Jump to content

Follower of Ahlulbayt

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Follower of Ahlulbayt

  1. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Are there 13 Imams in Shi'ism?

    What we also have to consider when looking at these narrations is riwaya bil ma'na. Basically this means that a narrator would not transmit a hadith by the exact wording of the Imam. The Imams permitted narrators to transmit a narration by adding words, subtracting words, using different words than the Imams did, all with the condition that the meaning of the hadith does not change. In light of this, I have a few reasons as to why we have some narrations which suggest that there are 13 Imams. 1) We have an authentic hadith which states that that the meaning of العتره (Prophet's progeny) mentioned in hadith al-thaqalayn is Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, Imam Hussain and the nine sons of Hussain (a). A possible explanation for the ahadith that suggest 13 Imams could be that the Prophet (s)/Imam (a) never said من ولدي اثنا عشر , but rather said, من عترتي (which would make sense because in the hadith of al-thaqalayn Imam Ali clearly says he is from the 'itra of the Prophet), however the narrator changed the wording to من ولدي. 2) Or we could say that the Prophet/Imam never mentioned the words ولدي in the hadith, however the narrator wanted to emphasise the fact that the successors of the Prophet (s) are (mostly) from his descendants, so he added the words, which is permissible. However, in doing so, he did not realise that the hadith suggested that there were 13 Imams, instead of 12. 3) Or the Prophet/Imam did use the word ولدي, but the narrator added the number 12. Again, this is permissible, but the narrator did not realise that this would mean 13 Imams. There are also other explanations such as the fact that these ahadith have scribal errors. Because we have so many narrations which suggest 12 Imams, and the fact that (to my knowledge) there was never a sect which called to 13 Imams, I think we can safely conclude that these narrations are most likely the result of mistakes from the transmitters.
  2. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Reliability of Shia Hadith Tradition

    There are a number of incorrect statements made in the video. First, we do not believe all the companions became kuffar except for three. Here is an article by Islamic Salvation discussing the matter. Some key points that we raise against their books were never addressed in the video. For example, the fact that the Sunni hadith corpus mainly relies on a handful of companions whose 'adalah are not established. Yeah, maybe they were contemporaries, but that doesn't prove that they are reliable and the fact that everything they attributed to the Prophet (s) is correct. Also, the individual in the video makes it seem as all Sunni hadith critics are objective in their gradings of narrators and the Shia hadith critics are all bias. When you delve into the discussion, the point that Sunni hadith critics were objective is simply not true. For example, you have Sunni Hadith critics that weaken Jabir b. Yazid al-Ju'fi simply because he believed in raj'a. Not that he had weak memory. Or that he made mistakes. They weaken him simply because of the fact that had a belief which they did not like. That is not "objectivity". Also, there is a famous Ahl al-Hadith principle (which ibn Hibban claims that there was a consensus on) that if an innovator narrates things which agree with his innovations, then he is rejected, but if the innovator narrates things which don't agree with his innovations, then he is accepted. So if a narrator was trustworthy, had good memory etc., but he narrated things which disagreed with the 'Sunni' position, he is suddenly a liar. That is not "objectivity". Also the fact that if someone was seen cursing Abu Bakr and Umar and if he had extreme Rafd, then he would be rejected by the Sunni scholars even if he was trustworthy, had a good memory etc., because being a Rafidhi was seen as a sin and your 'adalah would go down the drain. Sounds like some bias "objectivity". For more on the bias of the Sunni Hadith critics: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235015707-response-to-narrator-criticism-in-Sunni-rijal/ https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235017635-jabir-ibn-yazid-al-jufi/ As for the reliability of our literature, then the best way to prove this is by looking at history. These comments are quite insightful: Brother @Qa'im presents 50 thiqa Shi'I Rafidhi narrators from al-Kafi and Kamal al-deen, then he writes
  3. Does anyone know of any good works that refute the paper "From Imāmiyya to Ithnā-ashariyya" by Etan Kohlberg?
  4. Salam everyone, I just wanted to ask for references to scholars who have held the view that the Prophets and Imams can make mistakes in matters not pertaining to the religion.
  5. Salam, Today I will be arguing for the reliability of the following hadith: Cursed cursed is the one who oppresses my daughter, Fatima (s), and usurps her right and kills her! (Kanzul Fawa'id, Vol.1, Pg. 150) ملعون ملعون من يظلم بعدي فاطمة ابنتي ويغصبها حقها ويقتلها The chain of the hadith is as follows: ومما حدثنا به الشيخ الفقيه أبو الحسن بن شاذان رحمه الله قال حدثني أبي رضي الله عنه قال حدثنا ابن الوليد محمد بن الحسن قال حدثنا الصفار محمد بن الحسين قال حدثنا محمد بن زياد عن مفضل بن عمر عن يونس بن يعقوب رضي الله عنه قال سمعت الصادق جعفر بن محمد عليهما The only person in this chain who can be criticised is Mufadhal b. Umar. A summary of Mufadhal's verdict amongst our rijal scholars can be seen here. Additionally, brother Islamic Salvation has summed up the issue quite well here. I recommend everyone to read these before continuing here. Basically, Mufadhal seems to have deviated by becoming a Khattabi that called to Ismail. This is also supported by the fact that in one report (589) he seems to view Fajr as non-obligatory, which is a massive indicator that he was a Khattabi, considering that the Khatabiyya were anti-nomian. However, there is clear indications that Mufadhal returned to the truth and disassociated from the Khatabiyya. The conclusion is that if Mufadhal reported something during deviance, it cannot be relied upon. If he reported something outside of his deviance, it would be deemed reliable. Now the question is, can we prove that Mufadhal narrated this report outside his period of deviance? I believe we can, here are the reasons: 1) The main narrator of this report, Yunus b. Ya'qub, a companion of Imam al-Sadiq (a), was ordered by the Imam to send salams to Mufadhal after the passing of Ismail, which was when Mufadhal returned. I feel as though Yunus would not have narrated this highly sensitive report to someone who was a Khattabi who called to Ismail. I feel as though it only makes sense that Yunus would transmit this sensitive hadith to Mufadhal only once he had certainty that he could trust Mufadhal and that Mufadhal returned to the truth. I believe Yunus most likely transmitted this hadith to Mufadhal after he was commanded by the Imam to send salams to Mufadhal, which is when Mufadhal returned to the truth. 2) The content of the narration itself contains several points that go in complete contradiction to the practises of the Khatabiyya. Al-Nawbakhti mentions "One sect (from the Khatabiyya) said that Abu Abdullah, Ja'far b. Muhammed, is Allah, the Exalted - Allah is certainly above that. They permitted, unlawful conduct, like adultery, stealing, and intoxication. They also cancelled the alms, prayers, fasting, and the Hajj, and allowed pleasures for each other....They said, "Whoever knows the Prophet-Imam can do as he pleases." However we read in the narration ملعون ملعون حامل للقرآن مصر على شرب الخمر (Cursed cursed is the one who carries the Holy Qur'aan and insists on drinking intoxicants!). The narration also states ملعون من قال الايمان قول بلا عمل ( Cursed cursed is the one who says that faith is only speech without action!) These two statement make it clear that Mufadhal transmitted this narration when he was not a Khattabi. Why? Because, the narration is cursing those that think Islam is just about believing, and not doing good deeds. This is in complete contradiction to Mufadhal's former beliefs and former school, the Khatabiyya. 3) I believe the person that receives this report from Mufadhal (Muhammed b. Ziyad) is in fact Muhammed b. Abi Umayr, from the ashaab al-Ijmaa. Few scholars have stated that whatever authentically reaches b. Abi Umayr, will be considered authentic. However I will be arguing that someone like b. Abi Umayr, a highly thiqah companion of the Imams, would not receive this narration from Mufadhal if he was still on deviance and if he was still considered a kafir mushrik by the Imams. In light of narrations where Imam al-Kadhim relies and praises Mufadhal, I think it makes more sense to conclude that b. Abi Umayr received this narration from Mufadhal when he was on mustaqeem. So it has been proven that it is more likely that this narration was transmitted by Mufadhal when he was not a Khattabi and when he was on truth. The narration will therefore be considered reliable. Wallahu 'Alam.
  6. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Martyrdom of al-Zahra- Authentic chain

    Because he could exaggerate things
  7. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Ignorance and Perfection

    I do not think it is correct to say that the Ahl al-Bayt have access to all knowledge. This, in affect, is like saying they have the ability to becoming all-knowing. We have explicit hadith that mention how only Allah knows certain things: الكافي: محمد بن إسماعيل، عن الفضل بن شاذان، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن ربعي بن عبدالله، عن الفضيل بن يسار قال: سمعت أبا جعفر عليه السلام يقول: العلم علمان: فعلم عند الله مخزون لم يطلع عليه أحدا من خلقه وعلم علمه وملائكته ورسله، فما علمه ملائكته ورسله فإنه سيكون، لا يكذب نفسه ولا ملائكته ولا رسله، وعلم عنده مخزون يقدم منه ما يشاء، ويؤخر منه ما يشاء، ويثبت ما يشاء [10/368] al-Kafi: Muhammad b. Ismail from al-Fadhl b. Shadhan from Hammad b. Isa from Rib’I b. Abdallah from al-Fudhayl b. Yasar who said: I heard Aba Ja’far عليه السلامsaying: Knowledge is of two kinds. A knowledge with Allah which is hidden. No one has seen into it among his creation. And a knowledge which He taught His angels and messengers. So as for that which He taught His angels and messengers then it must occur. He does not belie Himself, nor His angels, nor His messengers. As for the the hidden knowledge with Him then He brings forward from it what He wills and puts back from it what He wills, and He establishes what He wills. الكافي: عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن ابن ابي عمير، عن جعفر ابن عثمان، عن سماعة، عن ابي بصير، ووهيب بن حفص، عن ابي بصير، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إن لله علمين: علم مكنون مخزون، لا يعلمه إلا هو، من ذلك يكون البداء وعلم علمه ملائكته ورسله وأنبياءه فنحن نعلمه [5/363] al-Kafi: A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from Ibn Abi Umayr from Ja’far b. Uthman from Sama’a from Abi Basir (and Wuhayb b. Hafs from Abi Basir) from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: Allah has two kinds of knowledge. A knowledge which is hidden and stored-up. No one knows it but Him. From that does Bada’ happen. And a knowledge which He taught His angels, messengers and Prophets. So we too do know it. I think the correct way to explain those ahadith about the Imams knowing ('what was, and what will be and what won't be until the day of judgement') are that they are referring to Islamic rulings. Shaykh al-Mufid said that the only consensus amongst the Imamiyya is that the Imams have all knowledge of the rulings, but not everything.
  8. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Necessity of hijab

    Interesting. From the top of my head, the only way to prove the infallibility of Fatima (s) is with Ayat tatheer/Hadith al-Kisa. Or are there other texts which can be used to establish her infallibility?
  9. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    Salam, What is the Shia definition of Shirk? I believe Shirk is giving any thing other than Allah the attributes which are unique to Allah. I understand Shirk to be rationally impossible. However, some have defined Shirk as worshipping other than Allah. What is worship? Well, according to the earliest linguists, worship is defined as extreme humility and submissiveness. Although, i do not see how extreme humility and submissiveness to other than Allah can be Shirk, as it is not rationally impossible for one to have extreme humility to other than Allah. So how do we define Shirk and how do we define worship?
  10. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    Ok so you have stated that is possible for Allah to create a lessor God that has independent powers. This is not correct. al-Samad, is a unique attribute of Allah. Everything depends upon him, and he depends on nothing. By saying Allah can create another lesser God which has independent powers, you have by default, also said that Allah can create another lesser God which is all-knowing, or all-powerful etc. An independent being is synonymous with a Necessary being. It is a irrational impossibility to have two Necessary beings. Again, I would say a "lesser God" which is dependent on Allah and has no unique attributes of Allah, is not any type of God. The Imams and Prophets were dependent on Allah, and had no unique attribute of Allah. I think a better word for a "lesser God" would be a superhuman. Yes, I knew the verse was talking about idols. And I agree with you, idols are made and cannot have independent power. I disagree with your interpretation of the verse. If Allah meant that, then he would have said the verse differently. He would have said something along the lines of "we did not give the idols the permission to intercede". However, the verse rather says that they have taken besides Allah intercessors. Meaning, they didn't believe the intercessors were interceding by the permission of Allah, they believed they were interceding independently of Allah. I'm saying if they believed their idols did not have any unique attributes of Allah, meaning that they also believed that their idols were dependent, then this would not be alright, but yes, it wouldn't be polytheism. Otherwise, we would have to have another definition of Shirk, which is what I am asking for. When Allah says they took "partners with Allah", I don't understand how you don't see this as explicit proof that the idol worshippers of Quraysh made their idols equal and independent of Allah. As in what is a partner? From Lanes Lexicon: If the idol worshippers believed that their idols were not equal with Allah, dependent on Allah and having none of the unique attributes of Allah, then how would this constitute as a "partner" to Allah? The other verses you mentioned can be explained. The idol worshippers rationally conceived that their could only be one ultimate being, the creator of the heavens and earth. But, because of their desires and blind following of their ancestors, they believed that their idols were independent of Allah. If you say otherwise, then why would Allah command to the Prophet (saw) to preach Surah al-Tawheed? Why would Allah command the Prophet (saw) to say اَللّٰهُ الصَّمَدُ, if the idol worshippers already believed that Allah has no equals and nothing besides Allah was independent?
  11. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    Brother your inconsistencies are showing and I think its just best to admit you were wrong. Multiple equal Gods is not possible. No one can prove that it is possible. No Christian can prove that multiple equal Gods is possible. So if it is impossible, is the punishment for it also impossible?
  12. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    Yes, this is what I meant, . I understand people can believe impossibilities such as multiple Gods, but it is rationally impossible for there to be multiple Gods. I was responding to the brother based on other things he has said in the discussion. He said that "If you understand shirk is "rationally impossible", that would mean that the punishment against Shirk is irrational".
  13. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    Would you agree that this belief and claim is rationally impossible
  14. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    So you have admitted that multiple Gods is rationally impossible. So according to your logic, the punishment for someone believing in multiple Gods is rationally impossible.
  15. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    Yes i meant the attributes of essence. By independent, I mean that their Gods had powers without the will of Allah. Again, what do you mean by lesser God? If this "lesser God" has no unique attribute of Allah, and is dependent on Allah, then I don't think that we can consider this any type of God. This is the case with the Imams (a). They were created, did not have any unique attribute of Allah, and were dependent on Allah. And then you mention worship, as I mentioned, this needs to also have a clear definition. Do you agree that it is rationally impossible for there to be two equal Gods, or for Allah to create a "lesser God", that has independent powers? As for praying, then I would think by definition prayer means to believe that the one you pray to is independent. Otherwise again, we must define what prayer is. Does prayer mean doing the actions of prayer such as sujood? Because, the children of Ya'qub prostrated to Yusuf (a), and we can be sure that this can't be shirk. I was referring more to dua. Calling to someone for help, believing that they are dependent on Allah, is not Shirk. However, calling on someone believing that they are independent of Allah, is Shirk. As for the idolaters of Quraysh, I don't think it is correct to say that they believed their idols were dependent on Allah. If you read the Qur'an holistically, you will find that they definitely believed their idols were independent of Allah. Examples: Or have they taken other than Allah as intercessors? Say, "Even though they do not possess [power over] anything, nor do they reason?" (39:43) From this verse, we can see that instead of taking the idols as dependent of Allah and being able to intercede by the permission of Allah (bi idhnillah), they took the idols as independent of Allah and that they could intercede beside Allah (min dunillah). We see not with you your intercessors whom you claimed to be partners with Allah. (6:94) From this verse, we can deduce that they believed their idols had independent powers, and made them equal partners with Allah. Sayyid ‘Abbas Sayyid Karimi has found eighteen proofs from the Qur'an to establish that the pagans of Quraysh believed their idols were independent of Allah.
  16. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    I know, people can believe in rational impossibilities if they want. But that is not what I meant. What I meant was the belief itself. Do you think that the belief of their being multiple possible Gods is possible?
  17. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    So do you think that believing in mutiple equal Gods is possible then? Of course it isn’t. How does a belief being rationally impossible have anything to do with the punishment for that belief being rationally impossible? I don’t see the link.
  18. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    What do you mean by lesser deities? Do these lesser deities have the attributes of Allah? Are they independent of Allah? As believing in a deity that is limited but also independent of Allah is also a rational impossibility. You would have to define what you mean by praying, slaughtering and doing dua to other than Allah. As in if you do any of these things, believing that the one you are doing these things for is independent of Allah, then this is a rational impossibility.
  19. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Definition of Shirk

    As Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى explains: “Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah , they both would have been ruined.” (21:22) There are many reasons why a multiplicity of Gods is rationally impossible such as the argument of coneceptual differentiation and others
  20. According to this Shaykh at, 3:55, he says that the particle لِ does not come before verbs.
  21. so the verse إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ ٱللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ does not have لام التعليل? We can say it has ان مصدرية
  22. Does Classical Theism agree with Shiism? As in, does Shiism agree with the doctrines of divine simplicity and the doctrine of divine conservation. Also, is the classical theistic conception of God as Pure Actuality, non-composite, and absolutely simple, and Subsistent Being itself, compatible with the Shia conception of Tawheed?
  23. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Syed al-Khoei quote

    Salam, I got this quote from here. Can someone find the arabic for this quote, especially the part bolded.
  24. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Syed al-Khoei quote

    I understand the famous statement that the Imams have control over all atoms, and this cannot be shirk because the number of atoms is limited. But what about if we say that the Imams have control over all creation. How is that not making the Imams equal with Allah? And how can they have power over all creation, if they themselves are creation? Also, if we assume that the Imams have al-Wilayah al-Takwiniyyah and it is less than Allah's, can we name some things which Allah can do, which the Imams cannot.
  25. Follower of Ahlulbayt

    Grammar Questions Ayat Tatheer

    Salam, I have a couple questions regarding ayat tatheer First: اِنَّمَا يُرِيۡدُ اللّٰهُ لِيُذۡهِبَ عَنۡكُمُ الرِّجۡسَ اَهۡلَ الۡبَيۡتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمۡ تَطۡهِيۡرًا When it says "Allah only intends to keep away al-rijs...." how do understand this? Surely, Allah intends other things besides purifying Ahl al-Bayt? How can we accept that Allah intends nothing else except purifying Ahlulbayt? Second: اِنَّمَا يُرِيۡدُ اللّٰهُ لِيُذۡهِبَ عَنۡكُمُ الرِّجۡسَ اَهۡلَ الۡبَيۡتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمۡ تَطۡهِيۡرًا In the verse, it says "keep away impurities" (Li Yudh Hiba 'Ankum). We know here from the usage of 'Ankum and not minkum, that the incorrect understanding is that impurity was on Ahl al-bayt, then removed. Rather, no impurity was on Ahl al-bayt to begin with, and that the impurities were being kept away. However in this verse (Surah 8:11): اِذۡ يُغَشِّيۡكُمُ النُّعَاسَ اَمَنَةً مِّنۡهُ وَيُنَزِّلُ عَلَيۡكُمۡ مِّنَ السَّمَآءِ مَآءً لِّيُطَهِّرَكُمۡ بِهٖ وَيُذۡهِبَ عَنۡكُمۡ رِجۡزَ الشَّيۡطٰنِ وَلِيَرۡبِطَ عَلٰى قُلُوۡبِكُمۡ وَيُثَبِّتَ بِهِ الۡاَقۡدَامَؕ‏ Allah uses Yudh Hiba 'Ankum. However, it makes no sense to translate this verse as "keep away", because we know from the context of this verse that najasah was already on the companions, and Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى was removing the najasah off them. So in this verse, although it has nearly the exact wording of ayat tatheer, Yudh Hiba 'Ankum means remove, and not keep away. What are the grammatical differences in these two verses that can explain why ayat tatheer means "keep away" and this verse means "remove".