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. You must be brushing up on your taqiyya skills... (wasalam)
  2. I don't think you should look at these things in such rigid terms (especially since they themselves are likely not so monolithic). Perhaps, it would be better to learn about what arguments early Akhbari scholars brought forth instead of just relying on what Usoolis say about them. It amazes me how we Shi`ahs complain so much about the misinformation spread about us and our beliefs, yet we are guilty of doing the same exact things. Are we really that much better then? (wasalam)
  3. Not quite, but you might say there is no mercy except that which is from Allah [swt]. This hadith might help demonstrate an example of Allah [swt]'s Absoluteness: 1 - حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن يحيى العطار رحمه الله، قال: حدثنا أبي، عن سهل بن زياد الآدمي، عن ابن محبوب، عمن ذكره، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام، قال: قال رجل عنده. (الله أكبر) فقال: الله أكبر من أي شئ؟ ! فقال: من كل شئ فقال أبوعبدالله عليه السلام: حددته، فقال الرجل: كيف أقول؟ فقال: قل: الله أكبر من أن يوصف. 1 – Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya the perfumist رحمه الله narrated to us. He said: My father narrated to me from Sahl b. Ziyad al-Adami from Ibn Mahbub from the one who he mentioned from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: A man who was with him said “Allahu akbar”. So he said: Allah is greater than which thing? So he said: From everything. So Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام said: You have limited Him. So the man said: How should I say? So he said: Allah is greater than that He be described. http://www.*******.org/hadiths/kitab-at-tawhid/chapter-46 (wasalam)
  4. ...And I'd ask you to do the same (i.e. stop rambling on about the same things over and over again). Let's face it. Even if I bring you the clearest cut textual evidence from Imam `Ali [as] himself, you're going to look for every excuse under the sky to discredit it (e.g. it's from Shi`ahs, it sounds fishy, it doesn't make sense, etc). Likewise, if you demonstrate a lack of evidence on the subject matter, I too will likely not change my view. Why? Well, because the textual evidence is only but part of the proof for his Imamate. There are really two conceptions with respect to succession. People hold these conceptions prior to even bothering to read the text, before they bother to read into the life of the Prophet [sawa], before they even examine the veracity of the Qur'an. Shi`ahs simply do not believe that Divine guidance can come to an end. And in terms of the dispute over succession, they refrain from ascribing (what they consider) negligence on the part of the Allah [swt] and His messenger [sawa]. They do not concede to the notion that he could have simply left the community as it was, with no determined direction for the future, with no protector and proper interpreter of the message. Thus, Imam `Ali [as] becomes, no doubt, the primary choice for this inherited Divine leadership over the community. The textual evidence is merely a means to identify the person to whom this Divine guidance has been bestowed upon. To claim, that all of this literature came onto the scene after the fact, propagated by his extremist supporters, likewise can not be proven and is speculative at best. Still written historical accounts in general all came much later. And ironically enough, the earliest cited written text was, as far as we know, a Shi`i hadith compilation (of course, the authenticity of the book as it stands today requires an in-depth discussion of its own, perhaps for another thread). And, obviously, Sunnis do not agree and do not consider this to have been the case nor a Divine requirement. Nevertheless, I await your same old rhetorical questions (hopefully, you bothered to read my post this time before responding). (wasalam)
  5. Umm...yeah, I don't think you quite understood what I mean't there. I think you are mixing up some of what I said and applying it to other statements I made in reference to something else. The problem with this approach to understanding historical events is that just because people refused to accept a particular doctrine or truth does not necessarily entail it being false. This response was to the inital statement you made whereby you said "If it were truly clear, sunnis wouldnt exist." If I understood you correctly, this is in reference to the Imamate. Basically, if the Prophet [sawa] announced the Imamate of `Ali [as], and its implications were properly understood by the masses, then Sunnis would not exist. Do I have this right? In reference to the statement of there not being ahadith in the Sunni corpus affirming the Shi`i conception of Imamate, this I mean't was that it would not be surprising if such statements could NOT be found there. Just as you would not expect to find Shi`i hadiths affirming the caliphate of Abu Bakr and `Umar. I'm not applying a double standard here. I'm stating an obvious yet often overlooked fact. I think you find me, by default, suspect of trying to just prove Shi`ism right without applying critical methodolgies. The thing is though that I concede to the notion that what is my view is based upon various other factors. Again, historical readings are inherently subjective. You seem quite idealistic in finding an objective truth that everyone will agree on. I personally don't find that to be the case. Nonetheless, I intend to present the Shi`i narrative as a viable alternative, not for people to be tricked and duped into believing it, but rather that it gives them another option. That's all we can and ought to do. Give people the various possibilities and let them choose for themselves. There's no point in trying to decieve others to following you, Allah [swt] will judge between everyone in that which they differed. (wasalam)
  6. Here you go...The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate. (wasalam)
  7. But in principle there would be nothing wrong with it, correct (according to that rationale)? (wasalam)
  8. By that standard of reasoning, though, you can pretty much utter any true statement in the middle of the adhan and say it loud enough to make it almost indistinguishable from those parts that are actually in the adhan. (wasalam)
  9. You may want to read this short article by Etan Kohlberg titled "The Term 'Rafida' in Imami Shi'i Usage." Very interesting paper. (wasalam)
  10. Correct, He is All-Knowing. What I mean by that, though, is that He is All-Knowing without applying the limitation of time to Him. If you say that He is subject to the constraints of time (i.e. He has a before or after), then you are relativizing Him right then and there. Thus, negating his Absoluteness. (wasalam)
  11. In the context of a philosophical (and perhaps theological) discourse, what we mean by Allah [swt] as the Absolute is that there are no limitations or constraints that can be attached to Him, neither in terms of time nor space. You have to keep in mind that Allah [swt] operates in the Absolute Realm, where there is no concept of time or space. Time is only real insofar as it is relative. There is no before or after for Allah [swt] rather He is Fixed. He is the Creator of time. That is, whatever He created (although, even when we say 'He created', it implies a moment in time, but unfortunately there are limitations to language), His creation became something relative to Him. So, the concept of time can only be applied to His creation, everything that exists in the Cosmos that is. So, He is the Pole around which all things revolve and stand relative to. Therefore, in the Absolute Realm, God does not know the future or the past, He only knows the now. He is knowledgeable about the present, since He only lives in the present and everything happens in the present (according to His view). He occupies no space either. If He did, that would be another limitation for Him. And such cannot be the case. So, Absoluteness basically entails the Transcendence of Allah [swt]. It places Him properly outside of His Creation. Remember, Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him. (112:1-4) (wasalam)
  12. Of course, I wouldn't expect them to do so. These orientalists don't believe any of these "extrordinary" claims. I'm not saying that they think that he was a Divinely-appointed Imam, I'm saying that they believe him to have been either the most suitable choice or chosen by the Prophet [sawa]. For that matter, though, they don't even support the prophethood of Muhammad [sawa] or the truthfulness of the Qur'an. In their view, he was pretty much a charlatan ('audhu billah). Most employe a reductionist worldview, as a means of trying to attain the truth of what actually happened. And as such, they must, like the rest of us, use their imagination to fill in the gaps. They prefer to ascribe materialistic base motives to all their actions, while believers tend to have a much more spiritually fulfilling outlook. Nobody should think, "well this historian says that Imam `Ali [as] was likely chosen by the Prophet [sawa], so in your face." While they may agree with this bit, they certainly do not think him to have been a Divinely-appointed leader, and neither the Prophet [sawa] for that matter. All I'm saying is that the Shi`i reading of historical events is a viable alternative to the Sunni conception. Do I believe everything the Shi`i claim today or what you find in the books? No, but I do believe he [as] was an Imam. Is it faith? Of course, but I've done my reading too (and still do). Do I think that anyone who disagrees with my view is a complete idiot? No, I do not. Everyone must come to their own understanding. Ultimately, everyone shall be judged on the choices they make. What I disagree with Ugly Jinn on is that there is no basis to which one can argue for the Imamate of Imam `Ali [as]. You certainly can, although, sure the explicit textual evidence may lean more towards him being just a pious and knowledgeable leader and nothing more. I don't believe that to be the extent of his status and position though. But that's my own subjective view. (wasalam)
  13. Unbias in what way though? Historical readings are inherently subjective. There are Western academic scholars that have favored a succession of `Ali [as] over the others, based upon the reading of primary sources from the Shi`ah and Sunni. Are they biased too? I know that my reading is subjective, at least I acknowledge it though. (wasalam)
  14. The problem with this approach to understanding historical events is that just because people refused to accept a particular doctrine or truth does not necessarily entail it being false. If this was true, at least from the perspective of a Muslim, one should not believe that all these previous generations who had prophets perform miracles in front of their eyes, outright rejected them. It's like saying Prophet Noah [as] preached for nearly a thousand years yet was only able to get a few people to accept his prophethood, thus the story must be false. Clearly, that would be a lack of academic rigor. As for the difference in interpretations, I've have repeatedly acknowledged the fact that historical readings are inherently subjective. Ugly Jinn has seen me argue this on multiple threads. My whole attempt is to simply present the Shi`i readings as a viable alternative to that of the Sunnis, just as viable to say the least. So, even if he were looking at this from a point of view of a skeptic, he would have to acknowledge the fact that Shi`i sources cannot be so easily dismissed. Of course, I can see how a Sunni approach would have more appeal to him as he tends to interpret this history through a sort of reductionism. Thus, making the Sunni claims more probable. However, I don't buy it simply because these same kinds of claims that are being made by Shi'ahs are prevalent within the Qur'anic discourse. Approaching the reading of Shi`i historical events through these lenses is tantamount to rejecting the veracity of the claims made in the Qur'an. That's all. (wasalam)
  15. Sure, a plethora of textual evidence can be found within early Shi`i sources. However, our friend here will not accept those sources whatsoever. Fine. The event of Ghadir is clear enough, as collaborated by Sunni and Shi`i books. The statement is not disputed rather its interpretation and significance. And then there are some stuff posted here from Nahj al-Balagha, which he conceded to, but now wants a declaration from the Imam [as] directed towards the masses without it coming from Shi`i sources. I mean, is he serious? Even if he happened to do so publicly, why would the anti-`Alid establishments of the Umayyads and Abbasids even allow for those reports to penetrate through to the Sunni orthodox books. In fact, it was only later that he [as] was even accepted within the Sunni theological construct of the Rashidun Khulafah. For decades, his enemies cursed his name on the pulpits. Ask yourself, why so much hate for him? By the way, this is not directed towards you, I'm just on an emotional rant. (wasalam)
  16. Wrong, again. There is more than sufficent textual evidence to prove the Imamate of Imam `Ali [as]. The problem is you're too narrow-minded to consider Shi`i sources as even remotely credible. Sure, you would have to dig through, as Shi`ahs are not somehow free from the tendency to bolster their own claims, but that doesn't mean everything came after the fact. You give precedence to Sunni sources by default, so why even bother? Almost oblivious of the fact that prior to actual written historical accounts and recorded narrations, the Umayyad political force ruled for quite some time. You simply ignore that, failing to understand that Sunni Islam as we have it today, was also prone to external influences and is not a strictly objective and neutral account of these events. They were quite anti-`Alid, in fact. You can claim to be as free-thinking as you want, but that's certainly not the case. You're just as irrational as the rest of us, to say the least. (wasalam)
  17. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. I mean, how they can live with themselves is just beyond me. (wasalam)
  18. It was a fairly accurate assessment of the stereotypical outlook people tended to have (and still do) in Afghanistan towards each other. These are generalized stereotypes, though, so one should not be offended if they do not fit this description. (wasalam)
  19. I don't see the reason to further complicate things on the basis of later opinions by the jurists. The apparent meaning of the text is clear, the Shi`ah are forgiven the khums until the arrival of the Imam (to whom it was intended for). Even if other narrations list certain exceptions, we must still deal with the issue at hand. Who is the khums to go to without the presence of the Imam? The arguments jurists later brought forth seemed to be predicated upon a rationalistic tendency, not explicit textual evidence. But if you have that, then I'd be curious to take a look at it. (wasalam)
  20. When did I claim to have any answers? I was merely pointing something out. All I'm saying is that the hadith corpus is not as black and white on these issues as many would claim it to be. There's more guesswork going on than we might be lead to believe. So, as such we ought to go back to the primary sources, if we can, and look up the words of the Masumeen [as] and struggle to come to our own understanding of things. And if that endeavor does nothing more than bewilder us even more, at least we can come out knowing that if there's disagreement between parties it doesn't mean the other side is a kafir idiot (i.e. they might actually have evidence for their belief). We may not come to the same conclusions but hey, after all we are fallible creatures. (wasalam)
  21. That's pretty much what I said. :) If you genuinely held the wrong belief, why would Allah [swt] hold it against you? (wasalam)
  22. If they make sense to you and are backed up by convincing evidence, then sure believe it. You wouldn't be following in that case, rather that person would be helping facilitate that knowledge to you. But, yes, just because a great scholar like Shaykh al-Mufid had a particular belief on an issue, doesn't mean you can simply accept his word. You got to ask youself at that point, would the evidence still be convincing if it was coming from someone other than al-Mufid (just as an example)? (wasalam)
  23. Well, brother, you specifically referred him to the Maraja, who are specialists in fiqh. There are other types of scholars out there as well (fiqh is only one particular discourse among others) and while they may not be followed in the areas of fiqh, they write extensively on aqeedah. Nonetheless, you can't just take your beliefs from someone who appears more knowledgeable. Ask questions, sure. Ask for evidence, of course. But remember there's a signifcant difference between taqlid in matters of law and those pertaining to beliefs. As for a ruling, I don't claim to have one. I'm in no position to declare kufr on others so loosely (especially when there's a possiblity that it really comes down to miscommunication between the parties). (wasalam)
  24. If you're gonna do taqlid, at least do it right. 1. It is necessary for a Muslim to believe in the fundamentals of faith with his own insight and understanding, and he cannot follow anyone in this respect i.e. he cannot accept the word of another who knows, simply because he has said it. http://www.najaf.org/english/book/1/ (wasalam)
×
×
  • Create New...