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

MohammadMufti

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MohammadMufti

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.facebook.com/inbox/#/group.php?gid=17029709272

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,801 profile views
  1. 'And sa3sa3ah you didn't mention the part where al-Dhahabee says that rejecting this would be akin to rejecting many correct Sunan" Oh really? He says that about this particular tradition? Please do bring it :)
  2. (1) Hudhayfa died early during Khilafat 'Alee (ra). "Uthmani"/"Shi'an Uthman"/etc. are terms that came about after Khilafat Uthman (ra) so there's no way Hudhayfa could've intended Hazrat Uthman's (ra) own allies during his lifetime by this statement. They were about the extremists from those who wanted Qasas over death of Hazrat Uthman (ra) and would commit acts of zealotry in his (ra) name.... OP will be hard-pressed to find a single authentic narration where appellations like "Uthmani," or anything of that nature, were used during Khilafat Uthman (ra). (2) Historical fact omitted: Hudhayfa (ra) was chosen as a governor by Uthman (ra) near the end of his Khilafa and kept the post till the death of Hazrat Uthman (ra). Now the man who is a hand-picked governor of Uthman (ra), and one of those known to be consulted by him, is calling his lovers as followers of Dajjal? The meaning's pretty clear without even a depth of knowledge of history of that period. Please... (3) "because fasawi was so shocked by this hadith that he weakened an extremely trustworthy narrator called zaid ibn wahb" - contrary to this out-and-out dishonest statement, Fasawi (rah) extensively discussed the issue of the problems with narrations of Zayd from Sahaba (ra). He didn't just read this narration and say "OMGGG DISS GUYSS LIAR!!11!!". ÍóÏøóËóäóÇ ÃÈæ ÈßÑ ¡ ÍóÏøóËóäóÇ íÍíì Èä ÂÏã ¡ ÍóÏøóËóäóÇ ÒåíÑ ¡ ÞóÇá : ÓóãöÚúÊõ ÇáÃÚãÔ ÞóÇá : ßäÊ ÅÐÇ ÓãÚÊ ãä ÒíÏ Èä æåÈ ÍÏíËß áã íÖÑß Ãä áÇ ÊÓãÚå ãä ÕÇÍÈå. Anyone with a real, beyond-polemics interest in the issue should read the entire chapter... (4) Hazrat Hudhayfa (ra) was governor of 'Alee (ra) when this statement was probably said if it's authentic. It's not a saying of Rasulallah (saw), but an obvious reaction to the circumstances surrounding him. Just like some of the other Sahaba (ra) used to conjecture so-and-so is Dajjal based on evidence...
  3. It's not an "analogy", it's the sharh. Only an imbecile, a liar or a bid'ati who has a pre-established notion he is trying to prove would need to hide the fact that cities have multiple gates and have had multiple gates since the time of Rasul (saw) - especially large cities... As for NB and Sunna' texts and your rubbish claims - as I said, I'm discussing it with your brother and would rather spend time on the topic with somebody who actually (apparently) knows about the book...
  4. I hope I didn't misrepresent what I was trying to say. The hadeeth of 70 sects is saheeh. The hadeeth "Follow my companions, they are like the stars" is weak. w/salaam
  5. I don't know about the 70 sects one, but a similar hadeeth (related to this ending and the ending) appears in 12er books on following the Sahaba (ra) because they are like the stars (whichever is followed is correct). We have that narration in our books but it is regarded as fabricated/weak. The 12er version includes an addition that says that the 'Arabic term "Sahaba" (Companions) is to be redefined to mean the 'Arabic phrase Ahl al Bayt (People of the House) which in turn was redefined to mean specificlly 'Ali and Fatima along with their descendants until their eleventh descendant. So in a way, yes, but the words don't mean what they would naturally mean.
  6. I agree 100%. The words of your scholars concerning your religion ought to come before mine, so forgive me if I trespassed. Yet I fail to see any one of your scholars who says "All the riwayat with individual curses are fabricated/weak - and therefore not to be acted upon". Rather, there argument is generally "this will make us look bad and therefore is not to be acted upon [in public]". I'll recant/revoke my statement if you can bring me the words of a (preferably living) scholar who says not to curse anyone specificlly because these ahadeeth of yours are not to be relied upon (instead of because he doesn't want the 'awaam to dislike his flock). People here are regularly dying to prove this matter to those they call "Wahabi Shi'as" (:P). There was a topic in fact where the OP posted numerous narrations from 12ers on cursing individuals - I can't find it though.
  7. As for NB, I will inshaAllah be discussing that more in-depth with your brother. In any case, the mere fact that something doesn't contradict Qur'aan doesn't automatically make it true. If I call you an imbecile (on account of your sickening beliefs about 'Arab superiority), than this doesn't contradict the Qur'aan at all. Does that mean the statement is true? Of course not, and I'm sure you would deny such a claim. As for this particular saying about Ameer ul Mumineen's (ra) knowledge, than a city has multiple gates, but the narration isn't useful to us except that it highlights his (ra) fadail. ahlelbayt[dot]com/articles/hadith/city-of-knowledge
  8. 2 questions: - Why was supposed killer of Bibi Fatima (ra) omitted? - Is there evidence for the statement that 'Ali Ridha had 1 son and also a daughter?
  9. Ignoring your typical banter, his name was no'man, not no'many...
  10. Emotional whining - nothing addressed, as usual. And if the mentality of the Umayyad's is opposite to your racist and jahiliya mentality of 'Arab-worship, than may Allah (swt) continue to bless me with this mentality of the Ummayyis and save me from the sick ideas you were just preaching. If you'd like to address the concerns I raised with your absurd statement, than please do, (here they are) Okay, well when you mature and one to speak on a more civilized level than do come back and try again and inshaAllah I'll entertain what you raise. :)
  11. That's a Sunna' concept. There is plenty of 12er riwayaat for individual cursing of specific people, including post-Prophet (saw) ones. Anyways, my 3am curse, l3nAllah on cowards who have to hide what they actually believe :)
  12. The book is certainly eloquent, but from where do you make the assumption that it's contents can be positively attributed to Amir ul Mumineen (ra) and not to the Shi'a after him? I have reason to believe that much of it is not even from 'Ali (ra). No doubt, 'Ali (ra) was a meritorious individual, but this dogmatic elevation of this book by you lot and it's positive ascription without an iota of serious research just bothers me. But what do I know, I've only read the book without a blind adherence to it. I wanted to raise my concerns in the hadeeth section under the signs thread, but it appears that it would be irrelevant to that discussion since the 12er there doesn't appear to accept traditional ideas of attribution, evidence, etc.
  13. Well, our 'Ali (ra) is asadullah, who even as a man without supernatural or magical powers would've defended his ahlul bayt (ra) - can't speak for this person...
  14. Well, I must say I'm learning a bit about your own unique personal point of view. It's a shame though that this won't be of any relevance to me in a discussion with any other 12er since your personal doctrine seems to not only be at odds with 12er scholarship and history (about the origin of NB) - but I know nobody else who holds these views of yours. Kher - InshaAllah, I hope that we should be able to get into discussion on the particular sermons you claims soon since that's what interests me most and would be relevant to other 12ers as well and my own benefit. I can not bring every quotation from Ibn Khaldun (rah), but suffice it to say, he is the father of the methodology that Bucaille later employed. The entire first section of al Muqaddimah deals with the aspects of narrative truthfullness based on science and rationale, as well as further discussions on the reasons behind particular types of fabrications. As I said, some of his arguements are no longer applicable (because of the fluid like nature of the sciences in their evolution) - but ultimately, it was he who first went into this method in-depth. The same may end up applying to some views which are established as fact today. Additionally, even when it compares to comparing Islaam and Christianity in the light of science - we have Ibn Khaldun (rah) also speaking here and there on some of these topics, and if you've read any of the classical rudood (Ibn Taymiyah, etc.) of Christians - than they've also hit on matters by applying science as a universal tool of judging truth from falsehood. So I simply can't see Bucaille's work as "a first", though I've benefitted from it personally and admire the quality of the work, it is not as original in it's content nor in it's methodology. I don't know what the Tao of Physics is? I'm fairly sure I remember the quote from the analects. Anyways, the point made there has every bit of relevence from an Islaamic lens since it is completely arreligious. We have, even before getting started, accepted science as a ruler for judging truth - and this is an example, an expirment, as to the limits of science itself which are our perception. Science isn't established until it fulfills the necessities of all of our (related) perceptions and can be commonly agreed upon by people looking from different angles. So for example, we can agree that the sky is blue because we percieve it with our eyes to be blue - and we recieve confirmation of this perception through others elsewhere the world over. (1) Islaam's scientific integrity is never at harm wa nauzubillah. This was not my claim at all. I was merely questioning the applicability of science in single instances as an approach to the text. It would necessitate multiple examples from multiple points of perception to substantiate it and this is all I meant. As for changes in scientific thought - than this has often influenced how the Qur'aan was understood. In the past, even though the Sunnis had ijma that the world was round, there was a geocentric world view based on limited intelligence. Or take the example in Qur'aan where an ant, or an atom, is mentioned. For those who took it to mean atom, early on this was used by mufasireen to show to the effect of "look at the brilliance of Allah - using the smallest indivisible unit in his Words, subhanAllah". Later it was discovered that atoms have nuclei (amongst other particles) and lately string theory is under construction. But ultimately, the mufassireen will come up with new tafasir for the same verses depending on changes in scientific information. Not everybody everywhere knew that it was the mind, and not the heart, that did all the thinking. So that language as employed by the Qur'aan, which before was (legitimately) possible to interpret literally had to be figuratively reinterpreted in accordance with changes in scientific knowledge. (2) I'm still not sure how that has to do with scientific discovery. I would definitly agree with the idea of Islaam giving insights into scientific discovery, I never contested that. That's why I accepted Islaam (on account of what I had learned from the Yahuwd, from Science and from the Qur'aan). But my intention is that once we have a foundational stepping stone, we can discuss these particular scientific "miracles" from NB that led you to believe in the veracity of the text. But before that, I think it is more important that we establish the unity of the text, and it's originallity. As for what Ibn Khaldun achieved, I never said that this is a corner stone of Islaamic belief. People believed in Islaam based on other things before the post-Ibn Khaldun emphasis on using science as a verifying tool. (2) Human history is not part of 'ilm ul ghayb. The point of the statement was that Muhammad (saw) was not there, nor (being 'ummi) was he familiar with the works of history, and yet having specific knowledge from Allah (swt), he was able to make statements about it. The matter itself is not at all ghayb, it's only ghayb to that particular reference point (saw). I don't see how specific incidents that highlight his (saw) prophethood can be construed into constant rules as to what constitutes 'ilm ul ghayb. (3) Angels are not unseen, they are seen depending on the conditions. (4) I can't even begin to see how you've construed Allah's (swt) statement of condemnation on past nations as a prophecy. Could it be that in the need to justify your own faith you are forcing ideas onto texts which on their own present none...? Err. I don't get the point here. Obviously all Muslims are subject to belief in the Last Day (and consequtively the "first" day) - and subsequentially, so are any leaders of the Muslims. It's a tenant of faith for them to believe in this Final Day and in the Past Days, and in any of the other things about which only Allah (swt) knows fully. I don't see where you made this quantum leap. I never said he (as) got it by himself, everything is bishaAllah. It was his reasoning capacity though that Allah (swt) discusses first, and than the fact that after he (as) employed this capacity, Allah (swt) blessed him with additional information which would otherwise have been out of his (as) reach. So he took up the task of knowledge as all people, by the will of Allah (swt), and only subsequently was he shown ("Did we show..."). The later did not precede the former, Allah (swt) has chosen the placement of this Book, the Qur'aan, in it's order. And what is the qualification for his pleasure to endow the particular knowledge (if we take this verse as such)? From 6/74, it is a conserted effort on the part of the individual to step outside of the norms he was endowed by virtue of his lineage and to actually employ his reason. This is not at all what the text says, and there is a reason you ommitted the quotation of the translation of 6/87. The fact that Aale Ibrahim (as) recieved the particulars was not because of familial ties but because Allah (swt) had "chosen" them - and we've already seen the reason for His (swt) choosing the father of this movement. 6/85 clearly mentions their rightousness, not their lineage (was only consequential). In fact, one thing you seem to have completely missed out on in this particular ayah (6/87) was Allah's (swt) saying that he (swt) chose from amongst the progeny. The individuals were not simply chosen on account of their blood-line, as Allah (swt) clearly says "From them", not "Them". I never questioned the status of naql or raised unduly the status of aql. I merely mentioned the facts, as presented in the Qur'aan itself, that before being able to make naql of what Allah (swt) taught, even Ibrahim (as) employed aql to reach Allah (swt). Before being able to make naql of Qur'aan (and the other book you hold on to), you first had to employ your own aql to reach them. And this is again why Allah (swt) gave precedence to the ayah we've discussed and mentioned it before He (swt) mentions his bestowing of knowledge on Ibrahim (as). I don't see the comparison at all. You are alleging, as I said: "that the Holy Prophet (saw) would selectively give some batini teachings to one group and zahiri teachings to another. I can't fathom accusing the Prophet (saw), who was sent according to the Qur'aan itself as a guide to all mankind, and according to ahadith as a guide for the white and red (men and jinn) as being someone who didn't follow through on this pre-determined objective that Allah (swt) had for him (saw). That Allah (swt) would give an "easy" Islaam meant only for a blind mass, and a "special" islaam for particular individuals isn't something I could come to believe." The example of Shaytan is entirely irrelevent to this concept which is unprecedented in the Qur'aan and any of the authentic narrations. This is not a matter of accepting or defying leadership Allah (swt) has chosen - what I question is the premise which strikes me thoroughly unIslaamic is that the Messenger (saw), who is declared as a guide to all mankind, would be giving an Islaam to an elite group which differs from the Islaam given to the masses. The Qur'aan tells us nowhere of this distinction. This isn't true. A liar acts only by the Will of Allah (swt) and even a liar can point to the signs of Allah (swt) and misconstrue their meaning. What distinguishes an honest person and a liar isn't that one points to the signs and the other doesn't, it's that one describes those signs appropriately while the other one comes up with fantastic explanations and wild fantasies concerning them and calls people to these. But both sides, Atheist and Theist, point to the Big Bang. Both sides, Atheist and Theist, point to some concepts of 'evolution'. Both sides, Atheist and Theist, point to the stars and the skies. What distinguishes them is not that one is pointing to signs or that the other is pointing to falsehood - they both are looking at the same thing - it's that one says that Big Bang was random. One says that the natural principles present in all man and beasts are random. That the stars and skies (and our own outcome) is random. The other replies that it is God. As the Christians say, even the Devil can use the word of God to suit his ends. Collusion requires for people to work together or borrow from one another. When you have chains that have tawattur (like Qur'aan), than this implies that collusion is not fathomable and the base text of the chains (which all chains are agreed on) is legitimate. I never said it does, there can be plenty of cases of tadlees where the matn is correct. That's not the problem. The problem is that tadlees in this form causes doubt by common sense and this is what the Qur'aan agrees to per the verse I mentioned. Uh - no it's not. Whether person A ever met person B, which the Qur'aan is encouraging us to make sure of, is a very objective test. This isn't something that people can disagree on, either person A did or he didn't... That ayah has nothing to do with finding a person's truthfullness. The ayah I mentioned clearly talks about kadhb and tadlees. The ayah you mentioned simply states that there exist Signs in the Heavens and Earth (i.e. trees, stars, etc.) of God's existence are their for the Believers. I don't see your arguement here. Let us imagine that NB has some of these scientific "miracles" - just for the sake of arguement. If anything, the only thing they prove as true are those specific statements in which they occur. Until and unless you can prove the unity and originality of NB as a textual source. It would from sheer ignorance to take these "miracles" out of the context of one particular saying and use them as a criteria to judge the whole book before we have even established that the book is one coherent unit from it's inception. And proving unity/originality does in fact require tawwattur and MS evidence... I'm in a similar boat as you except I grew up an in unsectarian environment, reading Khomeini and Maududi (and other non-Sunna' scholars) side by side. When I left Islaam, for my own personal reasons, I later found my way by means of my reading (of different religious texts) and though it wasn't Bucaille's book but instead just some particular claims (which upon reading the Qur'aan checked out, and upon further examination, the Qur'aan itself checked out in terms of it's unity). So than (after some years) I had accepted it. I don't see how 45/3 has to do with the protection of the Qur'aan. (1) I don't see where you derived this requirement that his (saw) successor needs to have 'ilm ul ghayb, or even that Rasullalllah (saw) needs to have 'ilm ul ghayb himself (saw). Allah (swt) clearly says that He (swt) has 'ilm ul ghayb, and parts of it which he (swt) sees fit to delegate are delegated to the Prophet (Saw). The Prophet (saw) does not have 'ilm ul ghayb. (2) So you essentially (if I'm getting this right) blindly chose Nahjul Balagha because of it's attribution to 'Ali (ra)? You had no reason to choose it other than the fact that you felt 'Ali (ra) was the successor and Nahjul Balagha happened to be the one book that was attributed to him (ra) that you had ease of access to? (3) I don't see how the fact that the very first sermon is about creation has anything to do with a "seamless transition between Prophet and Successor" or how it has anything to do with anything. This was the policy of many authors of several books, that they would begin each book or each section with something relevent to their beliefs or the topic of writing. So Tabari (rah), and several historians begin their texts by first narrating the material on the matter of creation. If anything, the style of beginning with the matter of creation is directly seen in earlier texts like the Tanakh. As for four, there is extra knowledge in many texts that popped up after the Qur'aan and well before Nahjul Balagha. That doesn't show that the latter qualifies for the statement you quote from the Qur'aan and that others don't. Furthermore, you mention the statement as "Ask those who know". Believing in the Qur'aan, I understand that any portions relevent to the 'aam are directed at them in that manner. So if it is saying "Ask those who Know", than this obviously doesn't mean to "Go Read Nahjul Balagha". That's not what it says. It clearly says ask, indicating the presence of a living individual to pose your questions to. Not to some book. If Allah (swt) wanted the Muslims to follow some book - he (swt) wouldn't play games with them, He (swt) would tell them in a straight forward manner as is His (Swt) sunnah "Read that other Book". But it doesn't say this anywhere in the Qur'aan. In any case, I don't see how you hit on my question. You said, at the seal of your statements, "Its because of these 4 reasons, Nahjul Balagha is original, uniform and scientific". But you didn't mention anything that establishes originality. The manuscript evidence is quite late (10thish century?) and the originiality isn't possible since historically, many of it's statements are seen in books that existed (1) before it is said to have existed (i.e. 5th century) (2) before the MS evidence (10th century). Just because you like the book, or even if it has one or two cases of "miraculous" information, doesn't somehow place the book before it's time and I still can't see your reasoning for doing so. As for it being discarded because it is a fallible product (as any book is), I don't see where you get this teaching. Where does the Qur'aan say "discard whatever is fallible"?
×
×
  • Create New...