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-Hassan

Unregistered
  • Content Count

    707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Ibn al-Hassan

  1. So, let me get this straight. Real Shi`ahs are to follow a marja because the Imams [as] are dead. Akhbari's are fools because they insist on deriving their religion exclusively on the words of the Infallibles [as]. Silly me, I thought this whole time being Shi`ah meant following the Imams [as]. I guess I was wrong. Thanks for correcting my childish notions. ...All I get from that body of text is a call to ditch the teachings of the Masumeen [as]. Apparently, what they said doesn't apply to us anymore. Lucky us, we have Imam Khamenei who will take of everything. Where would we be without him? (wasalam)
  2. ^ No sir, I am not. Please refer to the previous posts. Thank you. (wasalam)
  3. ^ Wait, that's not all, Modest Muslim would also like to include 'Yazīd, Mu‘āwiya, and Abu Sufyān in that list as well. Now, it all makes sense... (wasalam)
  4. Yes, that very much clears up the confusion. Thank you. Yes, please explain this to me as if I was an Akhbari (whatever that means to you). Apparently, Akhbaris need to be convinced through the ahadith of the Masumeen [as], and Usoolis ought to follow the verdicts of the marja whom they pay homage to. Am I getting that right? (wasalam)
  5. Seems like we're neglecting the sunnah then...and I don't think you have any clue about how our Imams [as] would have approached these issues. Nobody's suggesting we go out and curse those infamous companions that usurped their rights and oppressed them, openly. But, sending lanat on those oppressors is certainly not forbidden. (wasalam)
  6. Seriously, with all due respect, your just turning tashayyu' into something completely other than what the Imams [as] intended. (wasalam)
  7. That would depend on whether or not anyone can actually attain absolute certainty regarding much of these religious issues. If we're honest with ourselves I'd say all of us at times call into question some of our beliefs (beliefs that have largely been taken on because others around us have, that we have not actually researched much into). Whether or not we want to admit it, we are susceptible to doubt, doubt even about some of the most fundamental elements of religion (some are still struggling with the basic existence of God, in large part due to this modern notion of "reason"). We're all at different phases along the path. Those who are still unsure of their Lord, this stuff will seriously hurt their iman and they would be putting more onto their plate than they can handle. But for those that have already gone past those early stages and are completely immersed in the world of faith, then they might be able to read into this research without it severely hurting them. Everyone's got to judge for themselves. So, you're right, maybe none of us can be fully sure of following the right path, but that's just a fact of life. In terms of this "sect" having been dead for over a thousand years, first, I don't look at it as joining another sect. I've simply reconsidered my position on the number and identity of the Imams, and that of the Qa'im in particular (a naqli issue mind you). This notion of this sect or that sect is quite abstract anyways, with no set criterion to determine such lines of demarcation. What major differences are there between Usoolis and Akhbaris, that they become two rigidly different sub-sects, at times killing and vilifying each other? To get past the hurdle of this having been a dead sect for such a long time, well, it really comes down to asking one's self a very deep philosophical question. What does a person do when they have come to accept a certain position after their own extensive research and analysis yet following such a path would place them outside the mainstream of the society they have either been born into or grown up in? I mean, we often tell ourselves that if the truth was on one path and everybody else went a separate route, we would definitely follow the truth no matter where it leads us. Truth is that most of us would not be able to handle going at it alone, we fear being alone. For me, I thought about it much, and came to the conclusion that I have to follow what I feel is more truthful, for my Lord is Merciful and I trust in His Justice. If I reject what I have come to know to be true, then that could very well land me in the hellfire. Though at the same time, if I follow what others around me believe, well, I don't think I need to cite the relevant Qur'anic verses condemning taqlid in matters of faith. It's something each individual needs to answer themselves. Nonetheless, we have no desire to get into argumentation in order to disuade people from their faith. If you're a Twelver, that's your choice. In fact, I have already expressed what kind of approach I would still have in resolving these issues from a Twelver view. I don't think anybody who stays a Twelver is a fool or just blindly following others. I'm sure they have valid reasons, some of which can't be properly conveyed to others, words cannot describe some of it. Though, there are people who have admitted that although they are sure of the Imamate of the first three or four Imams [as], they struggle thereafter. Is the correct path with the Zaydis, Ismailis, Twelvers, who? They don't seem to be quite satisfied with any of them yet are committed to tashayyu'. What do we do to help those folks? The purpose of these articles is not to disprove Twelverism, and have people join Waqifism. It's about giving people the information and letting them come to their own conclusion. Something they can live with, something that brings comfort and ease to their hearts and minds. Yes, reading this may at times feel uncomfortable for Twelvers, calling into question some of our preconceived notions, but that's simply part of the research. Sometimes this doubt can help bring us more certainty. Anyways, I (and I am almost certain MacIsaac also shares these sentiments) do not wish to cause unnecessary hatred amongst us and create these kinds of divisions. Nobody benefits from this hate and hardening of hearts. I personally don't have the slightest ill intention towards anybody here, I could not even imagine how I would suddenly conjure up such emotions. After all, we believe in the same line of Imams. The belief in al-Kadhim [as] has only been retained until the present day through the Twelvers. Waqifism and Twelverism are more intertwined than we might be led to think (one could not do without the other). Though, It just seems like we're no different from those others who accuse us Shi`ahs of being kuffar and condemned to the pits of hell for having deviated. Are we that much better? ...wa Allahu 'Alam. (wasalam)
  8. Well, even those who do insist on cursing, abusing, and insulting the companions are quite selective (i.e. they are not speaking ill of all the companions, a few notable ones). As far as cursing goes (in terms of sending lanat on those certain companions), it is unacceptable it appears from the view of Imam Khamenei (that is if he is considered to be your source for religious knowledge). For others, they base their actions on the ahadith coming down from the Infallible Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt [as]. Whether or not you accept those narrations as authentic or such (or choose to place them within their proper context) is up to you, but there is textual evidence to support their practice. (wasalam)
  9. Those who are obstinate in their disbelief, refusing to let go of their preconceived notions of religion and allowing for themselves to be guided, then it doesn't make a difference whether or not you warn them. It certainly doesn't mean that it's somehow impossible for someone who previously disbelieved to then believe (that is clearly false). The second notion regarding free will is correct, we must have the choice to believe or disbelieve, otherwise that would almost certainly undermine the basic notion of Divine Justice. I would agree with both of those objections (though the verse is not making either of those assertions he/she claims). (wasalam)
  10. Of course, here you go...http://www.*******.org/articles. (wasalam)
  11. I don't see how my criticism for WF has anything to do with the it. I've never stated hatred for Iran or any other country for that matter. If you hate me, that's fine you are entitled to do so, but plese do not spread false claims, akhi. I would also like to see where I've stated anything, even hinting at the notion of supporting the FSA. With respect to Syria, I support people's right to change a leadership that has stayed in power for decades, but I do not support the actions of these Salafi-like rebels. Neither do I believe that Bashar's motives are anything but materialistic. Nevertheless, there are others on this forum that have expressed similar positions with respect to the strife in Syria, yet they are definitely believers in the Imamate of the later Imams. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject matter. So, we ought to stop here if there is nothing more to say about the topic of the thread. (wasalam)
  12. إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَ أَخَوَيْكُمْ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ The believers are but brethren, therefore make peace between your brethren and be careful of (your duty to) Allah that mercy may be had on you. (49:10) (wasalam)
  13. Good point, in that there are also various other socio-political circumstances to take into consideration when examining the tradition. It seems that the number of Waqifis began to dwindle down significantly generations down the road (though, there seems to still have been a fairly large community of them in the Maghrib at least until the 950s). It's unclear what happened thereafter. And yes since, they didn't establish any political dynasties it would have certainly been more difficult to spread their views against that of the state's. Though, one should keep in mind that they were at a relative disadvantage from the get go (seeing as how `Ali al-Rida was appointed as the heir to al-Ma'mun, affiliating himself with the political establishment, and Muhammad al-Jawad married the caliph's daughter). This affiliation would obviously give them the spotlight and put them in a much more favorable position where they could showcase their charismatic authority as pious and knowledgeable Imams. In fact, it has been argued by some that the reason behind al-Ma'mun's appointment of `Ali al-Rida (a politically quietist `Alid figure, unlike his brother) would somehow quell the various pro-`Alid rebellions like those of the Zaydis. Nevertheless, I don't wish to ascribe materialistic motives behind the claims of the latter Imams, just to demonstrate an early example of how other previous messianic movements could struggle to survive without these kinds of favorable conditions. But, of course Allah [swt] knows Best. (wasalam)
  14. I agree with you to a large extent. I think there are a number of ways to look at these issues, particularly those pertaining to reward and punishment. That is that our eternal abode is ultimately dictated by our will and actions. That we choose how to live our lives out of our own free will as rational beings, mature enough to make our own decisions. And that we know, intuitively I say, the immoral nature of certain deeds. These do not need to be conveyed to us through scripture. In this case, the scripture (i.e. the Qur'an) would be more so a reminder (as is mentioned throughout the text), exhorting believers to act in accordance with that which is good. And that the act of reading the sacred text is meant to transform and purify one's soul, reminding us of this transitory life and physical death, to perform good deeds in hope of eternal reward. Of course, performing good deeds for the sake of reward appears to be the lowest form of worship (worship nonetheless I would argue, seeing as how one would need to have faith in the veracity of the claims being made in the Book and certainty in the hereafter). So, basically, the punishment that shall haunt us for eternity is nothing more than the regret we are forced to live with after having been exposed to what "could have been" had we chosen the right path and performed the good deeds. This would be an almost existential state of being that we bring upon ourselves (as opposed to having God enact some kind of physical punishment upon us, the fire can only hurt so much, and so it ought to be understand in an allegorical manner, mentioned only to give our feeble minds something to grasp onto). Thus, these references are true in some sense, at their lowest level, comprehensible to all yet that they have various other layers of understanding that would satisfy the intellects of even the most learned of men/women. In this way, heaven and hell become more so existential states of being rather than physical places. Thus, each soul shall know their eternal abode before they meet their Lord for Judgment. The determining factor would be the purity of the soul before having left this world, each evil deed darkening it and each good deed purifying it. Thus, in this way, one can understand how repentance can be sought moments before a person's death (provided such repentance was sincere, transforming the soul within). Nonetheless, I would be more inclined to accept both. That is that there is a corporeal ressurection in the afterlife, where we will again have body and soul (though perhaps not in the way we understand it). In addition, the most severe and ultimate punishment for an individual will be the regret to which they will be forced to burden, having rejected the most self-evident truths and commit the most immoral acts (without sincerely repenting thereafter). ...wa Allahu 'Alam. (wasalam)
  15. Interestingly, everyone always thinks themselves to be among the "guided ones", while others have simply gone astray. I think we just need to admit to ourselves that some issues aren't so clear-cut. And what makes to sense to some, doesn't always accord well with others. We should be accepting of this fact, that even some of the closest companions of the Imams were utterly confused on these issues, so what does that say about us over a thousand years later? Perhaps, what is expected of us is for each individual to make his/her own concerted effort in finding the truth. And that even if one fails to profess all the correct beliefs, the fact that one makes the sincere attempt to do so is sufficent enough. Afterall, our Lord is the most Merciful. Blameworthy is the one who rejects out of his/her own selfish desires and ill intentions, not the one who was innocently ignorant of the message. Surely, Allah [swt] does guide whom He wills and misguides whom He wills. Though, this is often understand incorrectly, as if our Lord is some sort of arbitrary God, forcing astray his creation in a seemingly random fashion. Such attributes do not befit Him. Rather, He bestows His Mercy upon those who are willing to be guided, and withdraws His Mercy from those who does not wish to be guided, surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe; Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them. (2:6-7) To me, this guidance is very much a personal affair between the servant and his/her Lord. You can hide your true beliefs from others, but you can't decieve Allah [swt]. So, why don't we just try to get along better by trying to understand the other side (even though I don't look at things in such rigid terms as this or that sect), and leave the judgment to Allah [swt]. Wa Allahu 'Alam. (wasalam)
  16. Right, I think it's quite difficult to know what kind of understanding these people had when they committed themselves to a particular view. We know that the community split into at least fourteen different sects (according to Nawbakhti in his Firaq) after the death of al-`Askari. Thing is there were those that stopped at al-`Askari and did not recognize an Imam after him (either that there was no designation by him who would be his successor and/or that he did not have a son), there were those that did believe in twelve Imams (but that the Imamate had passed over to his brother, Ja`far), others that he did have a son (although, it doesn't appear to have been based on textual evidence, more so a rational argument that the Imamate had to continue, therefore he must have had a son). The latter is unclear if they believed that al-`Askari had to have had a son to fulfill the apocalyptic prophecy of the number 12 or because the Imamate had to continue forever until the Day of Judgment (and Nawbakti doesn't cite any hadiths denoting 12 for the claims of the Ithna `Ashariyya, only that they argued on a rational basis and other inexplicit hadith). Nonetheless, to be fair, there could have been reports in circulation with the number and identity of the Imams, though, that knowledge would have had to be keep within very small, secret circles. The majority of people, even some of the closest companions, would not know it. You might even say that this was all part of the plan, everything was to be intentionally obfuscated until the Imam went into ghayba (so much so that people did not even have evidence of his birth). However, textual evidence would do no good here as this knowledge would have to have been transmitted over generations by only but a few disciples, orally. That even some of these prominent compilers would be left out of the loop (or maybe in it, disclosing the secrets after the ghayba). These sources of traditions would then not be named in the isnads, these people who transmitted it would have to have kept it secret, a big no-no in occult traditions would be to let out the secrets before the master allows for it. You might even use this famous tradition to support the claim, where Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq [as] says: "I sometimes teach a tradition to someone, and then he leaves me and reports the tradition exactly as he heard it from my mouth; because of this, I declare that it is licit to condemn and to hate him." (al-Nu'mani, Kitab al-ghayba, ch.1, p. 57, num. 7). Without this approach, I don't see how the bulk of these contradictions and inconsistencies could be resolved. (wasalam)
  17. I don't see the evidence for such a claim, all I see is him stating that it's a lie. Could you please provide how he came to the conclusion and the hadith he's speaking about (as I did not cite this one he's referring to)? If we break this down to a logical argument, two contradicatory reports don't neccessitate that both are false. One can be correct and the other can be false. Now, determining which may have been more truthful depends on several other factors. Nonetheless, this doesn't address the issue at hand. Why? Well, even if other details of the accounts are contradictory, both claim that Hasan al-`Askari had two sons, Muhammad and Musa. There's no contradication on those specifics. In terms of the fact that one claims to be the account of `Ali b. Ibrahim b. Mahziyar and other his father. Like you stated eariler in this thread, this could be a naskh issue and is probably so. (wasalam)
  18. I'm seeing two of them in Kamal [ch. 43, hadith num. 19 & 23]. The mention of them are within what seems like two accounts of the same person having met the Imam. (wasalam)
  19. I suppose you're right, but there are other narrations that claim Hasan al-`Askari had more than one child. I've seen a couple of them in as-Saduq's Kamal ad-Deen. In those, the narrator is claiming to have witnessed the presence of both sons of al-`Askari, Muhammad and Musa. (wasalam)
  20. They pretty much are the same conception of wahdat al-wujud. There's just a tendency on the part of some scholars to disassociate themselves with the figure of Ibn `Arabi, while others keep trying to draw themselves closer to him (e.g. claiming that he was really a Shi`ah in taqiyya). (wasalam)
  21. Umm...wouldn't that be implying that Hasan al-`Askari had multiple children? (wasalam)
  22. Umm...seems like you're the one causing unneccessary divisions. (wasalam)
  23. it's pretty much the same thing as monism in Western philosophy. The notion is that all things in existence are in reality made of one single substance. They differ in form, but in essence they are of the same thing. That thing would be the single Reality known as God. However, wahdat al-mawjud is different than wahdat al-wujud. Those are quite different conceptions. Whether you agree with these conceptions is irrelevant to the fact that there is a difference between the two. Unfortunately, most people unintentionally (and others intentionally) mix the two up, something common in the polemics. I don't know of Ayatuallah Bahjat's personal views, so I can't say. Though, I'm fairly sure he believed in wahdat al-wujud (seeing as he was strongly affiliated with the Ibn `Arabi / Mulla Sadra school of thought). (wasalam)
  24. Anytime, princess. (wasalam)
×
×
  • Create New...