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


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About twoblade

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Not Imami

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,153 profile views
  1. No, it only raises suspicions on narrations from a known bidati supporting his bid'a where the narration only comes from him and nobody else in his generation. Somebody who's not generally a mudallis for example can be biased in his report that supports an abbarent belief. Honest people can still be intentionally or unintentionally unclear. And if the narration is shadh with plenty of contradictory reports from others, of course that's questionable. The principle itself is sound. 'Ali established his bid'a through comments independent of narrations. The fact that his narrations support his abberant comments/beliefs is a concern. You have sahih narrations with sahaba committing sins, including major sins like the group that was drinking in Syria after the conquest. Nobody is questioning reports, which came through multiple sources, or weren't narrated by somebody with an established bidati belief preceding the reports.
  2. So the sharh of this authentic narration is that (1) the tree was a special tree that lasted an incredibly long time outside the normal life-span of a date tree [is the tree still around?], (2) that Bibi Maryam teleported to this location and (3) the tasbih were being made outloud which is outside of the norm. Wouldn't it make more sense to ponder the reliability of Hafs - or someone else in the sanad(?) - as a narrator?
  3. You're attacking a strawman... وهو هالك ولا نراه يعلم من وضع ... it seems he doesn’t know who fabricated the hadith ...
  4. That's not true. The view you're referring to is to acknowledge any saying from Qur'an and authentic hadith. So, yad not like any yad since we have yad Allah in Qur'an and ahadith for instance. There is no authentic text which says that Allah is a body or a thing (and than interpreted as a body not like any body). And you'll be hard pressed to find any Sunni scholar holding the view of Hisham that you're saying is a "standard belief" for Sunnis. Hisham made an inference without text to come to that conclusion. The problem isn't that Zurara and friends lack praises. It's that the same Imams supposedly praising them are also cursing them and criticizing them. That's not an exoneration or a means of establishing reliability. That they studied under an Imam at any length, and the length of their relationship to an Imam is through their own words. We assume so-and-so studied under Jafar because he quotes Jafar and was alive before Jafar died. There are other irrefutably established liars who claimed to narrate from multiple Imams and you can use the same reasoning to elevate them to being trust-worthy - I don't think that's a reliable means of establishing credibility. Maybe the same reason there are more ahadith recorded through Imam Baqir in Muslim than there is through Abu Bakr? You have to be narrating ahadith, not simply making jurispudential statements to land in Sahiheen. Abu Hanifa taught thousands of students openly as well. How many ahadith do Sunnis narrate through Imam Abu Hanifa? Being a teacher of fiqh doesn't mean you're going to have a lot of narrations in Sahiheen. The Imam had to be narrating with a chain back to the Prophet to be quoted in those books. As far as Imam Jafar having ahadith, than his status is the same as Abu Hanifa. He was a mujtahid, known for his jurisprudence - not for his transmission of ahadith. And Shi'i literature doesn't even support that he regularly did that since your established view is that the Imams words were implicitly ahadith without a connected chain for each statement. So it conforms with the Sunni view that he wasn't narrating substantial ahadith that would fit the bill to land in Sahiheen anyways...
  5. Both of those statements are patently false - seems you guys not only failed to study the biography of 'Umar and Hasan before starting this frivolous thread but 'Ali and the Prophet as well.
  6. Most of those traditions are weak by Behboudi and Majlissi. The last one is saheeh, but can still be resolved to the position Forge took by depriving Jafar's use of "Imam" of the meaning given to it by Shi'ites. I just read some of your later posts, it seems we're on a similar conclusion than about a lot of this.
  7. There's nothing in any book of Sunni aqeeda which suggests that 'Umar is (a) the most fearless leader or (B) the bravest of the brave, nor are there any authentic traditions of the prophet with those wordings from Sunni books (whereas this exact meaning, "Bravest of all Mankind" is stated about ALL of the Imams in Shi'ite traditions). However, to suggest that a man is a coward who participated in several battles including those during the hukm derived from facing enemies being outnumbered 1:11 is absurd...
  8. imo, if you just ignore people that are more concerned with personal attacks and listen to people that actually have meaningful stuff to say, you'll find out what you want.
  9. I didn't say they are less reliable. I said they make no sense once you remove the concept of taqiyyah from the Imams. You'd be removing the only reasonable way to make conciliation between the different traditions, sometimes through two entirely Shi'ite chains. If you don't accept the concept, you'll find after you isolate the reports, that you have to throw away very important reliable narrators. You have an even greater problem in those traditions, which are saheeh, where the Imams themselves say they were lying to someone and telling the truth to someone else. In order to get rid of these traditions and disavow the concept, you need to knock out major narrators as being reliable. Once you do that, you've lost a large chunk of the traditions that were narrated with a Shi'i bent from the Imams. You'll be throwing aside the religious material, even the material on which their status is based - there's a reason Shi'ite scholars didn't come to this emotionally charged conclusion when they were contemplating these issues...
  10. No, what you're doing is mentioning an event that has nothing "brave" inherent to it. The Shi'ite tradition I mentioned suggests that Imams are: - The bravest of ALL people (in each of their generations) - and that this bravery is from their amalat (Evident Signs). It shouldn't be a bravery you have to forcefully interpret on an event, it should be a bravery that any tom, Richard, and jane ought to be able to see as bravery. So far, not one single tradition was brought by people here that met the conditions I asked for. Most of the people here aren't even competent enough to read the thread and see that what they're posting hasn't been posted just once, but twice before them...
  11. It only takes 5 minutes to read my post after that as well as the admission of the brother following it. It takes even less time to notice that (a) half of the responses don't suggest that the characteristically "brave" action did not take place and (B) that none of the references outside of the allusions to Nomani's biography were touched by anyone in this thread. You're clearly weren't motivated to have bothered reading a book on the topic before posting the ill-founded thread and you seem to have equally little motivation to read your thread...
  12. Traditions of their purported suffering also come to you through the same people that attribute these various contradictory traditions to them. It's also not particularly reasonable to take the blame off of them entirely unless you want to destroy the credibility of some of the biggest narrators of their ahadith. This idea puts you in a conundrum since the vast majority of their traditions come through a handful of popular narrators. By weakening these narrators because of their contradictory reports, you lose much of the religion you take from them as Sunnis have vastly fewer traditions from some of the Imams than Shi'ites have recorded, especially from the last handful from whom Sunnis have no traditions. It seems people are more interested in the emotional attachment to the status of these men and forget that the special status they ascribe to the likes of al-Askari is because of Shi'ite traditions. The set of traditions that gave rise to the doctrine of taqiyyah. It seems the attachment to these individuals has more to do with parenting than with actual religion than. You just need to open up *any* one of his surviving books...
  13. The 9/10th tradition might not be authentic, but the concept of taqiyyah is essential to Shi'ism. Most of the students of the Imams were not Shi'as and most of them narrated the exact opposite of what Shi'ites narrated from them. The Shi'ite resolution to this problem is that the Imams used to lie in public and told the true aspects of fiqh/aqeeda to those that they trusted. This is a very basic aspect of the religion, you can consult any book on fiqh being derived from traditions to get examples of it (al-estesbar, al-wasail, etc.). Sometimes it's easy to resolve cases of taqiyyah because you have one muwatthaq tradition and another tradition which is sahih (obviously, the idea is that in the muwatthaq tradition the Imam was lying to the Sunni). Other times, it's a little more complicated because you'll only have two totally authentic traditions and selecting which one is discarded is a little bit harder (scholars seem to have a number of options: they can discard the opinion of an older Imam in favor of what later Imams reportedly say, or they can discard the opinion that agrees with non-Shi'is and accept the other one, etc.). Another resolution attributed to the Imams is also that they said follow whichever opinion you heard from them since you're absolved of sin as to which one you follow since they reportedly propagated so many false ones. In any case, if you look in the following thread, you'll see an example of taqiyyah: In one case, the Imam is teaching his students that saying "Ameen" after Surah Fatiha in the Salaah is good. In the other, he's secretly telling his Shi'ites that it's a reprehensible bid'a. Both traditions are related through authorities considered reliable in transmission by Shi'ites. If you believe this is an example of a lie by later scholars to preserve a particular narrator, you'll be hard-pressed to isolate a narrator that won't cause trouble down the line.
  14. If you're too lazy to consult what I already mentioned to you through both later and primary sources, than let's conclude the OP isn't actually interested in the frivolous topic...
  • Create New...