaar forum is not an islamic forum to discuss religion at all. It is run by outlaw terrorist organization which is condemned my Islam and Law of many countries. Debate will not end up anywhere.

With Sipah Sahaba there is only one way to debate and that is make it Saffin and lets get down to unfinished business.

Debates are done with brothers such as Ahlul Sunnah brothers not with payed agents. Such agents are not there to learn or seek knowledge but to create fitna as much as possible.

[twoblade]

Quote

I am watching the debate too but not liking any post or comment as for me that Haq Chaar Yaar forum is not an islamic forum to discuss religion at all. It is run by outlaw terrorist organization which is condemned my Islam and Law of many countries. Debate will not end up anywhere.

Neither Farid or Wasil are on "SSP" payroll...

[Muntaqim Force]

twoblade, on 14 August 2011 - 09:23 AM, said:

Neither Farid or Wasil are on "SSP" payroll...

That Haq Chaar Yaar Forum is on a payroll. I doubt if Wasil is on but chances of Farid getting good amount of dollars/halwa is there. Anyways when it come to debate over something, i follow the steps of Imam Ali a.s and refrain myself from following the steps of those stupid Kufis who selected Abu Musa Ashari to represent them post Saffin.

[twoblade]

Muntaqim Force, on 14 August 2011 - 09:42 AM, said:

That Haq Chaar Yaar Forum is on a payroll. I doubt if Wasil is on but chances of Farid getting good amount of dollars/halwa is there. Anyways when it come to debate over something, i follow the steps of Imam Ali a.s and refrain myself from following the steps of those stupid Kufis who selected Abu Musa Ashari to represent them post Saffin.

Is it the sunnah of Ali to accuse people of being paid off without proof?

[Muntaqim Force]

twoblade, on 15 August 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

Is it the sunnah of Ali to accuse people of being paid off without proof?

No it was the sunnah of Muawiyah lanatullah and i am trying to use his weapon on his disciple.  (sarcastic answer)

It is sunnah of not only Imam Ali a.s but since the earth was made till the day of judgement sunnah of all people with knowledge and brain to judge them from their leaders, behaviour, previous encounters etc etc and then pass the doubt. Not out of blue just like this.

[Saved]

A shocking waste of time! How does this "debate" address the 'Aqeedah and rituals of Islaam, that have now been eaten away by Bid'ah viruses. Anyways, traditionally, rijaal is a confused, self-contradictory science, and "scholars" have always differed on the authenticity or otherwise of narrators. No matter where you land in rijaal, you are still on the wrong track!

[Saimaaa]

I think the debate is good and through it one can analyze the fact through a basic level. The shia sunni differences are mainly grounded in the documented narrations. The same narrations are quoted in the exegesis of Quran as well by each side to prove their claim. If any of two participants proved their point , it would show gross errors and loopholes  in the narration system of the school of the opposite. The debate is of a very scholarly level and its good that they picked on the core narrators. I can not research the Hadith sciences due to my lack of knowledge of Arabic and the basics of Hadith sciences so i will make my mind in the light of the result of this debate about the Hadiths of the two schools.

[JimJam]

Quote

A shocking waste of time! How does this "debate" address the 'Aqeedah and rituals of Islaam, that have now been eaten away by Bid'ah viruses. Anyways, traditionally, rijaal is a confused, self-contradictory science, and "scholars" have always differed on the authenticity or otherwise of narrators. No matter where you land in rijaal, you are still on the wrong track!

I agree with you, this kind of debate does not address the real reasons why Shias criticize abu Hurayra. Farid mentions that one of is two favorite narrators is Ibn Umar, the same man who said he would oppose anyone who would give bayah to someone other than Yazid.

Quote

Narrated Nafi':
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."
Volume 9, Book 88, Number 225:
http://www.usc.edu/s...tml#009.088.227

saima.bukhari, on 15 August 2011 - 08:53 AM, said:

I think the debate is good and through it one can analyze the fact through a basic level. The shia sunni differences are mainly grounded in the documented narrations. The same narrations are quoted in the exegesis of Quran as well by each side to prove their claim. If any of two participants proved their point , it would show gross errors and loopholes  in the narration system of the school of the opposite. The debate is of a very scholarly level and its good that they picked on the core narrators. I can not research the Hadith sciences due to my lack of knowledge of Arabic and the basics of Hadith sciences so i will make my mind in the light of the result of this debate about the Hadiths of the two schools.

The rijal-authenticity haggling does not address issue the issue of narrator's biases like that of the one quoted above.

Edited by JimJam, 15 August 2011 - 09:06 AM.

[Saimaaa]

^ If that is the case then why not to reject all of the Hadiths and narrations? Who can say with certainty what happened then and what was in the heart of the narrator and recorder then?

[twoblade]

It's an important discussion. Even though most of Abu Hurairah's reports can be corroborated through other Sahaba, if he can be established as a liar (which seems to be the modern day Twelver line) than Sunnis have a serious problem. Unfortunately, it seems Wasil knows the issues with the common Shi'i book on this topic and probably won't pursue that avenue and will limit himself to certain other topics surrounding Abu Hurairah's reports. Likewise, Ibrahim is a mountain for Twelver Shi'ism in how many traditions are recorded from him (not just how many so-and-so says he narrated, but how many are actually codified with his name in the colophon). So if Shi'a don't even have a real basis for considering him reliable, you make thousands of narrations majhool.

[Saimaaa]

JimJam, on 15 August 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

I agree with you, this kind of debate does not address the real reasons why Shias criticize abu Hurayra. Farid mentions that one of is two favorite narrators is Ibn Umar, the same man who said he would oppose anyone who would give bayah to someone other than Yazid.






The rijal-authenticity haggling does not address issue the issue of narrator's biases like that of the one quoted above.

There is another grave subjective error in what you have said. How on earth did we come to know that Yazid was a bad guy ? You are establishing bias of Adullah Ibn Umar in the favor of Yazid based on a preconceived notion that Yazid was a bad guy. The badness of Yazid has been transmitted through reports as well. So if rijjal sciences are useless as one can never know what was in the heart of narrator then why not to think the same about the narrations in which Yazid is shown as a bad guy?
I think these are your biases right now through which you are referring to the bias of Abdullah ibn Umar  and the bias emerged in you due to narrations deeming Yazid as a bad guy. If we apply your formula "Rijjal sciences are useless as you never know what was in the heart of the narrator at the time he was reporting the Hadith" then the badness of Yazid is doubtful as well.

[JimJam]

Quote

There is another grave subjective error in what you have said. How on earth did we come to know that Yazid was a bad guy ? You are establishing bias of Adullah Ibn Umar in the favor of Yazid based on a preconceived notion that Yazid was a bad guy. The badness of Yazid has been transmitted through reports as well. So if rijjal sciences are useless as one can never know what was in the heart of narrator then why not to think the same about the narrations in which Yazid is shown as a bad guy?
I think these are your biases right now through which you are referring to the bias of Abdullah ibn Umar and the bias emerged in you due to narrations deeming Yazid as a bad guy. If we apply your formula "Rijjal sciences are useless as you never know what was in the heart of the narrator at the time he was reporting the Hadith" then the badness of Yazid is doubtful as well.

Yazid was a good guy who deserved support? Why?
This is not an issue which can be argued away why attempting to weaken any narration that you dont like which is anti-Yazid. Yazid is a divisive personality which has a very negative impact on Islamic history, his victims and the descendants of his victims all have condemned him in the severest way. Attempting to justify Yazid will next have you trying to create fictional supervillains to explain what went wrong. Because something did go very wrong

Edited by JimJam, 15 August 2011 - 12:34 PM.

[Saimaaa]

JimJam, on 15 August 2011 - 12:26 PM, said:

Yazid was a good guy who deserved support? Why?
This is not an issue which can be argued away why attempting to weaken any narration that you dont like which is anti-Yazid. Yazid is a divisive personality which has a very negative impact on Islamic history, his victims and the descendants of his victims all have condemned him in the severest way. Attempting to justify Yazid will next have you trying to create fictional supervillains to explain what went wrong. Because something did go very wrong

All what i wanted to say was that all the narration and history record can be rejected based on your logic. The Quran-only claimants why is it necessary to know about Yazid and his victims? If it is so important then rijjal sciences is extremely important
and if not then Quran is free of all the faction narrated by the Shias unless on starts plugging in the same narrations whose base can be rejected through your formula of "who knows what was in the heart of the narrator and what was his bias", giving far fetched twists to the verses. Metaphorically it sounds funny like "Putting one's own words in God's mouth".

[JimJam]

When you have someone arguing so passionately for a divisive personality you know there is something amiss. Rijal science is important but there are lots of times where it just becomes like beating about the bush while the real issues remain where they are, if rijal science is anything it is inherently self serving towards the sect of the 'rijal scientist'. One side will accept them, the other will reject them, its a stalemate.

Yes, Shia narrations are biased towards the Imams point of view. And being loyalists of them we accept their opinions.

[Saimaaa]

^ It was not about Yazid. It was about the faulty logic which you used. There are good rules through which chains can be analyzed irrespective of the affiliations of the narrators.

[Gypsy]

saima.bukhari, on 15 August 2011 - 02:01 PM, said:

^ It was not about Yazid. It was about the faulty logic which you used. There are good rules through which chains can be analyzed irrespective of the affiliations of the narrators.

That is only possible when both sides of the fence (Shia and Sunni) narrated about the same event (through proper chain of narrators).

Some examples are
The event of Ghadeer Khum
The event of Mubahila
The event of the cloak
The Jamal war.
Fatima refused to speak to Abu Bakr and Umar
Fatima buried in the night

Otherwise, JimJam said it best. It is a stalemate.

[Dar'ul_Islam]

We are not Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. We do not judge a person based on their intentions. We judge people based on their actions and known character. You repent and whatever for your major sin or have a hadd applied to you doesn't remove that stain on your record and character, you are still a dubious and untrustworthy source of religion. Bar none.

في أمان الله

[ImamAliLover]

Fascinating debate so far.  It's interesting the angle that Walid took to defend the veracity of Ibrahim al-Qummi.  Let's see where this goes