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

Ibn al-Hussain

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    32,527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Ibn al-Hussain last won the day on May 15

Ibn al-Hussain had the most liked content!

About Ibn al-Hussain

  • Rank
    [-Talib e Ilm-]
  • Birthday 12/24/1988

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

50,833 profile views
  1. All are valid and do not change anything in meaning. If you are pausing at Muhammad then #3 is the best method; if you are not pausing at Muhammad then #2 is the right way to say it according of rules of idghaam in tajweed (see 15 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoP6xT8x9Vk ). For more information see the rules of idghaam in yarmaloon in tajweed. #1 is actually not the best method at all, whether you are pausing at Muhammad or not. You guys read the Qur'an, you know you do not read the tanween sounds at the end of verses if you pause, and if you do not pause then you have to join the letters where ever possible. Over here it is possible to join them as Muhammadiw. Ignore this video and his discussion on "gap" and "no gap". It is silly and shows he has no sense of Arabic. The "wow" in the Salawat is called 'atf and it is actually there to ensure there is no gap - whether you pause on Muhammad or not.
  2. That is irrelevant. Even if he happens to be "less correct" you still have to obey him - as I said, these matters of tashkees go back to personal understandings of things and often times only in hindsight can we can tell whether it was the best decision or not. Otherwise in the moment, you often only have a certain limit of information available accompanied by other personal variables like one's attitude, experiences, perceptions and so on and have to act on what is apparent to you (which becomes hujjah upon you - like in the hand-shaking example I gave you earlier). I showed traditions earlier where one Imam as a father made their son (who is another Imam) marry a certain woman who was not in the best interest of their son, and in fact the son divorces her because of how bad the woman was. Or one Imam entrusting an alcoholic with their assets even after the father said do not do so, and the Imam lost their assets. I am not sure what you mean by "wrong decision" - are you saying there is a decision that is registered in reality and the decision has to be in accordance with that? In these matters there is no evidence for me that they are infallible - in fact I am not sure what "infallibility" here even means. I cited some traditions here to show that they made certain decisions in these matters where two Imams were very apparently disagreeing on matters or even not listening to another. In fact, to even begin accepting infallibility to such an extent you would have no choice but to establish that they have knowledge of the unseen, which is another thing not proven for me and it is well known that the classical scholars did not accept such a thing either. You have to prove that infallibility of error and mistakes extends beyond religious matters, to matters which concern Prophet's personal decisions. In vol. 2 of al-Mizan, 'Allamah Tabataba'I has a discussion on 'ismah and divides infallibility into three: أن العصمة على ثلاثة أقسام : العصمة عن الخطأ في تلقي الوحي ، والعصمة عن الخطأ في التبليغ والرسالة ، والعصمة عن المعصية وهي ما فيه هتك حرمة العبودية ومخالفة مولوية ، ويرجع بالاخرة إلى قول أو فعل ينافي العبودية منافاه ما ، ونعني بالعصمة وجود أمر في الانسان المعصوميصونه عن الوقوع فيما لا يجوز من الخطأ أو المعصية. وأما الخطأ في غير باب المعصية وتلقي الوحي والتبليغ ، وبعبارة أخرى في غير باب أخذ الوحي وتبليغه والعمل به كالخطأ في الامور الخارجية نظير الاغلاط الواقعة للانسان في الحواس وإدراكاتها أو الاعتباريات من العلوم ، ونظير الخطأ في تشخيص الامور التكوينية من حيث الصلاح والفساد والنفع والضرر ونحوها فالكلام فيها خارج عن هذا المبحث 'Allamah did not consider Hukm Wilayee and these personal decisions to be part of Wahi and Shari'ah hence they are outside the scope of the theological arguments made for 'ismah which is what I had said earlier as well - you need to first determine your definition of infallibility and establish the rational and textual arguments for it, the rational argument for infallibility only proves infallibility in a very small circle of things: المصونية عن الخطأ في أمر الدين والشريعة المشرعة In volume 14 of al-Mizan he says that if an Imam or Prophet goes against a Hukm Irshadi, such a decision is outside the scope of the theological arguments made for 'ismah and hence they have not done anything wrong: وأما المعصية بمعنى مخالفة الأمر الإرشادي الذي لا داعي فيه إلا إحراز المأمور خيرا أو منفعة من خيرات حياته ومنافعها بانتخاب الطريق الأصلح كما يأمر وينهى المشير الناصح نصحا فإطاعته ومعصيته خارجتان من مجرى أدلة العصمة وهو ظاهر In volume 8 he writes: وظاهر سياق الآية وكذا ما في سورة طه من آيات القصة أن موسى غضب على هارون كما غضب على بني إسرائيل غير أنه غضب عليه حسبانا منه أنه لم يبذل الجهد في مقاومة بني إسرائيل لما زعم أن الصلاح في ذلك مع أنه وصاه عند المفارقة وصية مطلقة بقوله : « وَأَصْلِحْ وَلا تَتَّبِعْ سَبِيلَ الْمُفْسِدِينَ »وهذا المقدار من الاختلاف في السليقة والمشية بين نبيين معصومين لا دليل على منعه ، وإنما العصمة فيما يرجع إلى حكم الله سبحانه دون ما يرجع إلى السلائق وطرق الحياة على اختلافها This is why 'Allamah Tabataba'I accepted that tradition of the date-palm trees where the Prophet (p) saw people of Medina pollinating the trees in a certain way one year and he informed them to not do it that way. That year the trees did not produce dates and he (p) asked them why that was the case, so they replied you had told us to do it in such and such a way. He replied with a statement: أنتم اعلم بامور دنياكم‏ Most Shi'a scholars do not accept this tradition, but 'Allamah Tabataba'I accepted it (as mentioned by Allamah Hasan-Zadeh Amuli in the book ممد الهمم در شرح فصوص الحكم pg. 567): جناب علامه فرمودند: حديث ابار حديثى است كه به تواتر رسيد ولى ممكن است از حضرت رسول پرسيدند ابار بكنيم حضرت فرموده‏اند شما به مصالح دنيا از من اعلميد Yes. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah for example was a political decision made by the Prophet (p) - even there we see many Muslims disagreed with the Prophet. This is well documented history and nothing strange. The treaty of Hudaybiyah falls under a Hukm Wilayee just like the treaty of Imam Hasan (a) with Mu'awiyah. Both of these treaties were being cited as justifications within Iran when it was trying to come up with a treaty with the United States and European countries. Some were using it to justify the talks, while others were saying the treaty cannot be used in the context Iran was in. Jawad Sulayman Amiri a historian and researcher from the seminary of Qom (he has some very good books worth reading: https://bookroom.ir/people/9944/جواد-سلیمانی-امیری) says - while critiquing those who were trying to use the treaties to justify talks with the United States (source): رسول خدا (ص) به علت مصلحت بزرگ‌تری ای موارد را پذیرفتند و در مقابل کفار در این موارد کوتاه آمدند. این اقدامات در اسلام وجود دارد، به شرطی که مصالح خیلی بزرگتری پس از آن باشد و این مصلحت اندیشی به یک حکم ولایی مانند رسول‌الله، امام معصوم و یا ولی فقیه نیاز دارد تا تشخیص دهد که آن موردی که باید روی آن نرمش نشان داد، چه موردی است در آن زمان رسول خدا (ص) و امام حسن (ع) چنین مصالحی را تشخیص دادند که اتخاذ آن تصمیمات موجب تعجب مسلمین و شیعیان شد، لذا ممکن است زمانی مقام معظم رهبری تصمیمی بگیرند، که برای برخی قابل هضم نباشد و آنها تعجب کنند The Prophet and Imams speak from different perspectives. When they speak as a legislator, a judge, a ruler, a father, a husband, etc. these are not all to be treated the same way under this principle of obedience. That's why Akhund Khorasani was saying the bare minimum that is obligatory to accept - as per the verses and traditions - is to listen to their political and religious commands, but it is not obligatory to obey them in general day to day matters, and you can make your own decisions without having committed a sin. Of course, that is exactly what I am saying and hence also concluding two infallible do not necessarily have to do the same tashkees in the exact same situation. As 'Allamah Tabataba'I says in his al-Mizan volume 4 (http://ar.lib.eshia.ir/12016/4/388) ولا ينبغي أن يرتاب في أن الله سبحانه لا يريد بإطاعته إلا إطاعته في ما يوحيه إلينا من طريق رسوله من المعارف والشرائع ، وأما رسوله صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآلهفله حيثيتان : إحداهما : حيثية التشريع بما يوحيه إليه ربه من غير كتاب ، وهو ما يبينه للناس من تفاصيل ما يشتمل على إجماله الكتاب وما يتعلق ويرتبط بها كما قال تعالى : ( وَأَنْزَلْنا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ ما نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ ) : ـ النحل ٤٤ ، والثانية : ما يراه من صواب الرأي وهو الذي يرتبط بولايته الحكومة والقضاء قال تعالى : ( لِتَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِما أَراكَ اللهُ ) : ـ النساء ١٠٥ ، وهذا هو الرأي الذي كان يحكم به على ظواهر قوانين القضاء بين الناس ، وهو الذي كان صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله يحكم به في عزائم الأمور ، وكان الله سبحانه أمره في اتخاذ الرأي بالمشاورة فقال : « وَشاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ فَإِذا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللهِ » آل عمران ١٥٩ ، فأشركهم به في المشاورة ووحده في العزم إذا عرفت هذا علمت أن لإطاعة الرسول معنى ولإطاعة الله سبحانه معنى آخر وإن كان إطاعة الرسول إطاعة لله بالحقيقة لأن الله هو المشرع لوجوب إطاعته كما قال : « وَما أَرْسَلْنا مِنْ رَسُولٍ إِلَّا لِيُطاعَ بِإِذْنِ اللهِ » فعلى الناس أن يطيعوا الرسول فيما يبينه بالوحي ، وفيما يراه من الرأي I do not see what the tradition contains that goes against anything I've said so far. This whole book presumes this principle, without really trying to prove it (it takes it for granted). If you do not accept this principle, the analysis in the book do not hold.
  3. Don't make this into a personal beef guys, and please don't drag me into it either - I have my views and arguments and I know they are not mainstream ideas (as of today anyways). Let's just have a good academic discussion on this forum for once.
  4. Yes one can be more right, but, obedience is to the one who is given authority at the time. Two Imams are not given the same authority at the same time. People are not following two Imams at one time. I am not discussing Mawlawi statements at all which are expressions of presenting the legal divine rules, and the issue of the Sulh is definitely not Mawlawi - Sulh is just a human contract. If he went against an amr mawlawi, particularly while knowing it's mawlawi, then that's an instance of sin. If he didn't think it's mawlawi or didn't know then that's also a different story. That sulh of Imam Hasan needs to be understood as a contract made by the Wali Amr and hence as a Hukm Wilayee who decided it was appropriate to get into such a contract with a transgressor at that time. One must obey the commands of the Wali Amr, even if they disagree. My point is simply that the idea that two infallibles necessarily would have done the same thing in each others position is not true especially when we have alibis to show they would disagree on some matters. The only thing we can claim is they would have presented the correct hukm, and even that, in some of its application it is not known they would have carried the hukm out the exact same way because of their tashkeesaat. If you really want to see this dilemma open up more you have to just look at the struggle our scholars have gone through to explain khums and why khums on arbah al-makasib (the most common khums the Shias pay today) is non-existent up until the later Imams while at the same time they believe it is a hukm mawlawi/shar'I.
  5. You are confusing two matters - one is the actual law (which I am not debating in the case of an infallible) and one is its application. For example, there is a law that says it is haram to shake hands with women - but under haraj you can do it. Now you and I may be in the same scenario, but due to my personality, my perception, my experiences, the extent of my knowledge, my psychological state or limitations, I may believe it is an instance of haraj, but you may be stronger than me, more daring, or may even have certain knowledge that I did not have to factor into my decision, or you have gone through certain experiences in life such that you would say this situation does not constitute haraj. Neither of us have done anything wrong, because applications like these are left upon us to begin with since they are dependent on you and your understanding of things. In another scenario, you may be in authority and while I disagree with your tashkees and may even try to convince you otherwise, I would still have to listen to you because of the authority you have been given. This is what we are arguing - why is it not possible for two Imams to disagree even if they were in the same situation, and what is the necessity for both of them to have done the exact same thing if they were in each others position. For example, in Islamic law, it may say it is prohibited to get into a Sulh with a transgressor who will usurp your rights, unless you are in a weakened position. Why is it not possible for Imam Hasan (a) to believe that they were definitely in a weakened position because of lack of support, whereas Imam Husayn (a) may have believed otherwise and that there is still a reason to fight Mu'awiyah and not get into a Sulh with him? These things need to be properly researched. Is it known that they were given the same extent of authority at the same time or not, is it known whether both of them were even Prophets at the exact same time or not and if so then at what point was the second made a Prophet and what impact did it have on the previous Prophet, did they even ever reach a level where they were able to execute their authority etc. Fardh al-Ta'lim or Irshad al-Jahil is in the case of hukm of Allah, not in tashkeesat. This is even the ruling today. For example in al-Kafi vol. 3: عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ عَنْ فَضَالَةَ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سِنَانٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ: اغْتَسَلَ أَبِي مِنَ الْجَنَابَةِ فَقِيلَ لَهُ قَدْ أَبْقَيْتَ لُمْعَةً فِي ظَهْرِكَ لَمْ يُصِبْهَا الْمَاءُ فَقَالَ لَهُ مَا كَانَ عَلَيْكَ لَوْ سَكَتَّ ثُمَّ مَسَحَ تِلْكَ اللُّمْعَةَ بِيَدِه‏ A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from Fadalah from ‘Abd Allah ibn Sinan who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said, ‘Once my father took Ghusl (bath) because of sexual relation. Someone said to him that water has not reached to a spot on his back. He said, “It was not necessary for you to inform me. (I wish) you sought to have remained quiet.” He then wiped that spot with his hand.’” Imam Husayn (a) never disobeyed Imam Hasan (a) - he had a disagreement. A disagreement does not mean disobedience.
  6. Islamic law itself, let alone its application, has primarily always been based off of apparent law and hujjiyyah as applications are always going to be tied down to one's personal knowledge and experience, and hence it is not based on whether it is in concordance with reality and correctness. Now while we cannot say that for the Imams the Islamic law was also just apparent law (like we can in the case of a jurist), but we can still make the argument for its application. For example, when two witnesses come to Imam Ali (a) testifying that a certain person had stolen, the Imam (a) asked for the hadd to be executed on his hands, only for the same two witnesses to come and say they erred. He knew the law (in fact mainstream tashayyu' today might even argue he even knew the truth as he has knowledge of unseen), but its application was based on limitations that one has at their disposal. The Imam's (a) decision was nothing but a reliance on the social conventions of accepting the testimony of believers which is speculation and the requirement of society to accept the verdict of the judge, even though the decision was not in accordance with reality - this is perfectly normal: عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ حُمَيْدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع قَالَ: قَضَى أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع فِي رَجُلٍ شَهِدَ عَلَيْهِ رَجُلَانِ بِأَنَّهُ سَرَقَ فَقُطِعَتْ يَدُهُ حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ جَاءَ الشَّاهِدَانِ بِرَجُلٍ آخَرَ فَقَالا هَذَا السَّارِقُ وَ لَيْسَ الَّذِي قُطِعَتْ يَدُهُ وَ إِنَّمَا شَبَّهْنَا ذَلِكَ بِهَذَا فَقَضَى عَلَيْهِمَا أَنَّ غُرْمَهُمَا نِصْفُ الدِّيَةِ وَ لَمْ يُجِزْ شَهَادَتَهُمَا عَلَى الْآخَرِ I also shared a few other traditions previously on the subject of marriage where there was clear difference of opinion on application and preferences. No such example exists where both Prophets (p) were granted the same extent of authority at the same time. It is obvious Imam Hasan's (a) decision on the Sulh was a Hukm Wilayee which he thought was the best course of action and it needs to be accepted by the people - it has nothing to do with divine legislation, rather it is a political decision. However there is nothing that says that people around the Wali Amr cannot advise them and give them suggestions or ask them to consult others in their decision making process or to get them to change their decision. As per those historical reports, Imam Husayn (a) clearly did not agree with Imam Hasan's (a) decision initially and tries to convince him otherwise, and is left frustrated and angry initially, only to have his own mind and decision changed. He never rebelled against the decision that it would constitute as a sin and transgression for going against the Wali Amr, he was simply in disagreement with Imam Hasan (a).
  7. The Prophet and Imams know of the hukm - through whatever means - that is tantamount to being the nass. There is a second step in which they have to carry out that hukm and that is what I am saying can be left to ijtihad and there is no issue with that. Our ijtihad is foremost in actually deriving the hukm from the extant nusus - we do not even know what the hukm is. It is not always wajib, but on many occasions it can be required to do so because that is how human life remains in harmony and without chaos when we follow certain social conventions. For example, the tashkees of a Wali Amr has to be followed, even though it is based on ijtihad and often times speculation, or the verdicts of a judge which are usually based on speculative evidence at best and so on. That has not really been proven for me personally. Well for starters, it is not obvious that the command was mawlawi, and even if it was, it is not known Imam Husayn (a) understood it that way initially. Finally, Imam Husayn (a) ended up accepting it anyways once he understood he was in the wrong and that he should listen to his brother who is the one vested with authority. It may have been a moment of anger and frustration for Imam Husayn (a) and he reacted that way - hence we are trying to make the point that Imams were different personalities, they could react and do things differently even in same situations and scenarios. There is nothing problematic with that. You are presuming every single instance of our life has to be some how vested in something Divine written on the Tablet or something, and not just that there are some portions of our life which are rooted in Divine legislation, while others are rooted in general divine guiding principles, while also there being a huge chunk of emptiness left for human endeavor. My point is that they could differ in the tashkees of these very 'anaween themselves even given the same context, because each of them is still limited by their human experiences and understandings - and they could be perceiving things differently. This is a very common human phenomenon and to take that away from the Imams (a) requires very strong evidence. This is very common in Islamic law and as well as social conventions. It is necessary to follow certain individuals who have been granted certain types of authority and their words or decisions are simply hujjah upon us, like the commands of the Wali Amr, the Qadhi, the Faqih etc. who make many decisions based on their intellect. You need to explain what you mean by complete and perfect. If your understanding of perfection is that there needs to be an actual law legislated by God for every single instance of our life, then - as obvious as this sounds to a Muslim - you still need to prove this, and quite frankly, I do not believe in such a comprehensive view of religion and neither do our religious texts contain such sort of comprehensiveness. Fair enough if you do not have an issue with it, neither do I, but that is definitely not what mainstream Tashayyu' would agree with today.
  8. Interesting view of Akhund Khorasani regarding the extent people have to obey the Imams: بقي الكلام في انّه، هل يجب على النّاس اتّباع أوامر الإمام (عليه السلام) و الانتهاء بنواهيه مطلقا و لو في غير السياسيات، و غير الأحكام، من الأمور العادية، أو يختصّ بما كان متعلّقا بهما؟! فيه اشكال، و القدر المتيقن من الآيات و الرّوايات، وجوب الإطاعة في خصوص ما صدر‌ منهم، من جهة النّبوة و الإمامة http://ar.lib.eshia.ir/13025/1/93
  9. Why not? It has been 14 centuries since Islam is being applied through ijtihadat of the companions and jurists, and this can be traced back to the time of the infallibles themselves. There is nothing strange about it and in fact it is the method that is recognized by the infallibles themselves so I do not see why it would become strange if a Prophet or Imam had to do the same thing. The one who has authority at any given time and only if the command is a hukm shar'I or wilayi - not if it is irshadi (apparently, as per what was being said above). It can be, as in rationally it can be, the intellect does not see any impossibility in it, but at this time the onus is on one making the claim to prove whether such a thing also occurs or not, and if so, whether it occurs all the time or only sometimes in some cases where we can prove it, or it does not occur at all because there is no evidence for it. What is problematic about it? Let us exactly define tashri' so we know what we are talking about. In this discussion I understand tashri' as simply the knowledge of a hukm and I do not see how that has anything to do with its application. Some tashri'at include the application within them, for example how to pray or how to do Hajj, but there are many tashri'at that do not mention anything about their application or their applications rely on secondary 'unaween which rely on individual tashkeesat and these can differ based on personal experiences and limitations that each individual has in their own lives as a material existent. Why not because it was left to human endeavor and experience, and that human perfection lies in figuring out the best way to carry it out? Is that so far fetched? Wasalam
  10. What's wrong with that? They are not doing ijtihad in deriving the hukm, just its application. The latter can definitely be inspired, but you need to theologically establish that this was the case for every single decision the Prophet (p) or Imams (a) made - there is no concrete rational evidence for it so you'll have to resort to the traditions to establish it. In that case, if an Imam (a) gives an Irshadi command to you (which we have many such reports on), there is no necessity on you to follow it as the Shari'ah and there should be no reason to condemn such a person. Like in the case of Kulayni's uncle 'Allan al-Razi who is from the 'iddatun min ashabina and Najashi says he is thiqa, yet he refused to listen to Imam Mahdi (a) when the Imam told him not to go to Hajj and was killed: قتل علان بطريق مكة و كان استأذن الصاحب عليه السلام في الحج فخرج: توقف عنه في هذه السنة فخالف‏ He was killed on his way to Makkah. He had sought the permission of the Imam (a) regarding whether he should go to Ḥajj. The response came, ‘Do not go to it this year.’ However, he went against it. Scholars have explained this away as him going against a hukm irshadi of the Imam, because if it was mawlawi it would have been an instance of sin. Wasalam
  11. So then the principle that "all Imams would do the same thing if they were in each other's position" is no longer universal, and all we should say is that they would present the same general legislative hukm for any given situation if they were in each other's position, but not necessarily have an agreement in the tashkees of how to go about implementing and carrying out that hukm, neither the tashkees of whether a certain hukm is applicable at that time (for example, one may believe the hukm is applicable, while the latter may believe there is some 'unwan thanawi which prevents that hukm from being applied at that time - such as Imam Hasan assuming Sulh is fine, whereas Imam Husayn assuming Sulh is not fine), and finally, neither in irshadi matters which can be judged by the intellect alone (I.e. they can even differ in that and perhaps not make the best of decisions - and this usually goes back to tashkees). The above conclusion is not mainstream Shi'I opinion.
  12. Just some traditions where a difference of opinion amongst the Imams (a) is apparently reflected (there are a few more I can think of as well, but I do not have time to translate them) - Shi'I scholars have generally tried to explain these away through different types of ta'weel due to their presumptions about 'Ismah: 1) Al-Kafi and other works: Abu ‘Abd Allah (a) has said, ‘I once visited Abu Ja‘far (a) and said, ‘I like to give a certain amount of asset to so and so to buy for me certain goods from Yemen.’ He (Imam Baqir) said, ‘Do you not know that he drinks wine?’ I (Imam Sadiq) replied, ‘I have heard from believing people who say so.’ He (al-Baqir) said to me, ‘You must believe them because Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, says, “. . . he believes in Allah and in the believing people.”’ He (al-Baqir) then said, ‘If you give a certain amount of assets and it is destroyed or lost, you will not have any reward or compensation for it with Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious'.' But I (al-Sadiq) gave him my assets and he lost it, and then prayed to Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, for reward. He (al-Baqir) said, ‘Never, my son, Allah will not reward you or compensate you for such loss.’ He (al-Sadiq) has said, ‘I asked him, ‘Why is it so?’ He (al-Baqir) said to me, ‘Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, says, “Do not give to the dimwitted ones your assets which Allah has given you for your sustenance,” (4:5) do you see anyone more dimwitted than a wine drinker?’ He (al-Sadiq) has said that he (al-Baqir) then said, ‘A servant has a chance before Allah, until he drinks wine. When he drinks wine Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, tears down his covering, then Satan, may Allah condemn him, becomes his guardian and brother, his ears, his eyes, his hands, his legs and he drives him to all misguidance and turns him away from all good things.’” In this report Imam Sadiq (a) goes against the command of Imam Baqir (a) and loses his assets. Because of the presumption of 'ismah the scholars have said this command was Irshadi (not Mawlawi) - Irshadi means it is something the intellect itself can ascertain and determine but it is not shar'an obligatory or even recommended to follow (such as, do not trust a liar, it is only intellectually good to abide by this judgement), whereas Mawlawi commands are legislative. As such, Majlisi writes: ثم لما كان النهي إرشاديا مخالفته لا تنافي العصمة They do not realize that such an explanation makes the situation even worse since you are then saying that the Imam (a) couldn't realize with his intellect what is the better thing to do and that even if he did, he did not abide by his intellectual judgement. ---- 2) Al-Kafi: Muhammad ibn al-Husayn has narrated from Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Ahmar from ‘Abd Allah ibn Hammad Khattab ibn Salmah who has said the following: “I had a wife who believed (in the divine authority of ‘A’immah) and so also was her father, but she had very bad moral behaviors and I did not like to divorce her because of her belief and the belief of her father. I met Abu al-Hassan, Musa, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, and I wanted to ask him (the Imam) if divorcing her is proper saying, ‘I pray to Allah to keep my soul in service for your cause, I need an answer to a question and I like to ask you.’ He (the Imam) said, ‘Come tomorrow at the time of al-Zuhr Salat (prayer). He (the narrator) has said, ‘After performing al-Zuhr Salat (prayer) I went to see him (the Imam) and I found that he (the Imam) had completed his Salat (prayer) and he was sitting. I went inside and sat in front of him (the Imam). He (the Imam) initiated speaking to me and said, ‘O Khattab, my father made me marry a daughter of my uncle and her moral behaviors were very bad. My father sometimes would close the door on both of us in the hope that I may meet her, instead of climbing the wall to run away. When my father passed away I divorced her.’ I (the narrator) then said to myself, ‘Allah is Greater than can be described, He (the Imam) has answered my question before I could even ask him (the Imam).’” ------------ 3) Al-Kafi: Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn Faddal from ibn Bukayr from Zurarah who has said the following: “Abu Ja‘far said to me, ‘I wanted to marry a woman but my father disliked it. I went and married her and afterwards I went to see her. I looked at her and did not see anything attractive to me. I stood up to leave but her guard with her went to the door to close it on me. I told her not to do so and she could have what she wanted. When I returned home to my father and informed him about it, he said, ‘You only owe to her half of the mahr (dower).’ He said, ‘You married her during a hot hour.’” This tradition shows Imam Baqir (a) marrying a woman who his father (Imam Sajjad) disliked, and on top of that Imam Baqir (a) did not even seem to know the rule for mahr at the time. In addition, the chapter in which this hadith appears is about when it is a good time to get married and that this tradition is showing the reason why this marriage failed is because the Imam married this woman during a hot season. Once again some have tried to say the dislike was Irshadi, not Mawlawi, or that Imam Baqir (a) was doing taqiyyah in his presumption about the ruling of having to give the full mahr since some Sunni jurists would say if you take your clothes off and lock the door, the full mahr is established. ------------ 4) There is room to contemplate over the many, many traditions in Shi'I and Sunni books regarding Imam Ali (a) discouraging people from getting their daughters married to Imam Hasan (a) because of his many divorces. Shi'a scholars through-out history have tried many ways to explain these traditions, even to the extent that one scholar says Imam Hasan (a) was playing the role of a muhallil. Unfortunately, this principle of "each Imam would do the same thing" is not discussed in classical theology and you will not really find a comprehensive academic discussion of it anywhere. Wasalam
  13. There is nothing to respond to, they will end up opening a can of worms for themselves, especially when you start digging deeper. Until then they can keep doing taqiyyah and telling people they are in an 'ahd .
×
×
  • Create New...