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

Ar.alhindi

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ar.alhindi

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Private

Recent Profile Visitors

441 profile views
  1. Marrying a Shi'i is generally not permissible in Sunni Fiqh - this this the consensus of every Madhab.
  2. JazakAllahu Khairan I think you are the only person who has bothered to address my question rather than making indirect attacks at Sunnism, so thank you. I agree
  3. It has nothing to do with my arguments here - it was a very obvious lie that was presented by this Twelver Da'wah group in question (which any rational person could agree with Sunni or Shia) that I called out, and they blocked me from commenting on their YouTube channel on 3 seperate accounts posting a very simple refutation (since it was a very obvious lie), and kept only anti-Sunnism comments. They had the cheek to also post that "any comments not related to the video will be removed"; when you comment about the video, unless it supports underminding Sunni Islam, it is removed. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't care, but since it is actually a known team, I expected better.
  4. Circular argument - how did you authenticate the hadith regarding the authentication methods?
  5. I think I made a thread about this but I don't remember: how can one trust Allama Majlisi's gradings if he himself believed in Tahreef of the Qur'an? Surely that means he believed those Hadith to authentic, so why should one selectively trust his gradings? Of course scholars make mistakes, but this wouldn't be an isolated Hadith we are talking about, since there are numerous on the matter of Tahreef...
  6. I swear by Allah I am not lying and I am telling the truth regarding this - it is Ramadhan and I am fasting and do not intend to sin. I do have a screenshoted example however last time I made a thread about this particular organisation and named them and the individuals, it was hidden from public view because it involved exposing that one/two of their members used a Sunni they were trying to convert for Mu'tah which would obviously reflect badly on Twelver Da'wah, so I have not shared it yet as it would name them and risk getting deleted by the mods here.
  7. Not quite - he often makes weak arguments
  8. In Twelver Shi'ism, is it allowed to use arguments one knows to be weak, deleting valid and unbiased refutations of arguments in comments sections of videos or imply that other beliefs have a fault in something that they themselves believe in order to incline the other person to Twelverism? The reason I ask is because there is a particular "Da'wah" or polemical group which I have witnessed do this time and again, so I am left asking the question: is this something which is a valid form of Da'wah according to Twelver scholars or does it simply mean that Twelverism cannot stand on its own two legs without having to deceive ignorant Sunnis?
  9. Seeing stuff like this makes me feel sick. The Qur'an clearly says that ALLAH's names are the best names - Surat Al Hashr has the most names of Allah listed in the whole of the Qur'an, and in the midst of listing His names, he says "SubhanAllahi Amma Yushrikoon" - Exaulted is Allah above what they associate with Him - and after listing His names, He ends it with "Lahul Asmaa'ul Husna" - to HIM are the best names. It cannot get any clearer than this; I cannot fathom how it does not assault the Fitrah of any Muwahid to read such a Shirki Tafsir of that statement (and this is not an attack on you but Wallahi wake up my dear brother from this before it drags you into the fire, Wallah)
  10. Hadith were still collected, written and narrated by the Sahabah during their times, and there are numerous hadith indicating this; from what I have seen, Hadith indicating prohibition or destruction during the times of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan are much fewer in number and have weak/disconnected chains. This claim is only prevalent amongst the Shia but holds no weight otherwise - you can find articles regarding this topic online and there are extensive refutations to this claim out there, but it is suffice to say that it is not accurate at all; the most that could be argued on the basis of some other Hadith is that at times the narrating of Hadith was restricted for specific reasons, but it was never forbidden, nor were Hadith books burnt (as is believed as per the claims made by Shia). Arguably that can be said about any compiler - Sunni or Shia - so it is redundant. My point - which is to be objective - is that there are much different sources and compilers of Hadith which corroborate in the Sunni corpus compared to the Shia corpus. As mentioned, if say 1 Shia compiler was unreliable, then it is possible that say 2/20 collections have become discredited as there were less Shia collectors and they wrote multiple collections; if we compare that to say a Sunni Muhadith, 1/40 or 2/40 collections have been discredited (assuming Shia have 20 books and Sunnis have 40, though I think Sunnis may have more than that). Doing the maths, obviously from an objective standpoint, there is considerably less risk here in adopting the Sunni corpus.
  11. Respectfully this is an irrelevant point because my post precisely does give attention to chains of narrators - Ilmul Rijaal, clear and consistent methods of authenticating Hadith and varriations of chains from companions, wives and Ahlul Bayt (all direct witnesses of early Islam*) are all prominent in Sunni Islam, whereas there is not this same breadth of sources in Shia Islam. Conversely, Ilmul Rijaal is a science which is used by Shia scholars too but always was to a lesser extent and only became more important later in Shia Islamic history, much after it was adopted into Sunni Islam; that is not to say that there are not early Shia Ilmul Rijaal books, but there are much less frequent than the Sunni ones contemporary to them. Additionally, authentication standards are notoriously flakey and variant amongst Shia scholars; of course there is Ikhtilaaf and differences in methodology amongst Sunni Ulema too, but for example early scholars like Suduq would disregard swathes of Hadith and practices as stemming from the Ghulaat and being forms of Ghuluw, but modern scholars now adopt them, because they have become apart of the dominant Shia practice e.g. Suduq believed adding Ali Waliyullah in the Adhaan was a Bid'ah of the Ghulaat, but modern scholars accept it and revise other Hadith he graded as weak on the basis of Ghuluw. This would indicate to the objective observer that perhaps modern scholars have a slightly different belief system to classical Shia scholars such that modern Shia are more extreme in Ghuluw than those like Suduq. Regarding Bukhari, he did not like to narrate through Jafar As Sadiq not because he was a Nasibi but rather because too many fabricated narrations were attributed to him, thus he accepted Hadith with him in the chain if other chains corroborated with it - as you know, Ghulaat and fabricators in Kufa were very prominant early on, and there was a very significant problem with extremism in the early Shia community. If you read into the history of how many subsects there were who believed various things such as Muhammad Ibn Al Hanafiyyah, the third son of Ali, being the Mahdi who went into occultation (which is the origin of the idea) after his uprising and death, as believed by his Shia; those who believed Ali to be a manifestation of Allah; the Zaydiyyah who follow Zayd Ibn Ali Ibn Hussain as their Imam, etc. On the other hand, other Sunni Muhaditheen still narrate through him, his father and others without noteable issue, and there are more than double the Shia Hadith books, so it is unwise to restrict and limit Sunni Islam to Bukhari (despite it being the most authentic collection it is not everything). *The Ahlul Bayt were one of the many witnesses to the start and spread of Islam, so to restrict our understanding to ONLY them would be a bias that I alluded to in my original post. The objective truth seeker would also consider these other sources and also mitigating factors in history which may affect the propogation of authentic Hadith from the Ahlul Bayt, such as the Ghulaat of Kufa like I mentioned for example. A point I will reitterate from my original post is also that 'Mutawatir' reports from the Ahlul Bayt from Shia books are not necessarily reliable as they many are only Mutawatir within their own books and do not corroborate with other Shia Hadith collections, thus increasing the risk of forgery/weakness as it is solely reliant upon the reliability of the Shia Muhadith, again some of whom didn't even believe the Qur'an we have today had not been tampered with so arguably had deficient belief/disbelief. To conclude, these reasons above are why I do not stress on using the number of Hadith from the Ahlul Bayt as a valid objective criteria for which sect likely represents the truth, and even if we did, there would be other significant problems in trusting the numerous narrations of the likes of Kulayni or Majlisi for example as being reliable depictions of what the Ahlul Bayt said.
  12. Sorry this does not address the OPs questions, but I will be addressing the thread title because it will actually address the core issue that should be discussed because otherwise most of the time people discuss tertiary stuff which is not really important and just appeals to one's own confirmation bias, and so I will get to the real points we should be discussing. When considering whether Sunnism or Shi'ism is the correct interpretation of Islam, if we are truly honest with ourselves and not a die hard anti-Shia/anti-Sunni who is blinded by their bias, Sunnism proves Sunni Islam and Twelver Shi'ism proves Twelver Islam if we take their respective Hadith/scholarly corpus to be acceptable - that is because holistically speaking, the methodologies and Hadith reconcile with each other in such a way that you would not have conflicts within your own creed. That is to say: Shia pulling out a Sunni Hadith saying the Prophet SAW said X about Y, or a Sunni pulling out a Shia Hadith saying the Prophet SAW said X about Y, will not prove anything because other hadith within that corpus negate the point being made, so really it is just a weak cherry picked argument in isolation used to convince the ignorant. So, as the premise of one's belief is that the Hadith/scholarly books of one's chosen sect are reliable to the exclusion of the other sects, we should look at the integrity of the scholarly corpus of both sects first, then we can work out which creed to follow objectively and without saying Imam Ali this or Sahabah that, etc - ultimately, a Shi'i is a Shi'i because he takes his books as reliable, and a Sunni is a Sunni because he takes his books as reliable. Therefore we need some objective questions which can be used as a compus to point towards the sect which is more likely to be correct, thus below are those questions: Who has the numerically most Hadith books? Who has the numerically most Hadith which go back to the Prophet SAW without assuming the chain of narration? Who has the numerically most authentic Hadith going back to the Prophet SAW by the respective sects standards? Who has numerically more contradictory Hadith? Who has the numerically most early Rijaal books? Who has the numerically most Rijaal books in total? Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding the Seerah? Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding all of the companions? Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding Islamic history? Who did the transimission of Qur'an come through? Who passed down the Qira'at and Ahruf of the Qur'an? Who narrated the numerically most Israeliyaat/information on the old prophets? ---- The reason these questions are important is because it really gets to the core of "who are you actually taking your understanding from", because Shia and Sunni both claim to have the understanding of the Ahlul Bayt, so the question is how do we know what the Ahlul Bayt said and believed and practiced? These questions above are objective and you can find out the answers yourself if you research. I wish I had specific statistics at hand, but from my own personal research over the years since reverting to Islam, the answers to the above questions have overwhelming been the Sunnis - the Sunnis have the most books, the most corroborating hadith from different sources and Muhadditheen which increase the reliability and reduce the risk of fabrication or corruption, the most authentic Hadith going back directly to the Prophet SAW with chains of narrations, the apparent meaning of the Qur'an without placing Ta'wil and abstract arguments sides with the Sunnis, the Sunnis passed down the Qur'an in its variation forms (so without the Sunnis, the Shia would not have a chain of transmission for the Qur'an to my knowledge), the study of Ilmul Rijaal was disproportionately more prmoninant in the Sunni scholastic corpus than in the Shia corpus, all of the stories of the previous prophets come from the Sunni Israeliyaat (Hadith narrated by Jews and Christians during the time of the Sahabah) etc, and conversely, the Shia had more contradictory Hadith which had to be reconciled arbitrarily with the excuse of the narrator performing Taqiyyah (so an arbitray methodology is appliedl, several of the Muhadditheen believed in Tahreef of the Qur'an, and of the 20 or so Hadith books the Shia have, a number of them are written by rhe same authors so there is a much higher risk of fabrication, and "Mutawatir" Hadith within those books are mostly Mutawatir within the book itself rather than between different collections from different Muhaditheen, the Shia do not have any Israeliyaat, etc. This would indicate to an objective truth seeker who is truly sincere and not blinded by emotions that Sunni Islam is the truth - but you can establish that yourself if you seek the answers to the questions I listed...
  13. This won't answer your question but my observation of Twelvers regarding Da'wah is to let the Sunnis do the leg work in bringing people to Islam (most of the time) and then preying on the fresh converts, or otherwise targetting only weak Sunnis. There is no organised Da'wah effort I am aware of that Twelvers do except to target Sunnis and fresh converts.
×
×
  • Create New...