Jump to content
mohammad nadeem

How can we prove taqleed to akhbaari?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Back to the topic at hand, what I was alluding to was that an Akhbari has no problem taking a hadith from a book written by Sheikh Tusi but if Sheikh Tusi made a ruling or issued a fatwa using the same hadith, the Akhbari would reject it.

 

Akhbaris are no different than Salafis except Salafis are sunni and follow Ibn Taymiyah and Akhbaris are shia and follow Astarabadi.

1. The Hadith has nothing to do with Shaykh Tusi except that he collected it. The Ahadith have their own matn and rijal etc.  Also if you go back to your Bukhari understanding of it you will realise that you clearly did not understand the concept. Once you realise you were not correct in your thought process , let it go and learn.

2. The Akhbari/Salafi construct might be a little below the line unless you can explain further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, haideriam said:

1. The Hadith has nothing to do with Shaykh Tusi except that he collected it. The Ahadith have their own matn and rijal etc.  Also if you go back to your Bukhari understanding of it you will realise that you clearly did not understand the concept. Once you realise you were not correct in your thought process , let it go and learn.

I have learned a lot on SC. Nothing from you though. You need to read more and understand what is being said before simply trying to prove me wrong. I break it down for you into smaller pieces for you to understand (you probably wont though):

Akhbaris accept Quran and Kitab Al-Arbah

  • Kitab al-Kafi by Al-Kulayni
  • Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih by Sheikh Saduq
  • Tahdhib al-Ahkam by Sheikh Tusi
  • Al-Istibsar by Sheikh Tusi

I am not sure if Muhammad Yaqub Al-Kulayni is considered a marja but for sure Sheikh Saduq and Sheikh Tusi are considered marajae.

The invalidity of the Akhbaris comes into play because they trust Sheikh Tusi and Sheikh Saduq enough to accept their hadith colloection but at the same time, they do not trust them to issue rulings or fatwa based on those very hadith.

I realize fully that collecting hadith and interpreting hadith are different sciences. But if the same person is the collector and interpreter of the hadith, then either you trust him with the collection and the interpretation or you don't take anything from him.

Akhbaris take it a step further and even revile our esteemed marajae.

-----------------------------------

Which brings us to you. With your only intention being trying to prove me wrong, you said, "this is what we do with Sunnis." I responded very clearly with:
 

A sunni believes in Muhammad Al-Bukhari and so relies on his books.
An Akbari does not believe in the scholars but still uses their books and works to create his own beliefs and therein lies their sheer stupidity.

I did not say Sunnis do taqleed of Bukhari. I said they rely on his books.

Akhbaris will revile Sheikh Tusi for being a marja but then turn around and accept his books which to me is completely asinine.

Once you change your goal from trying to prove me wrong to just having a discussion, perhaps you won't come off as being a 'little slow'.

42 minutes ago, haideriam said:

2. The Akhbari/Salafi construct might be a little below the line unless you can explain further. 

The hatred Akhbaris spew for our marajae is similar to the hatred Salafis have for our marajae.
Their thinking is alike in that one does taqleed of Ibn Taymiyah and the other of Astarabadi but then they revile doing taqleed.

In the interest of peace, here is a thought. I will say something incorrect on purpose. You can correct me to get it out of your system. Here we go:

A = B
B = C

Therefore A <> C

Go ahead now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

I realize fully that collecting hadith and interpreting hadith are different sciences. But if the same person is the collector and interpreter of the hadith, then either you trust him with the collection and the interpretation or you don't take anything from him.

-----------------------------------

A sunni believes in Muhammad Al-Bukhari and so relies on his books.
An Akbari does not believe in the scholars but still uses their books and works to create his own beliefs and therein lies their sheer stupidity.

I did not say Sunnis do taqleed of Bukhari. I said they rely on his books.

Akhbaris will revile Sheikh Tusi for being a marja but then turn around and accept his books which to me is completely asinine.

Once you change your goal from trying to prove me wrong to just having a discussion, perhaps you won't come off as being a 'little slow'.

The hatred Akhbaris spew for our marajae is similar to the hatred Salafis have for our marajae.
Their thinking is alike in that one does taqleed of Ibn Taymiyah and the other of Astarabadi but then they revile doing taqleed.

1. When you use that word interpretation bro you are still not trying to understand. And by the way linking the Bukhari book and presenting that theory has not just been noticed by me. Please do not keep developing the story. 

2. You started with methodology of proving wrong and I said we use as an eg Bukhari to disapprove Sunnis and not Kafi. You came back with a very strange answer and another brother corrected you. You say you understood his point and then repeated yourself again. He even corrected that for you. You moving on replaced believing with Taqleed and shot your other foot too.  He explains the taqleed issue of the writers of Hadith and you say that that is your point and slip in another argument. And he further explained to you that they compiled ahadith and people acted upon the hadith as per the circumstance and you answered that that is what taqleed is. I then come in again and tell you that Bukhari is only a compiler of traditions and the Taqleed is of their four other than Bukhari Imams. Next you come in with the argument of 'sunnis don't accept Bukhari's hadith and reject following him'. Given it might have been a poor sentence construct and even the explanations that followed but let us grant that that was a genuine misunderstanding. 

So my bro sunnis do not follow the rulings of Bukhari and Bukhari did not give any rulings as you emphasised. In fact they do not follow Bukhari at all but just use the ahadith in his book as a reference source. I repeat they only follow the 4 imams of their  mazhab. Another brother corrected you and cleared the difference and understanding. 

Next I explained to you in brief what taqleed is and that your understanding of taqleed was wrong.  You then move the goal post from followed to relied upon for Bukhari. After some more irrelevant posts I explain to you that believing in a hadith book if not taqleed. Bro please remember that in our times there are 2 examples we know who keep shifting the goalpost every time they get stuck The Wahabbis with their name changing so many times and even for different locales and the IS guys from one entity to another. 

You thereafter start to make irrelevant posts again but please understand the Akhbaris do not believe in the issue of Taqleed to a non masum and hence there is no marja for them even if one calls oneself as such or is understood as such by the usoolis.

Lastly I asked you as to how our Akhbaris were similar to salafis as you said and thought there might be an academic response by you but you again came up with with such an illogical and childish argument that it baffles the mind. The salafis have no love lost for our scholars whereas the Akhbaris have respect for at least the narrators of hadith. But this is only to correct you and not the answer I was expecting for I shall explain that to you a lot later. 

Please concentrate on the topic at hand and for your information if one can check records even during the period when you thought I was absent I remember having liked your posts which made sense and were well presented and were relevant. So please get over our love affair for each other in that demeaning sense. Even if I am sometimes slightly blunt it is only to correct my bro and that positive love of brotherhood has been enjoined upon us. 

 

Edited by haideriam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, haideriam said:

1. When you use that word interpretation bro you are still not trying to understand. And by the way linking the Bukhari book and presenting that theory has not just been noticed by me. Please do not keep developing the story. 

Interpretation = using principles of jurisprudence as a fundamental knowledge in issuing islam rulings.

28 minutes ago, haideriam said:

2. You started with methodology of proving wrong and I said we use as an eg Bukhari to disapprove Sunnis and not Kafi. You came back with a very strange answer and another brother corrected you. You say you understood his point and then repeated yourself again. He even corrected that for you. You moving on replaced believing with Taqleed and shot your other foot too.  He explains the taqleed issue of the writers of Hadith and you say that that is your point and slip in another argument. And he further explained to you that they compiled ahadith and people acted upon the hadith as per the circumstance and you answered that that is what taqleed is. I then come in again and tell you that Bukhari is only a compiler of traditions and the Taqleed is of their four other than Bukhari Imams. Next you come in with the argument of 'sunnis don't accept Bukhari's hadith and reject following him'. Given it might have been a poor sentence construct and even the explanations that followed but let us grant that that was a genuine misunderstanding. 

So my bro sunnis do not follow the rulings of Bukhari and Bukhari did not give any rulings as you emphasised. In fact they do not follow Bukhari at all but just use the ahadith in his book as a reference source. I repeat they only follow the 4 imams of their  mazhab. Another brother corrected you and cleared the difference and understanding. 

Next I explained to you in brief what taqleed is and that your understanding of taqleed was wrong.  You then move the goal post from followed to relied upon for Bukhari. After some more irrelevant posts I explain to you that believing in a hadith book if not taqleed. Bro please remember that in our times there are 2 examples we know who keep shifting the goalpost every time they get stuck The Wahabbis with their name changing so many times and even for different locales and the IS guys from one entity to another. 

You thereafter start to make irrelevant posts again but please understand the Akhbaris do not believe in the issue of Taqleed to a non masum and hence there is no marja for them even if one calls oneself as such or is understood as such by the usoolis.

Once again, you want to focus on proving me wrong when the limitation is your understanding. You brought up "we use sunni books", I responded "A sunni believes in Muhammad Al-Bukhari and so relies on his books". I did not say Sunnis do taqleed of Bukhari. You assumed based on your bias and very, very limited understanding.

Br. @Sirius_Bright raised the point that Akhbaris do not reject Shaikh Sadooq, Kulayni and Tusi but in fact Sheikh Tusi actually defended the Usuli position against the Akhbaris in a couple of books. Our matter was resolved.

Then it took 2 pages of me trying to teach you how conjunctions work.

44 minutes ago, haideriam said:

Lastly I asked you as to how our Akhbaris were similar to salafis as you said and thought there might be an academic response by you but you again came up with with such an illogical and childish argument that it baffles the mind. The salafis have no love lost for our scholars whereas the Akhbaris have respect for at least the narrators of hadith. But this is only to correct you and not the answer I was expecting for I shall explain that to you a lot later. 

Akhbaris are like salafis is my opinion. If you dont like it or disagree with it, get over it. The Akhbaris (not all but a lot) have out rightly disparaged our scholars and marajae. They actually send la'an on our marajae and scholars - overtly. So much so that during my first interaction with an Akhbari I actually thought he was a salafi in disguise based on the vile spewing from him. Hence the comparison.

47 minutes ago, haideriam said:

Please concentrate on the topic at hand and for your information if one can check records even during the period when you thought I was absent I remember having liked your posts which made sense and were well presented and were relevant. So please get over our love affair for each other in that demeaning sense. Even if I am sometimes slightly blunt it is only to correct my bro and that positive love of brotherhood has been enjoined upon us. 

Topic at hand? You have yet to bring anything worthwhile on this topic. Your only goal is to somehow prove me wrong. All you have to do is behanve yourself and stick to the topic and you will be find me very amicable. 

To-date, you have said nothing on the topic of proving taqleed to an Akhbari so feel free to practice what you preach.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

I realize fully that collecting hadith and interpreting hadith are different sciences. But if the same person is the collector and interpreter of the hadith, then either you trust him with the collection and the interpretation or you don't take anything from him.

Without going into the to and fro bro

What do you understand by collection and interpretation. 

The Akhbari brothers will take the collection and give respect to the author but just do not believe in any non masums' interpretation. 

Try and understand it with the chess hadith and its interpretation as per the fuquha who permit playing chess on a recreational basis. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

I realize fully that collecting hadith and interpreting hadith are different sciences. But if the same person is the collector and interpreter of the hadith, then either you trust him with the collection and the interpretation or you don't take anything from him.

This is a strange assertion, and I do not believe this is in any way shape or form a principle in ilm al hadith. The person who collects the hadith and puts them in a book does not mean his interpretation is to be trusted, and you will see later scholars disagreeing with the conclusions and interpretations of those same collectors on the hadiths they wrote down.

All that is needed is some one to be thiqa for his narrations to be accepted, and he doesn't even have to be a scholar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, haideriam said:

Without going into the to and fro bro

What do you understand by collection and interpretation. 

Collection: collecting hadith
Interpretation: what jurists do. If I have an issue, I refer to the jurist (marja). He will look at Quran, hadith, consensus (ijma) and aql and then use the principles of jurisprudence to issue a fiqhi ruling. It can be specific to my need or general.

7 hours ago, haideriam said:

The Akhbari brothers will take the collection and give respect to the author but just do not believe in any non masums' interpretation. 

The problem with the Akhbaris is that they only trust the 4 shia books out ofwhich 2 were written by Sheikh Tusi - who was one of the pioneers in establishing the principles of jurisprudence. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

5 hours ago, haideriam said:

just a supplementary question in trying to understand this issue further

Can you tell me as to how do the Akhbari brothers do Taqleed of the Imams(as)?

They claim to do taqleed of the Imam-e-Zamana (as) by using the hadith in the Kitab Al-Arbah (4 shia books).

5 hours ago, Sumerian said:

This is a strange assertion, and I do not believe this is in any way shape or form a principle in ilm al hadith. The person who collects the hadith and puts them in a book does not mean his interpretation is to be trusted, and you will see later scholars disagreeing with the conclusions and interpretations of those same collectors on the hadiths they wrote down.

All that is needed is some one to be thiqa for his narrations to be accepted, and he doesn't even have to be a scholar. 

Brother - this is specifically about Sheikh Tusi. He wrote 2 out of the 4 shia books known as Kitab Al-Arbah. The Akhbaris accept his 2 books which are a collection of hadith. At the same time, Sheikh Tusi is one of the pioneers in establishing ijtihad and the use of reason in creating fiqhi rules. This the Akhbaris reject.

I realize fully that collecting hadith and issuing religious rulings are different. Akhbari reject all our marajae. When speaking with them, we have to focus only on Sheikh Tusi and Sheikh Saduq who compiled 3 out of 4 books Akhbaris believe in AND also happened to be pioneers of ijtihad. So that becomes the issue of contention between Akhbaris and Usoolis. 

Everything I am stating is limited to Sheikh Tusi (for the most part) and Sheikh Saduq. Talking about later scholars is pointless with Akhbaris since they reject all of them.

Edited by shiaman14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Brother - this is specifically about Sheikh Tusi. He wrote 2 out of the 4 shia books known as Kitab Al-Arbah. The Akhbaris accept his 2 books which are a collection of hadith. At the same time, Sheikh Tusi is one of the pioneers in establishing ijtihad and the use of reason in creating fiqhi rules. This the Akhbaris reject.

I realize fully that collecting hadith and issuing religious rulings are different. Akhbari reject all our marajae. When speaking with them, we have to focus only on Sheikh Tusi and Sheikh Saduq who compiled 3 out of 4 books Akhbaris believe in AND also happened to be pioneers of ijtihad.

Everything I am stating is limited to Sheikh Tusi (for the most part) and Sheikh Saduq. Talking about later scholars is pointless with Akhbaris since they reject all of them.

Thank you for the clarification brother (uncle? ;p).

However, even Shaykh Al-Tusi and Shaykh Al-Saduq's interpretations of the own hadiths they collected were subject to scrutiny by later scholars.

For example; Shaykh Al-Saduq believed in the wujoob of Ghusl Al-Jumu'ah and he collected narrations to try and prove that point. Later scholars, although don't necessarily reject these hadiths, they reject his interpretation and conclusion.

I didn't respond in defense of the Akhbaris, I just wanted to address the previous assertion in which you said:

But if the same person is the collector and interpreter of the hadith, then either you trust him with the collection and the interpretation or you don't take anything from him.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Thank you for the clarification brother (uncle? ;p).

Hehehe. How is it going nephew?

2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

However, even Shaykh Al-Tusi and Shaykh Al-Saduq's interpretations of the own hadiths they collected were subject to scrutiny by later scholars.

For example; Shaykh Al-Saduq believed in the wujoob of Ghusl Al-Jumu'ah and he collected narrations to try and prove that point. Later scholars, although don't necessarily reject these hadiths, they reject his interpretation and conclusion.

Sure, everything is up for scrutiny and debate. That is how the school of ijtehad progresses...which is exactly what the Akhbaris are against.

The issue is not a particular scholar or a particular ruling. It is a overall discussion on ijtehad and usooli school versus akhbari and their rejection of scholars.

To take it further, some Akhbari (astarbadi???) decided that the Kitab Al-Arbah are sufficient for them. Based on what, did they decide this? In some ways then, people who believe in the 4 books are really following Astarbadi, aren't they?

Akhbaris have their own scholars who preach from these books so aren't the laymen Akhbari then doing taqleed of these scholars essentially?

2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

I didn't respond in defense of the Akhbaris, I just wanted to address the previous assertion in which you said:

But if the same person is the collector and interpreter of the hadith, then either you trust him with the collection and the interpretation or you don't take anything from him.

This is specific to Sheikh Tusi because they take 2 books from him even though he was a pioneer in establishing the school of jurisprudence (conceptually at least).

All other scholars are irrelevant to this discussion since Akhbaris reject them entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Collection: collecting hadith
Interpretation: what jurists do. If I have an issue, I refer to the jurist (marja). He will look at Quran, hadith, consensus (ijma) and aql and then use the principles of jurisprudence to issue a fiqhi ruling. It can be specific to my need or general.

 

 

1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

This is specific to Sheikh Tusi because they take 2 books from him even though he was a pioneer in establishing the school of jurisprudence (conceptually at least).

In Ahadith collection and narration their is the question of an honest and truthful person and hence the reports and not the interpretations is what one takes from him. 

A truthful and an honest persons interpretation I can differ with and not agree with for he is not a masum, but what he has collected is authentic with the right matn and rijal. 

Even the Marajae when they give a fatwa write at the end of it wallu alim.

So for them to accept the hadith without any extra bits is all they are looking for. They even do not take Astarabadis interpretations if you think deeply about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, haideriam said:

 

In Ahadith collection and narration their is the question of an honest and truthful person and hence the reports and not the interpretations is what one takes from him. 

A truthful and an honest persons interpretation I can differ with and not agree with for he is not a masum, but what he has collected is authentic with the right matn and rijal. 

Even the Marajae when they give a fatwa write at the end of it wallu alim.

So for them to accept the hadith without any extra bits is all they are looking for. They even do not take Astarabadis interpretations if you think deeply about it. 

As I have repeated said, I get the fact that collecting hadith and interpreting (jurisprudence) are different.

However, when it comes Sheikh Tusi, the matter is more complicated because he was heavily pro-Usooli and heavily anti-Akhbari.

Let's take it from another angle - who told Akhbaris to only use Kitab Al-Arbah? If the issue is authentic hadith, then why not take all authentic hadith? Why the limitation to these 4 including 3 of which are from scholars who believe in jurisprudence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because these are the major collections and they trust these scholars for their truthfulness. But when it comes to interpretation then it is a different ball game. 

Do you get that a hadith is not the scholars and the interpretation belongs to the scholar which could be right or wrong .

@shiaman14

Edited by haideriam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, haideriam said:

Do you get that a hadith is not the scholars and the interpretation belongs to the scholar which could be right or wrong .

@shiaman14

What??? OMG??? I used to think hadith are written by scholars who made things in the name of the Prophet and the Ahlul Bayt. Phew - thanks for clarifying that for me
(for those that don't get it, I am being sarcastic above).

At the risk of sounding redundant, hadith and jurisprudence discussion is limited to Sheikh Tusi when discussing with Akhbaris. Everything I said to date is with him in mind. Had you known about Sheikh Tusi, his works and his staunch pro-Usooli thinking, you wouldn't be so confused.

1 hour ago, haideriam said:

Because these are the major collections and they trust these scholars for their truthfulness. But when it comes to interpretation then it is a different ball game. 

Major according to whom? Some Akhbari must have said, "these 4 books are great. Let's only use these and ignore everything else". Why not Bukhari then? Something or someone led them to believe Quran and Kitab Al-Arbah - I need to know who.

To be honest, I am actually waiting for you to answer the question, "How can we prove taqleed to akhbaari?" Other than trying to correct me, have you actually added any value to this discussion?

Edited by shiaman14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

What??? OMG??? I used to think hadith are written by scholars who made things in the name of the Prophet and the Ahlul Bayt. Phew - thanks for clarifying that for me
(for those that don't get it, I am being sarcastic above).

At the risk of sounding redundant, hadith and jurisprudence discussion is limited to Sheikh Tusi when discussing with Akhbaris. Everything I said to date is with him in mind. Had you known about Sheikh Tusi, his works and his staunch pro-Usooli thinking, you wouldn't be so confused.

Major according to whom? Some Akhbari must have said, "these 4 books are great. Let's only use these and ignore everything else". Why not Bukhari then? Something or someone led them to believe Quran and Kitab Al-Arbah - I need to know who.

so if you understand that the hadith is not the scholars but the interpretation is the scholars, so why is it so difficult to understand that you can reject the interpretation and yet still accept the hadith and that then has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the collector. 

In a round about way do you deny the truthfulness of a marja you do not follow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, haideriam said:

so if you understand that the hadith is not the scholars but the interpretation is the scholars, so why is it so difficult to understand that you can reject the interpretation and yet still accept the hadith and that then has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the collector. 

I easily understand Akhbaris accepting Al-Kafi because Al-Kulayni may not be considered a Mujtahid per se.

I would also understand Akhbaris accepting the 2 books by Sheikh Tusi if Sheikh Tusi was not an ardent supporter of jurisprudence. 

What I dont agree with and don't understand is how they can reject Tusi but accept his work. For all they know, Tusi could have been selective in choosing what ahadith to include in his books. Perhaps he only chose to include pro-usuli hadith. Then what? Tusi didn't ascertain that his work contains ALL hadith from Prophet (saw) and Ahlulbayt (as). Could there be an inherent bias in his collection since he was very, very pro jurisprudence? If they say YES, then why accept his work? If they NO, then they are trusting Tusi to do the right thing so if he is pro-jurisprudence, then they should be as well.

For example, Bukhari is sunni so most of his collection is from a Sunni perspective. Similarly, Tusi is pro-jurisprudence, could his 2 books be a collection of pro-jurisprudence ahadith?

Do you see the problem Tusi presents for Akhbaris?

6 hours ago, haideriam said:

In a round about way do you deny the truthfulness of a marja you do not follow?

I dont.

Akhbaris do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't be able to prove taqlid  to an akhbari since he will only accept akhbar and the quran as evidence. Taqlid is just one thing that must be proved. One must also prove the concept of marja'iyyah (which developed a great deal of time after our early scholars), the permissibility of ijtihad, the reliability of hadith "science" and some other issues. The early shia scholars evidently did not agree with modern usoolism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:bismillah:

Assalamu Alaykum dear brother,

In the seed of their hubris lies the root of their nemesis.
They use the tawqee "hujjah upon you are the narrators of our traditions" in the support of their position. Ask them, why did Imam Zaman [ajf] say "narrators of our traditions" and not simply "hujjah upon you are our tradtions."? Why this emphasis of the conferment of authority on 'narrators' rather than 'traditions' themselves?
Why did Rassoolallah (sawa) say "Qur'an and my Ahlul Bayt[as]" and not "Qur'an and my Sunnah"?
If the awliya[as] of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى himself are placing such great emphasis on people/persons, why are we so fixated with raw data?
Ponder upon this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

I easily understand Akhbaris accepting Al-Kafi because Al-Kulayni may not be considered a Mujtahid per se.

I would also understand Akhbaris accepting the 2 books by Sheikh Tusi if Sheikh Tusi was not an ardent supporter of jurisprudence. 

What I dont agree with and don't understand is how they can reject Tusi but accept his work. For all they know, Tusi could have been selective in choosing what ahadith to include in his books. Perhaps he only chose to include pro-usuli hadith. Then what? Tusi didn't ascertain that his work contains ALL hadith from Prophet (saw) and Ahlulbayt (as). Could there be an inherent bias in his collection since he was very, very pro jurisprudence? If they say YES, then why accept his work? If they NO, then they are trusting Tusi to do the right thing so if he is pro-jurisprudence, then they should be as well.

For example, Bukhari is sunni so most of his collection is from a Sunni perspective. Similarly, Tusi is pro-jurisprudence, could his 2 books be a collection of pro-jurisprudence ahadith?

Do you see the problem Tusi presents for Akhbaris?

I dont.

Akhbaris do.

Bro being truthful and then having an opinion are 2 different things. Truth is truth but an opinion could be wrong.

You keep answering yourself but go back to the same question again and again. Of course not understanding and or not being in agreement is your fundamental right even when everyone else has also been correcting you continuously on this. 

Eg. show me a hadith which says Shaykh Tusi's jurisprudence has to be followed. 

Also in answering my second question you answered yourself and then repeat the Akhbari mantra of Akhbaris do as if the Akhbaris follow your scholars. They have no need bro. 

Tell me why.?

 

Edited by haideriam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

:bismillah:

Assalamu Alaykum dear brother,

In the seed of their hubris lies the root of their nemesis.
They use the tawqee "hujjah upon you are the narrators of our traditions" in the support of their position. Ask them, why did Imam Zaman [ajf] say "narrators of our traditions" and not simply "hujjah upon you are our tradtions."? Why this emphasis of the conferment of authority on 'narrators' rather than 'traditions' themselves?
Why did Rassoolallah (sawa) say "Qur'an and my Ahlul Bayt[as]" and not "Qur'an and my Sunnah"?
If the awliya[as] of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى himself are placing such great emphasis on people/persons, why are we so fixated with raw data?
Ponder upon this.

Excellent point brother.  Just have to remember and keep in mind that the Quran is one of the two weighty things as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, haideriam said:

Bro being truthful and then having an opinion are 2 different things. Truth is truth but an opinion could be wrong.

You keep answering yourself but go back to the same question again and again. Of course not understanding and or not being in agreement is your fundamental right even when everyone else has also been correcting you continuously on this. 

Eg. show me a hadith which says Shaykh Tusi's jurisprudence has to be followed. 

From an Akhbari perspective, show me a hadith which says Tusi's hadith collection is good, reliable and should be a key books for all shias and specifically for Akhbaris.

I get that hadith collection and jurisprudence are separate. That was never an issue.

The issue still goes back to how Akhbaris can trust a book by a pro-Usuli compiler knowing fully well that he may have included pro-Usuli hadith only.

Bukhari is not hujjah upon us because he was pro-sunni and anti-shia so his hadith collection reflects this.
Similarly, how are Akhbaris sure that the Tusi collection is not pro-Usuli only.

Akhbaris have no answer to this and neither do you. Feel free to respond to the original question which to date you have completely avoided.

1 hour ago, haideriam said:

Also in answering my second question you answered yourself and then repeat the Akhbari mantra of Akhbaris do as if the Akhbaris follow your scholars. They have no need bro. 

Tell me why.?

Errrr, I answered for myself because you asked me. I answered for Akhbaris because that is the topic at hand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

From an Akhbari perspective, show me a hadith which says Tusi's hadith collection is good, reliable and should be a key books for all shias and specifically for Akhbaris.

I get that hadith collection and jurisprudence are separate. That was never an issue.

The issue still goes back to how Akhbaris can trust a book by a pro-Usuli compiler knowing fully well that he may have included pro-Usuli hadith only.

 

Bukhari is not hujjah upon us because he was pro-sunni and anti-shia so his hadith collection reflects this.
Similarly, how are Akhbaris sure that the Tusi collection is not pro-Usuli only.

 

Akhbaris have no answer to this and neither do you. Feel free to respond to the original question which to date you have completely avoided.

 

Errrr, I answered for myself because you asked me. I answered for Akhbaris because that is the topic at hand.

 

1. Problem is you don't bro, for if you did, then not just me but others have said as well, that the 2 are separate. Just like you do not deny the truthfulness of a marja you do not follow.  It does not matter what Shaykh Tusi collected in favour of , what matters is were those Hadith truthful and reliable. Please understand they do not deny his truthfulness but do not agree with the conclusion of his opinions.  That is not such a big deal. Do you now understand.

2. You keep baffling me again and again...Bukhari is not Hujjah upon us but a truthful Hadith in their will become a hujjah upon us.  Shia scholars have narrated traditions from Bukhari not just for polemics but also to support their research. 

3. What I was asking was that the Akhbari brothers do not follow your scholars, do you know why?

Bro AbdusSibtayn has presented a great point there , did you miss that!!!

Edited by haideriam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, haideriam said:

1. Problem is you don't bro, for if you did, then not just me but others have said as well, that the 2 are separate. Just like you do not deny the truthfulness of a marja you do not follow.  It does not matter what Shaykh Tusi collected in favour of , what matters is were those Hadith truthful and reliable. Please understand they do not deny his truthfulness but do not agree with the conclusion of his opinions.  That is not such a big deal. Do you now understand.

2. You keep baffling me again and again...Bukhari is not Hujjah upon us but a truthful Hadith in their will become a hujjah upon us.  Shia scholars have narrated traditions from Bukhari not just for polemics but also to support their research. 

3. What I was asking was that the Akhbari brothers do not follow your scholars, do you know why?

Bro AbdusSibtayn has presented a great point there , did you miss that!!!

1) The other brothers and you thought I was speaking generally when I was very specifically talking about Sheikh Tusi. To you, it is not a big deal. Perhaps being an Akhbari is not a big deal to you either. But it was to Sheikh Tusi who was outspoken against their movement and pro-Usuli. You still haven't answered a simple question - is there a chance that Sheikh Tusi collected only those hadith that were pro-Usuli?

2) Its like I am talking about day and you keep telling me there is night. Bukhari OVERALL is not hujjah upon us, individual hadith may be.

3) Simple answer is Akhbaris do not follow my scholars because my scholars follow the principles of jurisprudence whereas they don't believe in it. They claim to be under the taqleed of Imam-e-Zamana (as). Now, I am sure you will re-phrase my statement but still say the same thing.

Still waiting for you to answer the question, "How do we prove taqleed to an Akhbari?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

1) The other brothers and you thought I was speaking generally when I was very specifically talking about Sheikh Tusi. To you, it is not a big deal. Perhaps being an Akhbari is not a big deal to you either. But it was to Sheikh Tusi who was outspoken against their movement and pro-Usuli. You still haven't answered a simple question - is there a chance that Sheikh Tusi collected only those hadith that were pro-Usuli?

2) Its like I am talking about day and you keep telling me there is night. Bukhari OVERALL is not hujjah upon us, individual hadith may be.

3) Simple answer is Akhbaris do not follow my scholars because my scholars follow the principles of jurisprudence whereas they don't believe in it. They claim to be under the taqleed of Imam-e-Zamana (as). Now, I am sure you will re-phrase my statement but still say the same thing.

Still waiting for you to answer the question, "How do we prove taqleed to an Akhbari?"

1. You should be able to see that I made special mention of Shaykh Tusi in my post bro. So many trying to correct you should give you a hint bro.  So what if Shaykh Tusi only collected as you say pro usuli hadith, what matters is that they were Ahadith from the companions of the Imams{as} all trusted. Being outspoken against the Akhbari movement has nothing to do with the hadith collection. It is like you being truthful in your narration of an incident which I will not doubt if you are a truthful person but I have all the right to disagree with an opinion you express. There is no problem there. Also please remember the work of hadith collection. It is not like one plucks them out of thin air. There are records which corroborate and similarities are found in other books for cross referencing. When you have understood that a hadith is not a personal opinion which I think you are having difficulty with then you will begin to understand the rest. 

2. Am glad you understood the second point and corrected/qualified your stance. Well done bro

3. If the scholars had collected hadith like the elders then they would again accept them in spite of being against the opinions and or scholars you make reference to. 

Brother it is simple, either one does not understand and or one does not want to understand. That intention only your Lord knows but we can only guess at where the direction points us to.    Wallhu Alim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, haideriam said:

1. You should be able to see that I made special mention of Shaykh Tusi in my post bro. So many trying to correct you should give you a hint bro.  So what if Shaykh Tusi only collected as you say pro usuli hadith, what matters is that they were Ahadith from the companions of the Imams{as} all trusted. Being outspoken against the Akhbari movement has nothing to do with the hadith collection. It is like you being truthful in your narration of an incident which I will not doubt if you are a truthful person but I have all the right to disagree with an opinion you express. There is no problem there. Also please remember the work of hadith collection. It is not like one plucks them out of thin air. There are records which corroborate and similarities are found in other books for cross referencing. When you have understood that a hadith is not a personal opinion which I think you are having difficulty with then you will begin to understand the rest. 

1) I have been talking about Shekih Tusi for 3 pages. You have barely mentioned this pious and great scholar. The only confusion is on your part where you constant assume things which make you seem 'slower and slower' if you know what I mean. I will say it again that hadith collection and jurisprudence are different. The only reason I have to spell it out is because you are utterly confused.  The other brothers who corrected me thought i was writing 'in general' when I was specifically talking about Sheikh Tusi and mentioned it on page 1. The problem here is that you are trying to convince me that it is okay for Akhbaris to reject Sheikh Tusi's stance on jurisprudence but accept his hadith collection. And you say "what if Shaykh Tusi only collected as you say pro usuli hadith". It matters because it would show Sheikh Tusi had a clear bias and was not sincere in his hadith collection. If such was the case, then he would not be trustworthy. Now let's say he was sincere in his collection and thus deemed trustworthy, then why not trust his stance on jurisprudence? Why trust the stance of another layman or less scholar who says no to jurisprudence? Based on what qualifications do they take the word of an individual to reject jurisprudence over the word of Tusi to accept jurispudence?

I fully realize you don't have answer, just confusion.

26 minutes ago, haideriam said:

2. Am glad you understood the second point and corrected/qualified your stance. Well done bro

Lol. Go through all my posts on SC and you will see me quoting Bukhari a lot more than you. Unfortunately when it comes to you, everything has to be spelled out. Now you will say that SM14 hinks Bukhari is hujjah upon him - go ahead and write it, I know you are thinking it.

28 minutes ago, haideriam said:

3. If the scholars had collected hadith like the elders then they would again accept them in spite of being against the opinions and or scholars you make reference to. 

Like I said, you rehash everything I say trying to seem smart.

29 minutes ago, haideriam said:

Brother it is simple, either one does not understand and or one does not want to understand. That intention only your Lord knows but we can only guess at where the direction points us to.    Wallhu Alim. 

So you answer is one doesnt explain taqleed to an Akhbari. So why are you on this thread then? I guess to correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×