.png.8a406d04c759601a15bea7e1a3ffe828.png)
|
|
|
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'tashayu'.
Found 2 results
-
Bismillah, We Twelver Shias commonly claim that the Takfiri/Salafi/Wahhabi propagandists are funded by the Saudis and their petro dollars. Do we have any proof of this? Thanks. JazakAllah Khair. -
.thumb.jpg.a466c9876e9a56ac0712b02916fe24d3.jpg)
This is Seyyed Kamal's view on the importance to differentiate between what he calls tashayu' 'aqaedi (theological shiism), and tashayu' tareekhi (historic shiism): When looking at all the different theological schools that exist today (school of Ahlul Bayt, Ash'ari, Mu'tazali, Zaidi, school of Ibn Taymiyah, etc), we must look at the sources they resort to to deduce their religious concepts, which are: 1) The Quran (the word of God), and the valid hadith/narrations (words and deeds of the Infallibles) 2) The Intellect ('aql): not what we use as a tool to think and understand (even the akhbari accepts this meaning of aql), but as a means to produce new knowledge. => this is what he refers to as theological Shi'ism: When a scholar refers to these sources of scripture and uses his intellect to define religious concepts and derive his theological, ethical, social, fiqh framework. Whereas historic Shi'ism can be defined as: all that which past scholars have deduced and derived over the years. This resulted in differing views and opinions and sub-sects. All these differing opinions came as a result of these scholars understanding of the quranic verses and narrations, and their ijtihad and effort to derive their own religious concepts and juristic rulings. So which is the true Shi'ism? The one that contains the opinions of scholars spanning 14 centuries? If that was the case, then Shi'ism would be filled with contradictions, since nobody can claim that our school of thought contains one united view. The need to differentiate between the two is to make clear that the first (theological shiism) is the main source of reference, and the second has no value. There is no compulsion to be in line with the consensus of past scholars. He might agree or disagree with them (theologically, ethically, fiqhi, etc). The understanding and opinions of scholars is not binding on anybody. You should rely on quranic and valid hadith evidence, and the mind that God gave you to build your worldview, and provide solutions to current problems. All past scholars and their views are respected, but not sacred. There are no red lines, or established facts when it comes to opinions of scholars. The Quran is sacred. The word of the infallible is sacred, nothing else. The reason he brought this up in his private lesson, is because there are some who are tampering with the seminary lectures- where he mostly goes through the opinions of other scholars, and only later on s his own opinion- and are creating clips where they make out his opinion to be that of other scholars, and other shenanigans.
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.