Ilm Al-fiqh

[zuhair_naqvi]

Here we shall discuss what Ilm Al-Fiqh is according to the infallibles and we shall talk about permissibility of Ijtihad in shia fiqh.

Note: I request you to keep the debate scholarly and documentable since I intend to publish this.

Edited March 25, 2007 by zuhair_naqvi

[zuhair_naqvi]

The background

It is important to briefly mention the reason behind such a perception that rejects the principle of jurisprudence in Islamic law (ijthiad fil fiqh) and accepts only the holy Quran and Sunnah (of prophet and his ahlulbayt) as the legitimate sources of law.

In general, ijthiad in fiqh is the process of using one's independent thinking to reach a legal decision. It was one of the key differences between the early sunnis and shias.

The sunni school of thought, permitted ijtihad, whereas, shia muslims denied the legitimacy of ijtihad and maintained that religious law comes verbatim and only from two sources: the holy Quran and the household (ahlulbayt) of the prophet; as was declared in the very famous tradition of "thaqalayn".

However, due the end of accessibility of the Imam of the time, i.e. after the major occultation, some shia scholars decided to consider resorting to ijtihad after thoroughly organizing and rationalizing the concept. But many great scholars including legends like Shaykh Saduq (ar) and Shaykh Yaqoob Kulayni (ar) maintained the traditional shia view and did not accept the change.

As the event of major occultation moved further into the past, the fuqaha noticed increasing ambiguity in up coming legal matters, consequently the popularity of ijtihad increased greatly among some shia scholars while the criticism of ijtihad also remained.

This gradually led to a polarization of opinion among the shia fuqaha, some scholars like Muhaqiq Hilli leaned towards ijtihad and some like Allamah Baqir Majlisi (the author of bihar al-anwaar) favored the traditional view. This polarization increased to such an extent that adoption of ijtihad became an agenda of debate among shia scholars. Eventually, creating two discrete schools of thought in shia Islam i.e. the traditional, "Akhbari" school and the modernist, "Ijtihadi" or "Usooli" school.

What used to be scholastic perceptions had turned into rapidly evolving schools and extremism flourished on both sides. This is when Mulla Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi (died: 1033/1624), an extremist traditional, wrote a book called "Fawa'id al-Madaniyyah" which consisted of the tradional, akhbari views as well as some of his own. The book gained sharp criticism due to its radical nature. His being on the akhbari side, lead to a misunderstanding that anyone who is an akhbari is a follower of Mulla Mohammad Amin Astarabadi. On the other hand there were ijtihadi extremists too. Like Wahid Bahbahani followed by Shaykh Al-Ansari who laid the foundation of ilm ul usool ul fiqh.

Shaykh Murtada bin Muhammad Amin Ansari (from 1214/1799 to 1281/1864), who was also known as "Khatimul Fuqaha wal Mujtahidin" (The Seal of the Mujtahideen) introduced major developments in the principles of jurisprudence that remain current to the present day. His most important contribution was in deriving a set of principles to be used in formulating decisions in cases where there is doubt. In this regard he provided a new scope to the discourse on fiqh. He divided legal decisions into four categories:

1. Certainty (qat`): This represents cases where clear decisions can be obtained from the Qur'an or reliable Traditions (ahadith).

2. Valid Conjecture (zann mu`tabar): This represents cases where the probability of correctness can be created by using certain rational principles.

3. Doubt (shakk): This refers to cases where there is no guidance available from the sources and nothing to indicate the probability of what is the correct answer. It is in relation to the cases that Shaykh Ansari formulated four guiding principles which he called Usul al-`amaliyya:

i) Al-bara'a: Allowing the maximum possible freedom of action.

ii) Al-takhyir: freedom of selecting the opinions of other jurists or even other schools of law.

iii) Al-istishab: the continuation of any state of affairs in existence, or legal decisions already accepted unless the

contrary can be proved.

iv) Al-ihtiyat: prudent caution whenever in doubt.

4. Erroneous Conjecture (wahm): This refers to cases where there is a probability of error; such decisions are of no legal standing.

The effect of the developments instituted by Shaykh Al-Ansari was far-reaching. Previously the Mujtahidin had confined themselves to giving rulings where there was the probability or certainty of being in accordance with the guidance of the Imams (as). However, the rules developed by Shaykh Al-Ansari allowed them to extend their jurisdiction to any matter where there was even a possibility of being in accordance with the guidance of the Imams (as). This effectively meant that they could issue edicts on virtually any subject. Shaykh Al-Ansari's own strict exercise of caution (ihtiyat) severely restricted this freedom, but some other Mujtahidin allowed themselves a freer hand.

There are several reasons as to why the doctrine of ijtihad is still not accepted by many shias. The first reason is that the variations of interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah using ilm ul usool lead to numerous contradicting derivations of fiqh. Where as, the actual fiqh brought by the prophet of Allah (swt) and guarded by the infallible imams is only one. Meaning that even if any one of the mujtahidin has succeeded in reaching that "one" fiqh, all his contemporaries who issue differing rulings have gone astray. Therefore, greater the number of marjas, lesser the probability of muqallidin being on the "one" right path.

However, the most definitive cause for rejection of ijtihad is the abundance of traditions of the prophet and imams stating clear and definitive prohibition of deducing / deriving one law from another (leave alone, the creation of generalized principles "usool").

Following are two of such tradtions:

Hadith 11, pg. 105, Baab 20, Kitab al-Aql, Usool Al-Kafii, Vol-1

Mohammad bin Yahya narrates from Ahmad bin Mohammad who narrates from Al Washa'e who narrates from Muthanna al Hannath'e who narrates from Abu Baseer:

I told Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as) that some times we hear problems from people for which we cannot find an answer from the Quran or the Sunnah, hence we deduce a reply ourselves after due consideration. Imam said: Beware! never do such things. Per chance, even if you were right, there is no reward and if you were wrong, then you have accused Allah.

[bHadith 10, pg. 120-122, Baab 22, Kitab Al-Aql, Usool Al-Kafii, Vol-1/b]

Mohammad bin Yahya narrates from Ahmad bin Mohammad who narrates from Al Washa'e who narrates from Muthanna al Hannath�e who narrates from Abu Baseer:

Mohammad bin Yahya narrates from Moammad bin Al-Hussain who narrates from Mohammad bin Isa who narrates from Safwan bin Yahya who narrates from Dawood bin Al-Hisayn who narrates from Omar bin Hamzalah who said:

I asked Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as) about two such people, who had a dispute about a loan or inheritance, can they take the matter to the ruler (sultan) or his appointed Jurist (Qadhi), is it permissible for them? The Imam said, "whoever makes such rulers or Jurists as their arbitrators in matters of Haq or Batil (right or wrong) has taken his case to Taghoot and whatever ruling was given by such arbitrators will be as if it was given after taking bribes. Even though it may have proved the right of the litigant. Where as, it is enjoined upon them (the litigants) to refute such rulings. Allah (swt) says in the Quran yureedhuna an yatahakamu ilat taghoot wa qad umiroo an yakfuroo bihi i.e They desire to take their disputes (for resolution) to the Taghoot while they were ordered to refuse their authority". Then I said, what should they (the litigants) do? The Imam said, "They should take their dispute to one amongst you (shia) who is a narrator of our traditions, who has the knowledge of our halal and haram and is well versed in our ahkaam and they (the litigants) should accept his decision, since we have appointed such a person as a ruler (hakim) over you all and when he decides a matter as per our ahkam and if they (the litigants) do not accept it, verily they have insulted the hukmillah and have denied us. And whosoever denied us has denied Allah and that is on the borders of shirk billah". I said, if each of them (the litigants) selected one arbitrator from us (shia) and both the arbitrators agreed to consider their rights in the matter and gave differing rulings based on different ahadiith from you. The Imam said, "The ruling given by the one who is more just (adil), more faqeeh (afqahahuma) and more truthful in narration of our hadith and more God fearing (awrauhuma) amongst the two, is to be followed and the other to be disregarded". I said, what if both of them were equally just and our people like both of them without prefering one over the other? The Imam said, "The one who has based his ruling on such of our hadith which is more common and accepted among our shia should be followed rather than following the ruling which is based on lesser known (shaaz) of our ahadiith". Then the Imam said, "Since the hadith on which majority of our shia agree cannot be doubted (comment: ijma is permissible in judging authenticity of hadith)". And Imam further said, "The matters of shariyah are of three kinds. The first are those whose righteousness is clearly and openly defined in the Quran and Sunna, these must be obeyed. The second ones are those whose sinfulness has be clealy and openly defined in the Quran and Sunnah, these must be avoided. The third ones are those matters which are complicated and clear definitions of which cannot be found in the Quran, these must be referred to and reverted to Allah (swt) and his prophet".

Then Imam recited this hadith of Rasoolallah (saws) "halalun bayyinnu wa haramun bayyinnu wa shubuhaatun bayna zaalika fa man tarakal shubuhaat naja minal muharramaat wa man aqaza bish-shubuhaat irtakabal muharramaat wa halaka min haythu la ya'alamnu" meaning "All permissibles (halaal) have been clearly defined and all prohibitions (haraam) have been clearly defined. In between both are the ambiguities (shubuhaat) so whoever forsake the ambiguities, was saved from the forbidden and whosoever deduced therefrom and acted upon them has committed the forbidden (muharramaat) and was killed (halaka) due to ignorance".

I said, what is to be done when there are two famous and contradicting (in context with the case) ahaadiith narrated by our reliable narrators from both of you i.e. Imam Mohammad Baqir (as) and Imam Jafar Sadiq (as), The Imam said, "It should be determined which hadith is in conformity with the Quran and Sunnah (other ahaadiith) and is against the public opinion (of non-shia / a'amma), that which is in conformity with the Quran and Sunnah shall be acted upon and that which is against the Quran and Sunnah but in conformity with the public opinion shall be rejected." I said, may I be your ransom, which khabar (hadith) shall we act upon especially when both fuqaha understood the hukm of their respective ahaadith based on Quran and Sunnah (other ahaadiith) as daliil. And one such ruling is in conformity with the a'amma and the other is against it? The Imam said, "The one which is against the a'amma has guidance in it".

I said, may I be your ransom, what is to be done when two different groups of the a'amma are in support of both the akhbaar (hadiith) each? The Imam said, "It should be seen, which one of the akhbaar is more acceptable to their (a'amma(s)) officials and jurists, the one more acceptable to them should be discarded and the other should be acted upon". I said, what if both the groups of a'amma are equally agreeable to both the akhbaar? The Imam said, "Then stop acting on both the akhbaar! Since stopping when in doubt is better than proceeding into death (halakah)".

Edited March 26, 2007 by zuhair_naqvi

[Islamic Salvation]

Salaam.

These two Narrations are The Basis By and On which the Usuulis Perform Their Ijtihad so You havent proved Otherwise as explained Below.

Brother:

I have Tried very Much to Indicate and Further Clarify that Ijtihad is not a Parallel Source In Derivation Of The Shariah And Its Ahkam.

It is according to the Usuulis Just a means and a Due process By which The Legal Sources are Referred to By One Who Posseses Technical Knowledge on the Subect with which Or Through Which one attains a Binding Hukm of The Islamic Shariah.

What the Usuuli and Akhbari Have Difference and Contention Over is Basically The Sources (Dalail) for Obtaining A Hukm which is Legally binding on a Baligh Mukallaf within the limits of the Shariah.

The Akhbaris Believe that Even The Zawahir (Literal Meanings) Of The Quran Have No Legal Import as the Quran is a Mystery Book Understood Only By Ahlulbayt And Hence they Soleley depends on The AHadith thus Known As Akhbariyoon. They Further Contend No Technical Knowledge is needed In Asseing these Ahadith especially in the Four Canonical Works of the Shia.

You have tried to Undermine Ijtihad By Quoting Traditions But have Failed to do so Because you have not Understood What Ijtihad In The Usuuli Context Entails.

This Misrepresentation On Your Part is Mainly caused because of Confusing The Usuuli Stance Or View with that of the Ahlus Sunnah whereby they view Ijtihad as a parallel source to obtaining a Hukm.

This Means that Essentially They Say That if Textual Evidence (Nass) from the Quran and The Prophetic Precedent (Sunnah-Including His Aqwal, Afal And Aqrar) are missing And Containing No Rule And they have no clarity in Deriving a Furu then A Jurist trying To Issue A Religious Edict (Fatwa) Will have to Rely on His Own Analogical Reasoning or Ijtihad which has been Defined by Al-Shafii In His Earliest Risala on Usul To be Mainly Qiyas. Thus The First Hadith Shows that Ijtihad or Qiyas Bil Rayy cannot be considered as A parallel source to Quran or Sunnah.

Thus They the Four Sunni Schools Of Thought Contend That In Practical Guidance if you do not find Any Implication from the Quran and the Sunnah you can engage in What the Usuuli Term Ijtihad Al-Aqli According To which Reasoning Analogically By Following Taa'wul, Istislah, Istishaan and Others can be used because they believe that Quran and Sunnah has not got all the Derived Ahkam In them.

Ijtihad In This sense Which Is Ijtihad Al Aqli is Deemed Haram By The Usuuli as the above Traditions and Narrations from The Ahlulbayt Prove So.

The Ahlulbayt were Allways against Such Ijtihad which is Haram and Not Allowed In Islam as the Ulul Amr were present and they had All Knowledge to Give Dalail and Proofs Straight from their Divine Guidance.

Instead the School of the Imamiyah Including the Usuulis Feel that Obviously All the Shariah In General Terms are Present in the Two main Sources This view is Integral to all the Usuulis whereby They Believe that All the Shariah has been Clarified and Proved By the Ahlulbayt whose example should be Followed.

Eg. The Ahlulbayt Have Said "Upon us is the (general) rules (i.e. the general rules are the responsibility of the Imams) while upon you is the application (i.e. the application of the rules in all the particular circumstances is our responsibility)."

Now If you define Ijtihad as a Process Undertaken to obtain a Hukm Not a source of Hukm then there is no contradiction to the above Ahadith Mainly Because the Context of The First Hadith was Forbidding Using Ijtihad As A Parallel source Because such a useage is Haram as the Ahlulbayt have clarified that Not One Rule is Lackig in the Quran and their Teachings.

Infact Ijtihad, in the proper meaning of deducing the consequences (i.e. legislation) of faith from the sources - meaning referring the consequences, or legislation to the sources, and applying the sources to the legislation-has existed amongst Shi'ites ever since the time of the pure Imams, and the pure Imams used to command their companions to engage themselves in this practice.

Afterall Even the Akhbari Must Do Ijtihad Meaning Undertake A process of Striving and Struggling In Diving Into the Corpus of The Textual Body of The Quran and The Precedent of the Sunnah As Guided by the Imams To Obtain A Hukm.

Meaning when the Imams were Manifest they could be asked And Answer Immediately.

But because they are Not Manifest then one has to base his rulings on the Quran and Their Ahadith but to Understand The Ruling from this One Must Struggle and Refer to the Adillah Which is What Ijtihad is.

Thus Even when Brother Zuhair was posed by A Mas'ala of wether A Female can visit the Battle Field to help the Injured Muslim Soldiers He did not Base His Verdict on what he thought was true (Ijtihad Aqli) or opinion (Rayy) but had to Investigate in the two sources where He Found Ahadith Accepting and Allowing that Practise.

What He did that is what Ijtihad is.

Which Is Basically Investigating the sources and coming up with the Hukm from them.

But his Ijtihad is Fool Proof if Clear Nass is found if not then Because of not accepting the Usul He Cannot Derive Laws and Ahkam to the capacity required Because he cannot progumulate the General Laws to the Derived Ones which by the way have been taught By The Imams.

Allamah Hilli in His Tahdhib Al Usuul Clarifies By Saying:

"We can therefore say that the Ijtihad which is forbidden and rejected in the eyes of the Shi`a is That Of ra' y and qiyas, which were originally called ijtihad By Them the Amma, whether this is counted as a source of the shari`a and as an independent basis for legislation, or taken as a means for deriving and deducing true precepts; whereas the ijtihad which they (Usuuli) deem correct according to the shari`a is that which means effort and exertion based on expert technical knowledge."

Basically This Ijtihad which The Usuuli Undertake is called Ijtihad Al-Sharii to enable Unity a similar name was chosen to the Ahlu Sunnah.

So In Conclusion The Above narrations Even the Second One Which Is Called The Maqbula of Hanzala which is Weak In Diraya But Has been accepted By All Usuulis From Initiation Shows the Impermissibility of Using Ijtihad As A source of Deriving Ahkam But The Usuulis Do not see Ijtihad as a source like the Sunnah do, they define it as a Process and means by which the Sources are Investigated and Hukm Is Obtained.

Brother Zuhair and Other Akhbaris feel that Ijtihad should be done by referring only to the Two Fundamental Sources of Quran And Sunnah but they forget that the Usuulis agree with That and Believe In It too.

The Usuulis Also believe like them that all desicions should be confined Foremost to these Two Binding Sources They also Acknowledge that these are the major sources for Obtaining The Qaidah (General Terms) thus they term them Adillah al Akbar and no Independant or Dependant Reasoning can contadict the above.

So I stress That The Discussion should Revolve around wether Al Aql and Al-Ijma Can be used As sunsidiary to the Quran And The Sunnah In Obtaining Ahkam And Not On wether Ijtihad Is Haram as claimed by Bro.Zuhair which we fully agree with.

But He was talking about Ijtihad Al Aqli while If he wants to target the Usuulis He should Prove the Impermissibility of their Definition which is Ijtihad Al Sharii.

So If brother Zuhair Is ready we should discuss Al-Aql as a subsidiary source and prove its legitimity in The Process Called Ijtihad which is Not Haram as explained above.

Note: The Dependant Reasoning Al Aql can only be applied when No Injuction is Found in the Quran and Sunnah.

But the Reasoning is Not Independant but dependant on laws Taught to us By The Imams Which I shall Clarify.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Islamic Salvation

[zuhair_naqvi]

Note: recent edition is highlighted in red color.

Salaam.

These two Narrations are The Basis By and On which the Usuulis Perform Their Ijtihad so You havent proved Otherwise as explained Below.

Brother:

I have Tried very Much to Indicate and Further Clarify that Ijtihad is not a Parallel Source In Derivation Of The Shariah And Its Ahkam.

It is according to the Usuulis Just a means and a Due process By which The Legal Sources are Referred to By One Who Posseses Technical Knowledge on the Subect with which Or Through Which one attains a Binding Hukm of The Islamic Shariah.

What the Usuuli and Akhbari Have Difference and Contention Over is Basically The Sources (Dalail) for Obtaining A Hukm which is Legally binding on a Baligh Mukallaf within the limits of the Shariah.

1. You are taking a huge leap; the above traditions teach the method of obtaining "nass" and clearly forbid us from investigating matters where "nass" is not clear. Investigation of ambiguities in fiqh is haraam. Regardless of what the method of investigation is based on i.e. ijtihad-e-sharai or ijtihad-e-aqli both are at their core based on zann. This is clear not only through maqbula of hanzala but also by numerous traditions.

The Akhbaris Believe that Even The Zawahir (Literal Meanings) Of The Quran Have No Legal Import as the Quran is a Mystery Book Understood Only By Ahlulbayt And Hence they Soleley depends on The AHadith thus Known As Akhbariyoon.

Let us discuss this in the separate topic created for it (http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234923993)

2. However, you bring an important question to my notice: If one can follow the zawahir al-Quran (literals of the quran) directly, what is wrong with zawahir al hadith e sahih (literals of authentic traditions)? Why do you insist that even if a tradition is authentic, only a mujtahid can explain what it means? Do you, perhaps, want to say that words of the prophet and the imams are more eloquent and deeper in meaning than the words of Allah (swt)?

They Further Contend No Technical Knowledge is needed In Asseing these Ahadith especially in the Four Canonical Works of the Shia.

3. This is again a misconception, firstly there is no proof that traditional (akhbari) shia believe in absolute authenticity of any book except the holy Quran. And secondly, we find Shaykh Yaqoob Kulaini, Shaykh Saduq and Skhaykh Tusi reliable in their knowledge of hadith. It is a desperate and flawed usooli claim that traditionals endorse their seal of faith blindly over their works.

You have tried to Undermine Ijtihad By Quoting Traditions But have Failed to do so Because you have not Understood What Ijtihad In The Usuuli Context Entails.

This Misrepresentation On Your Part is Mainly caused because of Confusing The Usuuli Stance Or View with that of the Ahlus Sunnah whereby they view Ijtihad as a parallel source to obtaining a Hukm.

This Means that Essentially They Say That if Textual Evidence (Nass) from the Quran and The Prophetic Precedent (Sunnah-Including His Aqwal, Afal And Aqrar) are missing And Containing No Rule And they have no clarity in Deriving a Furu then A Jurist trying To Issue A Religious Edict (Fatwa) Will have to Rely on His Own Analogical Reasoning or Ijtihad which has been Defined by Al-Shafii In His Earliest Risala on Usul To be Mainly Qiyas. Thus The First Hadith Shows that Ijtihad or Qiyas Bil Rayy cannot be considered as A parallel source to Quran or Sunnah.

Thus They the Four Sunni Schools Of Thought Contend That In Practical Guidance if you do not find Any Implication from the Quran and the Sunnah you can engage in What the Usuuli Term Ijtihad Al-Aqli According To which Reasoning Analogically By Following Taa'wul, Istislah, Istishaan and Others can be used because they believe that Quran and Sunnah has not got all the Derived Ahkam In them.

Ijtihad In This sense Which Is Ijtihad Al Aqli is Deemed Haram By The Usuuli as the above Traditions and Narrations from The Ahlulbayt Prove So.

The Ahlulbayt were Allways against Such Ijtihad which is Haram and Not Allowed In Islam as the Ulul Amr were present and they had All Knowledge to Give Dalail and Proofs Straight from their Divine Guidance.

Instead the School of the Imamiyah Including the Usuulis Feel that Obviously All the Shariah In General Terms are Present in the Two main Sources This view is Integral to all the Usuulis whereby They Believe that All the Shariah has been Clarified and Proved By the Ahlulbayt whose example should be Followed.

Eg. The Ahlulbayt Have Said "Upon us is the (general) rules (i.e. the general rules are the responsibility of the Imams) while upon you is the application (i.e. the application of the rules in all the particular circumstances is our responsibility)."

Now If you define Ijtihad as a Process Undertaken to obtain a Hukm Not a source of Hukm then there is no contradiction to the above Ahadith Mainly Because the Context of The First Hadith was Forbidding Using Ijtihad As A Parallel source Because such a useage is Haram as the Ahlulbayt have clarified that Not One Rule is Lackig in the Quran and their Teachings.

4. Once again, I advice you to read my previous post "the background" carefully. I have clearly mentioned that usooli itihad is NOT sunni ijtihad, it is rather a far more organized and rationalized version of conjectural jurisprudence. The justification you are presenting is in contradiction not only with the quoted traditions but also with your ilm ul usool. I would regard it as something in between truth and falsehood. Let us discuss usooli ijtihad in the light of ilm ul usool:

In the usooli school, legal decisions are divided into four categories:

1. Certainty (qat`): This represents cases where clear decisions can be obtained from the Qur'an or reliable Traditions (ahadith).

5. This is the only category accepted by traditional shias, we believe that one can consider a law to be from the Islamic shariyah if and only if its certainty is proven from Quran or Hadith.

2. Valid Conjecture (zann mu`tabar): This represents cases where the probability of correctness can be created by using certain rational principles.

6. This is rejected by traditional shias, as we believe that correction can be brought about only by someone who himself is not incorrect in any way. That is, fallibility can be removed only and only by an infallible himself and not by application of "certain rational principles" by a fallible jurist. This is why the shia consider anything haram or halal only when they find definitive and conclusive evidence from Quran or Hadith.

3. Doubt (shakk): This refers to cases where there is no guidance available from the sources and nothing to indicate the probability of what is the correct answer. It is in relation to the cases that Shaykh Ansari formulated four guiding principles which he called Usul al-`amaliyya:

i) Al-bara'a: Allowing the maximum possible freedom of action.

ii) Al-takhyir: freedom of selecting the opinions of other jurists or even other schools of law.

iii) Al-istishab: the continuation of any state of affairs in existence, or legal decisions already accepted unless the contrary can be proved.

iv) Al-ihtiyat: prudent caution whenever in doubt.

7. This is not only rejected but greatly condemned by us, one of the causes for which as already stated in my previous post is:

..."halalun bayyinnu wa haramun bayyinnu wa shubuhaatun bayna zaalika fa man tarakal shubuhaat naja minal muharramaat wa man aqaza bish-shubuhaat irtakabal muharramaat wa halaka min haythu la ya'alamnu"

"All permissibles (halaal) have been clearly defined and all prohibitions (haraam) have been clearly defined. In between both are the ambiguities (shubuhaat) so whoever forsake the ambiguities, was saved from the forbidden and whosoever deduced therefrom and acted upon them has committed the forbidden (muharramaat) and was killed (halaka) due to ignorance"...[1]

In case of shakk / shuba, we are clearly instructed NOT to investigate the position of fiqh. And if one tries to dig out the shubahat and deduce a ruling thereof (no matter by what methodology), he has committed the haram.

Now explain "Al-takhyir", who gave you the right to select opinions of other schools of thought to issue a verdict that your muqallid considers as an order from Allah? Are you not cheating those who trust your decision?

Now explain "Al-istishab", who gave you the right to endorse the permissibility of "state of affairs in existence or legal decisions already accepted"? Where as, you were ordered not to speak.

4. Erroneous Conjecture (wahm): This refers to cases where there is a probability of error; such decisions are of no legal standing.

Anything which is not clearly, definitively, conclusively defined in Quran or Hadith is of no legal standing to the traditional shias (akhbaris).

Your claim that usoolis only apply a "nass" is disguised and was therefore unfolded and invalidated here.

Infact Ijtihad, in the proper meaning of deducing the consequences (i.e. legislation) of faith from the sources - meaning referring the consequences, or legislation to the sources, and applying the sources to the legislation-has existed amongst Shi'ites ever since the time of the pure Imams, and the pure Imams used to command their companions to engage themselves in this practice.

8. You have masqueraded the conjectural, assumptive, usooli jurisprudence under a generalized opinion of yours. The usooli ijtihad believes in something like "Object Oriented" Fiqh which allows a law from Quran or Sunnah to act as a superclass and subclasses can extend that law based on usool (made by mujtahidin) to fetch a set of derived laws. But to the misfortune of usoolis shariyah is not a programming language *think*. The practice of application of a hadith is a procedure which is completely different from the usooli itihad since there is no consideration for conjectures (zann) involved in it and there is no concept of calculative derivation of shariyah.

Afterall Even the Akhbari Must Do Ijtihad Meaning Undertake A process of Striving and Struggling In Diving Into the Corpus of The Textual Body of The Quran and The Precedent of the Sunnah As Guided by the Imams To Obtain A Hukm.

This is not ijtihad, I request you to not play with the meaning of the word but to refer to the meaning that is subject to this context. Please don't interchange the meanings: "striving" with "conjectural jurisprudence" and vice versa, at places. This will confuse the reader.

Meaning when the Imams were Manifest they could be asked And Answer Immediately.

But because they are Not Manifest then one has to base his rulings on the Quran and Their Ahadith but to Understand The Ruling from this One Must Struggle and Refer to the Adillah Which is What Ijtihad is. Thus Even when Brother Zuhair was posed by A Mas'ala of wether A Female can visit the Battle Field to help the Injured Muslim Soldiers He did not Base His Verdict on what he thought was true (Ijtihad Aqli) or opinion (Rayy) but had to Investigate in the two sources where He Found Ahadith Accepting and Allowing that Practise.

What He did that is what Ijtihad is.

Let me quote myself on what you are claiming to be my ijtihad.

His question:

Salaam Alaykum

Whenever I make an appointment for a checkup, I get my usual doctor. She's a female, and I'm a male. The doctor checks things such as the privates and the doctor also touches the patient a lot. Is this OK? JazakAllahu Khair.

My answer:

You should consult an alim and ask him about the reaction of prophet Mohammad (saws) to women who helped the wounded soldiers in jihad. Also inquire about the position of our prophet and imams on the following female surgeons:

Rufaidah Aslamiyyah who was an expert in medicine and surgery. She used to tend to the sick and wounded in the battlefields. According to Ibn Sa'd, her tent was equipped with equipment for surgery and first aid. When Sa'd ibn Mu'adh was injured in the Battle of the Trenches, the Prophet transferred him to her tent for medical care.

Other women experts in medicine and surgery were Umm Muta', Umm Kabashah, Hamnah bint Jahsh, Mu'adhah, Laila, Umaimah, Umm Zaid, Umm 'Atiyyah, and Umm Sulaim.

Rubayyi' bint Mu'awwaidh ibn 'Afra tended to the wounded and sick and supplied water to the thirsty soldiers in many battles. With other women, she transported the wounded and the dead in the war.

Following are four rudiments that can be considered as hujjat in fiqh:

1. Referring to a tradition (pertaining to the issue) from the infallibles or quranic verses (as interpreted by infallibles).

2. Referring to the actions of the infallibles (in context with the issue).

3. Silent consent of the infallibles, meaning: if anyone does or says something before prophet Mohammad (saws) or the infallible imams, and they do not stop or censure it then this serves a proof as to the permissibility of that act.

4. Everything is permissible, unless prohibited specifically[1].

The above fundamentals serve as general rules for knowing Islamic law without polluting it with ijtihad. However, since it is not practical for everyone to be able to find these himself, a better approach is to ask an alim of hadith or even a marja but frame your question (asking for daleel) in a way that you should be able to extract the position of infallibles about the matter.

[1] Narrated from Imam Jafar Sadiq (as), Hadith No.937, Page 178, Volume-1, Man La Yahdharuhul Faqeeh.

9. I only emphasized on obtaining a clear "nass" from the infallibles, and even warned the brother that unless he extracts the position of infallibles, he would not know the hukm with certainty ('qat) and negated the use of usooli ijtihad by asking him to ask for a "nass" as a dalil when the question is put to an usooli marja.

Which Is Basically Investigating the sources and coming up with the Hukm from them.

But his Ijtihad is Fool Proof if Clear Nass is found if not then Because of not accepting the Usul He Cannot Derive Laws and Ahkam to the capacity required Because he cannot progumulate the General Laws to the Derived Ones which by the way have been taught By The Imams.

10. There is no problem in applying a nass or what you call �general law taught by the imams� unless you mix them up with "general laws taught by innovative people like Shaykh al-Ansari and others before him". Since the use of inventions like "ilm ul usool" in fiqh clearly mixes haq with batil by trying to stretch (beyond known scope) the interpretation of the infallible quran and sunnah through the fallible, so called �rational principles� concocted less than 200 years ago, by a fallible man, Shaykh Al-Ansari.

Allamah Hilli in His Tahdhib Al Usuul Clarifies By Saying:

"We can therefore say that the Ijtihad which is forbidden and rejected in the eyes of the Shi`a is That Of ra' y and qiyas, which were originally called ijtihad By Them the Amma, whether this is counted as a source of the shari`a and as an independent basis for legislation, or taken as a means for deriving and deducing true precepts; whereas the ijtihad which they (Usuuli) deem correct according to the shari`a is that which means effort and exertion based on expert technical knowledge."

Basically This Ijtihad which The Usuuli Undertake is called Ijtihad Al-Sharii to enable Unity a similar name was chosen to the Ahlu Sunnah.

11. Firstly, the itihad what we have today is not what it was in Allamah Hilli's time, the usooli science of ijtihad kept evolving even in its fundamentals until it reached the year 1864 AD when the "Khatim ul mujtahidin", the seal of mujtahids, Shaykh al-Ansari passed away. Thus what Allamah Hilli said about ijtihad which was practiced then, cannot be used to justify the ijtihad that is practiced now.

Secondly, Allamah Hilli was a fallible man and thus what he says cannot be taken as hujjat just as what Mohammad Amin Astarabadi says cannot be taken as one.

Thirdly, how could you want unity of terms in fiqh of shia and sunni when the basis of authenticity of hadith is that it should be against what the a'amma, the sunnis believe?

"I said, may I be your ransom, which khabar (hadith) shall we act upon especially when both fuqaha understood the hukm of their respective ahaadith based on Quran and Sunnah (other ahaadiith) as daliil. And one such ruling is in conformity with the a'amma and the other is against it" The Imam said, "The one which is against the a'amma has guidance in it"... [1]

So In Conclusion The Above narrations Even the Second One Which Is Called The Maqbula of Hanzala which is Weak In Diraya But Has been accepted By All Usuulis From Initiation Shows the Impermissibility of Using Ijtihad As A source of Deriving Ahkam But The Usuulis Do not see Ijtihad as a source like the Sunnah do, they define it as a Process and means by which the Sources are Investigated and Hukm Is Obtained.

Answered in above arguments regarding ilm ul usool.

Brother Zuhair and Other Akhbaris feel that Ijtihad should be done by referring only to the Two Fundamental Sources of Quran And Sunnah but they forget that the Usuulis agree with That and Believe In It too.

12. If this is the case then there is clear contradiction between what the usoolis say and what they bring into practice. Once again, I would like to emphasize that akhbaris only accept the �qat (ascertained by nass) as shariyah and not derivations from zann (assumptions / conjectures).

The Usuulis Also believe like them that all desicions should be confined Foremost to these Two Binding Sources They also Acknowledge that these are the major sources for Obtaining The Qaidah (General Terms) thus they term them Adillah al Akbar and no Independant or Dependant Reasoning can contadict the above.

13. Do you mean to claim that no usooli mujtahid has ever issued verdicts that accidentally contradicted Quran or Sunnah?

So I stress That The Discussion should Revolve around wether Al Aql and Al-Ijma Can be used As sunsidiary to the Quran And The Sunnah In Obtaining Ahkam And Not On wether Ijtihad Is Haram as claimed by Bro.Zuhair which we fully agree with.

But He was talking about Ijtihad Al Aqli while If he wants to target the Usuulis He should Prove the Impermissibility of their Definition which is Ijtihad Al Sharii.

So If brother Zuhair Is ready we should discuss Al-Aql as a subsidiary source and prove its legitimity in The Process Called Ijtihad which is Not Haram as explained above.

Brother, my aim is neither to prove nor to disprove anyone, this is not a competition but a humble effort to resolve the misunderstandings and bring about unity among 12er shias. And we shall discuss aql and ijma in the discussions to follow, first let us resolve the validity of usooli ijtihad.

Note: The Dependant Reasoning Al Aql can only be applied when No Injuction is Found in the Quran and Sunnah.

But the Reasoning is Not Independant but dependant on laws Taught to us By The Imams Which I shall Clarify.

14. It would be instrumental to this debate, if you explain how only the laws taught by Imams ( and not those derived from them through assumptive reasoning) are used in usooli ijtihad.

A word of advice: The usoolis must understand that it is not important to encompass the cosmos and have everything at the discretion of their conjectural jurisprudence but it is of utmost importance to attain certainty in whatever little they know.

References:

[1] Hadith 10, pg. 120-122, Baab 22, Kitab Al-Aql, Usool Al-Kafii, Vol-1.

Edited March 28, 2007 by zuhair_naqvi

[Islamic Salvation]

Salaam.

After Having Recognised the Weakness of Your Initial Claim which was Brought About By Your Misconception on what Ijtihad Al Shari'i Meant Which was evident when You Furnished Proofs Attacking Ijtihad Aqli Not Knowing That the Usuulis attack This Ijtihad Too.

Its good to see you are Coming Back to the Point of the matter (the Crux) as I Had Pointed out.

Which was What Methodological Trend In Applied and Derived Jurisprudence (Al Furuu) and Not Ijtihad.

Yes Kulayni and Saduq were Inclined to Dalil Al Sami (Revelational) And had Lesser Regard to Dalil Al-Aqli(Intellectual) But they no where denounced the use of the Other Hujjiyah (Proofs) In Ijtiahd Al Shari'i.

But There were Others Like Mufid and Tusi who gave enough credidence to both Adillah.

Brother Do not Feel as though You have made a great Finding In The Maqbula of Hanzala.

Infact This is the Same Hadith which forms the basis not only for Dirayatul Hadith But Also for Wilayatul Qada as Recognised By The Mujtahidoon.

It is for this reason that despite the fact that Scholars of Rijal Have found weakness in its Narration Especillay the Sanad of The Maqbula for instance Al-Khui In His Mujam 7/101 Says that This Hadith from The Usul Al-Kafi Fi Ilm Al-Deen Specifically 1/113-115 in the Chapter Dealing with "The Merits Of Aquiring And Diffusing Religious Knowledge" Is Weak But We should Accept It.

It is Weak Because Dawud Bin Husayn Is A Waqifi (A man who stopped the Chain Of Imamah Of AL-Kadhim Claiming He is The Mahdi) This Same Fact on Dawud Bin Husayn Being A Waqifi can be found in Al-Tusi's work 'Ikhtiyar Marifat Al Rijal' this Treatise being the Abridgement of Al-Kashi's work Kitab Marifat Anaqilleen Anil Aimmat Al Sadiqeen. Also Allamah Hilli Himself Clarifies This Stance of the Figure In His Own Khulasat al-'aqwat As a matter of Principle There was a requirement of Adalah in Imami Traditions That The Narrator Must be Adil and on Ahlul Haqq in Ithna ashar-Imami.

Further More Al-Khui States In His Tanqih 1/43-44 is based on the fact that Umar Bin Hanzala Has not been authenticated by A clear Nass or Textual Evidence By being praised or Accredited By Evidence from Imams.

But Still The Usuulis Have Accepted this Hadith and It is a major weapon for them Maqbula means a sort of Hadith which does not Fulfill requirements of Authenticity But the Scholars have acted on it In The Past.

If This Hadith was so Damaging to the Usuulis why do we claim it is still Authentic Because It is what we base Our Hadith System on In His Masalik 1/162 Shahid Al Thani among the famous Usuuli of the earliest Period states

"The Shaykhan (Al Mufid and Al-Tusi) Have based their opinion on The Narration related from Imam Sadiq (a.s) This Tradition suffers from weakness in its ways (Turuq) by whcih it has been transmitted But this report Supports Their Opinion and is the pinnacle of Usuulis"Also Explaiend in Sharai of Muhaqiq Awwal and Allamah Hilli.

Khui Aso agrees it should still be used on Dalil Aqli taking it from Zann to Qatt in Mujam 13/31.

So why are we struggling to Authenticate this Hadith if it is so Damaging to our Ways Because it is a Narration that The Usuulis Follow in their Classification of Hadith and All Books of Usul Mention it.

So Your claim is Actually Going Against You to show How the Usuulis are the one who use this Narrationa dn it is Not A critisicm of them.

Brother You are making Too much out of your recent discovery of the figure Of Shyakh Ansari.

You must understand that Ilm Al Usuul Al Fiqh as a subject is among the earliest Subjects which were discussed Immediately after Ghayba and Whose Principles Were made clear By the Imams.

That is why For Example When Ammar Asked Imam Kadhim on Doubt the Imam Told him Depend on the Principle of Continuity. This Narration is Found In Wasail Al Shia Chapter Eight on Al Khalal.

Its Ridiculous to claim that The Principles of Usul were discovered by Shyakh Ansari.

Shaykh Mufid Wrote Tadhkira Bi Usul Al Fiqh whose abridged Version As Condensed by Abu Fath Al Karajiki is Extant as Kanzul Fawaid.

Shariff Murtadha the Brother of Shariff Radhi Compiler of Nahjul Balagha wrote His Own Al Zariah Al Usul Shariah.

Infact All Scholars after them had His work like Marasim, Ghunya, Sarair, Kifaya etc. Every one had his teatise on the matter so far being a new discovery.

We Denounce Qiyas based on Zann and it is Haraam.

P.S Tusi Used Dalil Aqli and his Book Uddatil Usuul is still used in Hawza so if he was conjectural why did he compile Two of the Four Great Compilations of Hadith and You trust in them. He also used the above Imam Sadiq's hadith In doing so.

Allamah Hilli's Works on Fiqh Qawaid Al Ahkam, Muntaha Al matlab, Taadhkiratul Fuqaha and Tabsirat are still extant why dont you prove that their Ijtihad differs from this period?

Edited March 28, 2007 by Islamic Salvation

[zuhair_naqvi]

Salaam.

After Having Recognised the Weakness of Your Initial Claim which was Brought About By Your Misconception on what Ijtihad Al Shari'i Meant Which was evident when You Furnished Proofs Attacking Ijtihad Aqli Not Knowing That the Usuulis attack This Ijtihad Too.

Its good to see you are Coming Back to the Point of the matter (the Crux) as I Had Pointed out.

Which was What Methodological Trend In Applied and Derived Jurisprudence (Al Furuu) and Not Ijtihad.

Yes Kulayni and Saduq were Inclined to Dalil Al Sami (Revelational) And had Lesser Regard to Dalil Al-Aqli(Intellectual) But they no where denounced the use of the Other Hujjiyah (Proofs) In Ijtiahd Al Shari'i.

But There were Others Like Mufid and Tusi who gave enough credidence to both Adillah.

Brother Do not Feel as though You have made a great Finding In The Maqbula of Hanzala.

Infact This is the Same Hadith which forms the basis not only for Dirayatul Hadith But Also for Wilayatul Qada as Recognised By The Mujtahidoon.

It is for this reason that despite the fact that Scholars of Rijal Have found weakness in its Narration Especillay the Sanad of The Maqbula for instance Al-Khui In His Mujam 7/101 Says that This Hadith from The Usul Al-Kafi Fi Ilm Al-Deen Specifically 1/113-115 in the Chapter Dealing with "The Merits Of Aquiring And Diffusing Religious Knowledge" Is Weak But We should Accept It.

It is Weak Because Dawud Bin Husayn Is A Waqifi (A man who stopped the Chain Of Imamah Of AL-Kadhim Claiming He is The Mahdi) This Same Fact on Dawud Bin Husayn Being A Waqifi can be found in Al-Tusi's work 'Ikhtiyar Marifat Al Rijal' this Treatise being the Abridgement of Al-Kashi's work Kitab Marifat Anaqilleen Anil Aimmat Al Sadiqeen. Also Allamah Hilli Himself Clarifies This Stance of the Figure In His Own Khulasat al-'aqwat As a matter of Principle There was a requirement of Adalah in Imami Traditions That The Narrator Must be Adil and on Ahlul Haqq in Ithna ashar-Imami.

Further More Al-Khui States In His Tanqih 1/43-44 is based on the fact that Umar Bin Hanzala Has not been authenticated by A clear Nass or Textual Evidence By being praised or Accredited By Evidence from Imams.

But Still The Usuulis Have Accepted this Hadith and It is a major weapon for them Maqbula means a sort of Hadith which does not Fulfill requirements of Authenticity But the Scholars have acted on it In The Past.

If This Hadith was so Damaging to the Usuulis why do we claim it is still Authentic Because It is what we base Our Hadith System on In His Masalik 1/162 Shahid Al Thani among the famous Usuuli of the earliest Period states

"The Shaykhan (Al Mufid and Al-Tusi) Have based their opinion on The Narration related from Imam Sadiq (a.s) This Tradition suffers from weakness in its ways (Turuq) by whcih it has been transmitted But this report Supports Their Opinion and is the pinnacle of Usuulis"Also Explaiend in Sharai of Muhaqiq Awwal and Allamah Hilli.

Khui Aso agrees it should still be used on Dalil Aqli taking it from Zann to Qatt in Mujam 13/31.

So why are we struggling to Authenticate this Hadith if it is so Damaging to our Ways Because it is a Narration that The Usuulis Follow in their Classification of Hadith and All Books of Usul Mention it.

So Your claim is Actually Going Against You to show How the Usuulis are the one who use this Narrationa dn it is Not A critisicm of them.

Brother You are making Too much out of your recent discovery of the figure Of Shyakh Ansari.

You must understand that Ilm Al Usuul Al Fiqh as a subject is among the earliest Subjects which were discussed Immediately after Ghayba and Whose Principles Were made clear By the Imams.

That is why For Example When Ammar Asked Imam Kadhim on Doubt the Imam Told him Depend on the Principle of Continuity. This Narration is Found In Wasail Al Shia Chapter Eight on Al Khalal.

Its Ridiculous to claim that The Principles of Usul were discovered by Shyakh Ansari.

Shaykh Mufid Wrote Tadhkira Bi Usul Al Fiqh whose abridged Version As Condensed by Abu Fath Al Karajiki is Extant as Kanzul Fawaid.

Shariff Murtadha the Brother of Shariff Radhi Compiler of Nahjul Balagha wrote His Own Al Zariah Al Usul Shariah.

Infact All Scholars after them had His work like Marasim, Ghunya, Sarair, Kifaya etc. Every one had his teatise on the matter so far being a new discovery.

We Denounce Qiyas based on Zann and it is Haraam.

P.S Tusi Used Dalil Aqli and his Book Uddatil Usuul is still used in Hawza so if he was conjectural why did he compile Two of the Four Great Compilations of Hadith and You trust in them. He also used the above Imam Sadiq's hadith In doing so.

Allamah Hilli's Works on Fiqh Qawaid Al Ahkam, Muntaha Al matlab, Taadhkiratul Fuqaha and Tabsirat are still extant why dont you prove that their Ijtihad differs from this period?

Brother you have only reinforced my earliest post that spoke of "polarization of opinion" among great shia scholars, post ghaibat:

However, due the end of accessibility of the Imam of the time, i.e. after the major occultation, some shia scholars decided to consider resorting to ijtihad after thoroughly organizing and rationalizing the concept. But many great scholars including legends like Shaykh Saduq (ar) and Shaykh Yaqoob Kulayni (ar) maintained the traditional shia view and did not accept the change.

As the event of major occultation moved further into the past, the fuqaha noticed increasing ambiguity in up coming legal matters, consequently the popularity of ijtihad increased greatly among some shia scholars while the criticism of ijtihad also remained.

This gradually led to a polarization of opinion among the shia fuqaha, some scholars like Muhaqiq Hilli leaned towards ijtihad and some like Allamah Baqir Majlisi (the author of bihar al-anwaar) favored the traditional view. This polarization increased to such an extent that adoption of ijtihad became an agenda of debate among shia scholars. Eventually, creating two discrete schools of thought in shia Islam i.e. the traditional, "Akhbari" school and the modernist, "Ijtihadi" or "Usooli" school.

We are neither discussing the faith of Allamah Baqir Majlisi nor that of Allamah Hilli, as far as the "Tahdheeb al-Ahkam" and "Al-istibsaar" of Sheikh at-Tusi being a part of kutub-e-arba, they are taken because both of them are collections of hadith.

Also, your statement about the acceptance of the hadith based on the fact that you think it supports usooli opinion gives a very bad impression of usooli school. What right do you then have to say that akhbaris present zaeef ahaadith to prove their points?

If hadith is found to be authentic it must be accepted as amrallah and if it is found to be fabricated it must be considered as amru shaitan, regardless of whether the hadith is thought to be in accordance with your school or not. Otherwise you are going against adl yourslef.

However, for the discussion to stay on course it is important for you, the representative of the usooli school to answer each of my prior arguments addressing them individually like I quoted & answered yours. For further clarity I have numbered (in red) the points I expect answers for.

With prayers for your success,

Siyyid Zuhair Naqvi.

[Islamic Salvation]

Salaam.

Brother you must Understand what I meant in my latest points.

1. Firstly You brought Out Traditions Which You Claim is a critique of the Usuuli School But I have clarified What is meant By such Traditions.

Refer to my First Post where I clarified that Such Ahadith were Directed to Ahlu sunnah who claimed that the Ahkam Deductions from The Two Cardinal Sources Are Finite and hence a Parallel source was used by them with the sub categories In Ijtihad Aqli (Istishan, Istislah Taawul and Qiyas Bil Rayy).

This is not a critique of the Usuulis as One.

We dont consider Ijtihad as a parrallel source In Istinabt As we believe the Furu can be all derived from the Quran and Sunnah as it contains all the General Rules. Claiming that Our Ijtihad is Zann is also not true because Our Ijtihad Menas referring to Quran Sunnah Ijma (Sunnah) and Aql from the principles of Imam if such a thing Is Zann then fine. Prove it!

2.Secondly You claimed that the Usuuli School Is Unaware of the Tradition which is Maqbula of Umar Hanzala But I Have amply Proven the fact that The Whole System of Ahadith in The Usuuli system is based upon This Narration. So Imagine my dismay that You used one of the most used Traditions favoured by The Usuulis To try and Show their Weakness.

I have proved is that usuulis have used this Tradition from the earlist Times to Derive Ahkam so What Is your Objection?

3. Thirdly You have tried to claim Difference between Ijtihad System of Older Scholars and Present ones but Have Not Backed upYour Claim Through The Required Evidence Zann is not allowed, I have given you the Extant works of Allamah Hilli the scholar you claim has different rulings Prove it from His and Contemporary works Or Take back that Claim.

Usuuli Dalil A-Aqli is not Similar to what You think.

It is Firstly It Is applied to the Text Or Nass and Not in a Vacuum.

Secondly It Can never Go against Quran and Sunnah.

Thirdly Its principles Have been Laid down By The Aimmah.

Also You seem not to Understand what Usuul Al Amaliyyah are They are not the direct Principles. That is a great Error.

Usul al Amaliyyah are only to be practised when one Has doubt On The Required Ruling.

If You lack Knowledge on Something Do Not Comment On It.

The most Blatant Error is In You Taking Literal Claims and Thinking It is what it is meant there without Investigating.

..."halalun bayyinnu wa haramun bayyinnu wa shubuhaatun bayna zaalika fa man tarakal shubuhaat naja minal muharramaat wa man aqaza bish-shubuhaat irtakabal muharramaat wa halaka min haythu la ya'alamnu"

"All permissibles (halaal) have been clearly defined and all prohibitions (haraam) have been clearly defined. In between both are the ambiguities (shubuhaat) so whoever forsake the ambiguities, was saved from the forbidden and whosoever deduced therefrom and acted upon them has committed the forbidden (muharramaat) and was killed (halaka) due to ignorance"...[1]

In case of shakk / shuba, we are clearly instructed NOT to investigate the position of fiqh. And if one tries to dig out the shubahat and deduce a ruling thereof (no matter by what methodology), he has committed the haram.

Now explain "Al-takhyir", who gave you the right to select opinions of other schools of thought to issue a verdict that your muqallid considers as an order from Allah? Are you not cheating those who trust your decision?

Now explain "Al-istishab", who gave you the right to endorse the permissibility of "state of affairs in existence or legal decisions already accepted"? Where as, you were ordered not to speak.

Firstly Takhyir means Options BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN SELECTING OPINIONS OF OTHER SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

Takhyir means:If we have to Conflicting Orders from God we Know that Both Variations have been Authenticated but have contrasting Rules. But we know that All the Ahlubayt cannot provide conflict as Maqbula Shows and that One is True out of the two and Is Wajib and an Order Of God which We cannot Ignore.

Eg.If you have conflicting Reports on something is obligatory or prohibited there is no way to act on Precaution. Because if It is Obligatory then iT is Forbidden To avoid It and If It is Prohibited it is Obligatory not to Perform It. If there is no way of Discovering which is the True Ruling From Ahlulbayt Then one must Choose one of the two as avoiding both Is a sin and You cant Do both But you can Choose One.

This only ocuurs when Ahadith are of the same Standing and Authenticity.

SO MUCH FOR CHOOSING FROM A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT HUH Zuhair.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Islamic Salvation

[Islamic Salvation]

1. You are taking a huge leap; the above traditions teach the method of obtaining "nass" and clearly forbid us from investigating matters where "nass" is not clear. Investigation of ambiguities in fiqh is haraam. Regardless of what the method of investigation is based on i.e. ijtihad-e-sharai or ijtihad-e-aqli both are at their core based on zann. This is clear not only through maqbula of hanzala but also by numerous traditions.

Wrong The First Tradition Above Proves that:

(a )Every Rule is In the Two Sources Of Shariah And none is Out Of these. The Usuulis agree.

(b )The claimant Claimed that He did not find any Injuction from these Two Sources so He Decided to resort to Ijtihad Bil Rayy this is Haraam as Ijtihad by itself is Cannot provide Hukm.

(c )If there is No Injuction then Of Course there is No Hukm. But we have agreed that All the Hukm of various Matters are present in the two Sources. Note that Usuulis believe that you cannot (i) Make up a Ruling from Your Brain What the Sunnis do which is Istislah Independently Considering what is best for Community or Ta'awul whcih is Ignoring the Nass for Rayy and so on (ii)Your Intellect should be applied to the general Rules of the two Cardinal Sources to Interpret the Given condition.

2. However, you bring an important question to my notice: If one can follow the zawahir al-Quran (literals of the quran) directly, what is wrong with zawahir al hadith e sahih (literals of authentic traditions)? Why do you insist that even if a tradition is authentic, only a mujtahid can explain what it means? Do you, perhaps, want to say that words of the prophet and the imams are more eloquent and deeper in meaning than the words of Allah (swt)?

Where Have I ever Said that Only Mujtahid's can Understand Ahadith anyone who Knows Arabic of that Period and Has the Technical Knowledge enabling Him To Authenticate the Hadith will have to foolow the Hukm which will be found in it.

Never can the words of The Prophet and Imams be more Eloquent that that Of Allah (s.w.t) and they have mentioned so themselves.

My counter Question is The Maqbula of Hanzala directs us to refer to Quran when Traditions are in conflict why do you say that Quran has no Legal Values in its Literal Verses if the Imams have Indicated Fallible Human Beings to compare it to the Quran if they felt even Simple Verses cannot be Understood.

3. This is again a misconception, firstly there is no proof that traditional (akhbari) shia believe in absolute authenticity of any book except the holy Quran. And secondly, we find Shaykh Yaqoob Kulaini, Shaykh Saduq and Skhaykh Tusi reliable in their knowledge of hadith. It is a desperate and flawed usooli claim that traditionals endorse their seal of faith blindly over their works.

I have nowhere claimed that Traditional Scholars not Akhbaris believed in Complete Authenticity of their Ahadith they struggled to authenticate them following Ilm Diraya and they were fallibles who made Mistakes that is why Usuulis Have to Authenticate each and every Hadith Individually. Infact Some Intermediate Scholars Like Mulla Majlisi in his Mira'at Al Uquul Himself Authenticated The Ahadith of Al-Kafi Independently and rejected others.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Islamic Salvation

[Islamic Salvation]

4. Once again, I advice you to read my previous post "the background" carefully. I have clearly mentioned that usooli itihad is NOT sunni ijtihad, it is rather a far more organized and rationalized version of conjectural jurisprudence. The justification you are presenting is in contradiction not only with the quoted traditions but also with your ilm ul usool. I would regard it as something in between truth and falsehood. Let us discuss usooli ijtihad in the light of ilm ul usool:

Not A question!!

6. This is rejected by traditional shias, as we believe that correction can be brought about only by someone who himself is not incorrect in any way. That is, fallibility can be removed only and only by an infallible himself and not by application of "certain rational principles" by a fallible jurist. This is why the shia consider anything haram or halal only when they find definitive and conclusive evidence from Quran or Hadith.

Yes that is why the Imams said that The Scholars should Compare their Ahadith with Quran. Why did Imams command Fallibles to do so if they did not Value the correction from such Comparison.

If contradictory statements are attributed to The Imams one is Right and hence Obligatory to follow. If we do not know whcih one then we are not fullfilling our role as indicated by Imams.

[zuhair_naqvi]

Your statement about the acceptance of the maqbula of hanzala based on the fact that you think it supports usooli opinion gives a very bad impression of usooli school.

If hadith is found to be authentic it must be accepted as amrallah and if it is found to be fabricated it must be considered as amru shaitan, regardless of whether the hadith is thought to be in accordance with your school or not. Otherwise you are going against adl yourslef.

Once again i request you to answer in a point based manner, numbered as under.

Salaam.

Brother you must Understand what I meant in my latest points.

1. Firstly You brought Out Traditions Which You Claim is a critique of the Usuuli School But I have clarified What is meant By such Traditions.

Refer to my First Post where I clarified that Such Ahadith were Directed to Ahlu sunnah who claimed that the Ahkam Deductions from The Two Cardinal Sources Are Finite and hence a Parallel source was used by them with the sub categories In Ijtihad Aqli (Istishan, Istislah Taawul and Qiyas Bil Rayy).

This is not a critique of the Usuulis as One.

We dont consider Ijtihad as a parrallel source In Istinabt As we believe the Furu can be all derived from the Quran and Sunnah as it contains all the General Rules.

Claiming that Our Ijtihad is Zann is also not true because Our Ijtihad Menas referring to Quran Sunnah Ijma (Sunnah) and Aql from the principles of Imam if such a thing Is Zann then fine. Prove it!

1. Please quote the principles narrated from the Imams that describe how to deduce a sub-law from a super-law and the explicit permission from Imam to practice such methods in every case.

As far as my claim about usage of "zann" is usooli ijtihad is concerned, let me quote the source:

His Developments in Usul-al fiqh [7]

While most Mujtahidin mastered one scholarly field, Shaykh Ansari excelled in both usul and fiqh. He introduced major developments in the principles of jurisprudence that remain current to the present day. His most important contribution was in deriving a set of principles to be used in formulating decisions in cases where there is doubt. In this regard he provided a new scope to the discourse on fiqh. He divided legal decisions into four categories:

1. Certainty (qat`). This represents cases where clear decisions can be obtained from the Qur'an or reliable Traditions (ahadith).

2. Valid Conjecture (zann mu`tabar). This represents cases where the probability of correctness can be created by using certain rational principles.

3. Doubt (shakk). This refers to cases where there is no guidance available from the sources and nothing to indicate the probability of what is the correct answer. It is in relation to the cases that Shaykh Ansari formulated four guiding principles which he called Usul al-`amaliyya[8] (practical principles). His most important work, al-Rasa'il (Fara`id al usul) is taken up explaining those.

4. Erroneous Conjecture (wahm). This refers to cases where there is a probability of error; such decisions are of no legal standing.

[7] Moojan Momen, An Introduction to Shi'i Islam, p. 186,187

This article can be found at: http://www.al-islam.org/short/ansari.htm

2.Secondly You claimed that the Usuuli School Is Unaware of the Tradition which is Maqbula of Umar Hanzala But I Have amply Proven the fact that The Whole System of Ahadith in The Usuuli system is based upon This Narration. So Imagine my dismay that You used one of the most used Traditions favoured by The Usuulis To try and Show their Weakness.

I have proved is that usuulis have used this Tradition from the earlist Times to Derive Ahkam so What Is your Objection?

2. Excuse me? I never claimed that the usoolis are unaware of the Maqbula of Umar Hanzala and the very reason I tried to explain my point under its pretext is because of its importance to the usoolis. Ironically the meaning of which has been taken selectively and the part regarding "shubahat" has been neglected and I dont think it was accidental negligence. The hadith lays down the manner of choosing one khabar over the other and not the principle of deriving one law from another. To further clarify it, Imam explicitly quoted the hadith of rasoolallah so that in future one must not be able to stretch the meaning of this hadith to prove his theory of derivation in case of doubt. The matter between the two litigants was a matter of civil litigation over inheritance or loan and it is something that logically cannot be avoided just like a wajib and yet Imam instructed the shia to stop acting on both conflicting ahkaam and not choose one among them so just imagine how important is the message of not acting when in doubt. I would say that Maqbula of Umar Hanzala when taken verbatim, from its beginning to its end (without neglecting any aspect) is rather the manifesto of akhbari shia. Since akhbaris believe that where there is shakk one must stop! regardless of how important the matter is.

...I said, what if both the groups of a'amma are equally agreeable to both the akhbaar? The Imam said, "Then stop acting on both the akhbaar! Since stopping when in doubt is better than proceeding into death (halakah)..." (maqbula of hanzala)

3. Thirdly You have tried to claim Difference between Ijtihad System of Older Scholars and Present ones but Have Not Backed upYour Claim Through The Required Evidence Zann is not allowed, I have given you the Extant works of Allamah Hilli the scholar you claim has different rulings Prove it from His and Contemporary works Or Take back that Claim.

Please see the extension of usooli ijtihad by Shaykh al-Ansari in his faraid al-usool and compare the post "Khatim ul mujtahidin" jurisprudence with that at the time of Allamah Hilli.

Usuuli Dalil A-Aqli is not Similar to what You think.

It is Firstly It Is applied to the Text Or Nass and Not in a Vacuum.

Secondly It Can never Go against Quran and Sunnah.

Thirdly Its principles Have been Laid down By The Aimmah.

Hadith no. 24, pg. 63, baab 1, Kitab al-Aql.

3. Brother I understand the difference between the sunni ijtihad and shia ijtihad. There is no doubt about the differences of both. Secondly, it is a part of traditional shia beliefs that 'aql (as defined by imams and not as defined by mujtahid) is a dalil for a momin; not in ahkaam of shariyah but in ma'arefatillah, since the condition for wisdom of Allah is aql and the condition for following his orders is literal obedience. Legal matters deal with huqooqul ibaad and basing a legal verdict on your fallible derivation of law from an infallible law, using principles extended by fallibles has scope for error and if one makes a derivational error in huqooq ul ibaad it is equal to accusing Allah (swt) and will not be forgiven unless the affected parties forgive it.

Also You seem not to Understand what Usuul Al Amaliyyah are They are not the direct Principles. That is a great Error.

Usul al Amaliyyah are only to be practised when one Has doubt On The Required Ruling.

If You lack Knowledge on Something Do Not Comment On It.

4. No one except masoom is perfect in their knowledge and matters are not made clear but by argument. I never said that Usool Al Amaliyyah are direct principles, please, please, please before claiming that I said something which I didnt, please look at my original posts. I have written Usool al amaliyyah under the third conjecture (shakk). I have noticed that you are not addressing the answers to the depth of my questions and you are accusing me of saying things that I did not, from hereon I request you to please give it TIME and try to understand all implications of what I am addressing.

The akhbari position in case of shakk, is that it is not our takleef to find alternate ways and give an answer by hook or by crook. An Alim is one who knows how to say "I dont know" when needed i.e in case of shakk.

Hadith no. 7, pg. 85, Baab 11, Kitab al-Aql, Usool al Kafi

Zurarah bin A'yan asked Imam Mohammad Baqir (as) "what is the right of Allah on his slaves?" Imam said "When needed they should tell whatever they know and stop in what they know not".

The most Blatant Error is In You Taking Literal Claims and Thinking It is what it is meant there without Investigating.

Firstly Takhyir means Options BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN SELECTING OPINIONS OF OTHER SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

Takhyir means:If we have to Conflicting Orders from God we Know that Both Variations have been Authenticated but have contrasting Rules. But we know that All the Ahlubayt cannot provide conflict as Maqbula Shows and that One is True out of the two and Is Wajib and an Order Of God which We cannot Ignore.

Eg.If you have conflicting Reports on something is obligatory or prohibited there is no way to act on Precaution. Because if It is Obligatory then iT is Forbidden To avoid It and If It is Prohibited it is Obligatory not to Perform It. If there is no way of Discovering which is the True Ruling From Ahlulbayt Then one must Choose one of the two as avoiding both Is a sin and You cant Do both But you can Choose One.

This only ocuurs when Ahadith are of the same Standing and Authenticity.

SO MUCH FOR CHOOSING FROM A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT HUH Zuhair.

Answered above.

Wrong The First Tradition Above Proves that:

(a )Every Rule is In the Two Sources Of Shariah And none is Out Of these. The Usuulis agree.

(b )The claimant Claimed that He did not find any Injuction from these Two Sources so He Decided to resort to Ijtihad Bil Rayy this is Haraam as Ijtihad by itself is Cannot provide Hukm.

(c )If there is No Injuction then Of Course there is No Hukm. But we have agreed that All the Hukm of various Matters are present in the two Sources. Note that Usuulis believe that you cannot (i) Make up a Ruling from Your Brain What the Sunnis do which is Istislah Independently Considering what is best for Community or Ta'awul whcih is Ignoring the Nass for Rayy and so on (ii)Your Intellect should be applied to the general Rules of the two Cardinal Sources to Interpret the Given condition.

Application is NOT derivation.

Where Have I ever Said that Only Mujtahid's can Understand Ahadith anyone who Knows Arabic of that Period and Has the Technical Knowledge enabling Him To Authenticate the Hadith will have to foolow the Hukm which will be found in it.

Never can the words of The Prophet and Imams be more Eloquent that that Of Allah (s.w.t) and they have mentioned so themselves.

My question

I came across many traditions of imams of ahlulbayt about ghusl, taharat and wudhu in an authentic book like "Man La Yahdharuhul Faqeeh". These traditions being highly descriptive and specific about fundamental things in fiqh (wudhu, ghusl etc. that may not change), is it permissible for me to follow the rulings of imams about the aforementioned things and follow the rulings of my marja in other matters that cannot be found in traditions through authentic sources (also, please mention reasons (daleel) for the answer)

Answer from the office of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Khamenei

Taqlīd has its jurisprudential evidence in addition to reason which also admits that a person who is ignorant of religious rules should refer to a qualified mujtahid.

With prayers for your success,

wassalam.

Answer from the office of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Saeed Al-Hakeem

In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful and praise to Him

You should follow a Mujtahid that fulfill the conditions of a Marjee –

religious authority – since deriving verdicts by referring to the traditions

requires a long period of study, Knowledge and special experience. The

jurists are those who has these required experience and knowledge that they

gained over a long period of time from their dedication to gain the said

knowledge.

May Allah guide you to please Him.

5. My question to the gentlemen is clear and straightforward and clearly pertaining to prime basics of fiqh (wudhu, ghusl and taharat) that have been clearly explained time and time again by the infallibles through authentic traditions - "nass". Moreover, I am being humble enough to tell them that it wouldn't be a problem for me to accept your fatwa when I cant find clear "nass" (Although my opinion has changed now)

Why is it so that in addition of having the capability of understanding traditions one must have reached the position of ijtihad (i.e. the ability to use ilm ul usool) to follow literals of the traditions? when one can follow the literals of quran without being a mujtahid, how ironic!

The whole confusion is because you have masqueraded application, interpretation and derivation into one omnibus term of ijtihad. They are all separate things!

My counter Question is The Maqbula of Hanzala directs us to refer to Quran when Traditions are in conflict why do you say that Quran has no Legal Values in its Literal Verses if the Imams have Indicated Fallible Human Beings to compare it to the Quran if they felt even Simple Verses cannot be Understood.

We will discuss this in "tafseer al-Quran" http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234923993

6. (IMP) According to you, usooli ijtihad is used to extract from the Quran and Sunnah an exegesis but the same is considered as an eisegesis by some.

When you say that a hadith of masoom is to be matched with the zawahir al-Quran to know its authenticity, what should a mujtahid's fatwa be matched against?

Every jurist deals with "law" and it is incumbent even upon the chief justice of any court to quote the section of law under which he issues his judgment.

Thus, a marja (while not stretching the hukm of a "nass" beyond its clear meaning by resorting to derivation of a subsidiary law and) should transmit "nass" from the infallibles as dalil with every fatwa. The result of this would be:

1. The unlimited power bestowed upon a fallible marja will be clearly bound by ahkam of the infallible Imams.

2. The contradiction and differences among marjas will be greatly reduced.

3. The marja who is from the mujtahids, will be be from the ruaat-e-ahadiith (whose obedience is ordered by the infallibles)

4. It will lead to a great reservoir sahih ahaadith for the public on the authority of the ilm-al-hadith of the marja.

5. There will be no argument left with the Akhbaris.

P.S: If application of the sources is all what the usooli mujtahid is doing, then there shouldn't be a reason as to why this cannot be done. Quoting a hadith of infallibles has no disadvantages unless one is trying to take undue advantage.

Edited March 29, 2007 by zuhair_naqvi

[Islamic Salvation]

Salaam.

Its good to Know that we Got Ikhtiyar Clarified up You were accusing us of Choosing Opinion of different Schools Of Thought.

Your statement about the acceptance of the maqbula of hanzala based on the fact that you think it supports usooli opinion gives a very bad impression of usooli school.

If hadith is found to be authentic it must be accepted as amrallah and if it is found to be fabricated it must be considered as amru shaitan, regardless of whether the hadith is thought to be in accordance with your school or not. Otherwise you are going against adl yourslef.

Once again i request you to answer in a point based manner, numbered as under.

I have never Said that The Maqbula was Accepted Just Because It Supports Usuuli School Of Thought. Maqbula is a type of Hadith used In the past By great scholars and hece leads us to believe that they had additional Proof for Using them wghich we Contemporarily dont have.

I Just said That We use It.

You are trying to show Us How the Maqbula is A great Proof for Akhbariyya A cardinal Document In Your Words.

I just Said that Not Only Do the Usuuli Use this Hadith As A central Text in Their System Of Dirayatul Hadith I have provided Proof that This Hadith Was used by All past Mujtahideen and Is At The Total core of the Usuuli Methodology.

I don't get What your point is.

If you think there is any Thing in the hadith which contradicts the usuuli methodology Then feel free to point out.

2. Excuse me? I never claimed that the usoolis are unaware of the Maqbula of Umar Hanzala and the very reason I tried to explain my point under its pretext is because of its importance to the usoolis. Ironically the meaning of which has been taken selectively and the part regarding "shubahat" has been neglected and I dont think it was accidental negligence. The hadith lays down the manner of choosing one khabar over the other and not the principle of deriving one law from another. To further clarify it, Imam explicitly quoted the hadith of rasoolallah so that in future one must not be able to stretch the meaning of this hadith to prove his theory of derivation in case of doubt. The matter between the two litigants was a matter of civil litigation over inheritance or loan and it is something that logically cannot be avoided just like a wajib and yet Imam instructed the shia to stop acting on both conflicting ahkaam and not choose one among them so just imagine how important is the message of not acting when in doubt. I would say that Maqbula of Umar Hanzala when taken verbatim, from its beginning to its end (without neglecting any aspect) is rather the manifesto of akhbari shia. Since akhbaris believe that where there is shakk one must stop! regardless of how important the matter is.

...I said, what if both the groups of a'amma are equally agreeable to both the akhbaar? The Imam said, "Then stop acting on both the akhbaar! Since stopping when in doubt is better than proceeding into death (halakah)..." (maqbula of hanzala)

Clearly You Should Understand that The Aamma In The Hadith are The Sunnis so the Imam was clarifying that Most times the Shia Ruling is Contrary to the Sunni Ones as follows.

" may I be your ransom, what is to be done when two different groups of the a'amma are in support of both the akhbaar (hadiith) each? The Imam said, "It should be seen, which one of the akhbaar is more acceptable to their (a'amma(s)) officials and jurists, the one more acceptable to them should be discarded and the other should be acted upon". I said, what if both the groups of a'amma are equally agreeable to both the akhbaar? The Imam said, "Then stop acting on both the akhbaar! Since stopping when in doubt is better than proceeding into death (halakah)".

Brother The rule started By Saying That The Fuqaha should Compare the Two traditions from Ahlulbayt with the Quran and The Known And Verfied Sunnah and if one is found Contrary then it is to be dropped and the other one should be enforced.

No where was said that Once You get two reputable sahabas with the contrary Rulings drop them both.

This is what the Mujtahidoon do as commanded by the Imams.

Then the Question came to The relation with the Amma which is the Sunnis if they have a certain ruling then The Imam mentions another general Principle which is to compare it to their Rulings and the shia one should be standing out from their Deductions especially of those Sunna Fuqaha close to the Usurped Caliphate.

More importantly when both the Amma (SUNNI) Rulings are Same then Reject Both.

I fail to understand where your Concept that when there is Shakk (Doubt) in SHIA Rulings Both should be left Out When the Imam Clearly States COMPARE THEM TO THE QURAN AND SUNNAH.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Islamic Salvation

[Islamic Salvation]

6. (IMP) According to you, usooli ijtihad is used to extract from the Quran and Sunnah an exegesis but the same is considered as an eisegesis by some.

When you say that a hadith of masoom is to be matched with the zawahir al-Quran to know its authenticity, what should a mujtahid's fatwa be matched against?

Every jurist deals with "law" and it is incumbent even upon the chief justice of any court to quote the section of law under which he issues his judgment.

Thus, a marja (while not stretching the hukm of a "nass" beyond its clear meaning by resorting to derivation of a subsidiary law and) should transmit "nass" from the infallibles as dalil with every fatwa. The result of this would be:

1. The unlimited power bestowed upon a fallible marja will be clearly bound by ahkam of the infallible Imams.

2. The contradiction and differences among marjas will be greatly reduced.

3. The marja who is from the mujtahids, will be be from the ruaat-e-ahadiith (whose obedience is ordered by the infallibles)

4. It will lead to a great reservoir sahih ahaadith for the public on the authority of the ilm-al-hadith of the marja.

5. There will be no argument left with the Akhbaris.

P.S: If application of the sources is all what the usooli mujtahid is doing, then there shouldn't be a reason as to why this cannot be done. Quoting a hadith of infallibles has no disadvantages unless one is trying to take undue advantage.

Your Concerns are Valid I agree.

I just want to mention that in Principle The Quran and Sunnah Including Ijma are the foremost Authorities. They must be given Clear Precedence.

13. Do you mean to claim that no usooli mujtahid has ever issued verdicts that accidentally contradicted Quran or Sunnah?

Accidently Maybe and Intentionally Maybe too. These are those cursed by the Aimmah for Quoting them wrongly or making up Ahkam like the Qiyas bil Rayy.

All I am saying that the Setup Principle states that Any Verifiable and clear Nass From Quran and Sunnah cannot be contradicted by any means whatsoever.

That is Aql cannot go against A Nass from the two Sources Above.

This is Clear In Ilmul Usuul.

Also Aql is not applied to A vacuum it is applied to the Ahadith to Obtain their Real Value.

You dont just say what is best if we dont find A narration we say Use Daleel Aqli to show the real value from the fabricated to the true.

The whole of Istibsar is a collection of contradicting Ahadith wich Tusi tries to eliminate their Differences by Showing how they were In different Context by using Aql.

Thus In Principle this can never happen.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Islamic Salvation

[zuhair_naqvi]

The akhbari treatise against derivation of law from law (nass)

How 'aql when used for deducing laws from a law(nass), is not acceptable

Note: This is an important argument against generalized extraction of qaidah from nass and derivation of one law from another using 'aql (in nass). I request you to read each point carefully since these points are quite complex but very important.

Introduction

On the pretext of considering a nass from (quran or authentic hadith) as absolute and infallible truth, I find it irrational to assume that one can extract general qaida or (its real value / hidden meanings) using his principles based on 'aql / reasoning.

To explain this, we must analyze the factors affecting 'aql / reasoning of a human being:

Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment (surroundings).

Problem solving, analysis, reasoning and reaching apparent conclusions are based on the ability of one's conscious mind to construct and maintain contexts.

In simple words, conscious mind is the zahir of 'aql and the only part of 'aql that is within our control where as, there are other parts of aql in the batin of human mind, like the subconscious, which greatly influences our conscious thinking and are beyond our control. Hence, we can�t even notice how they influence human decisions.

Individuals are not directly aware of subconscious, but it still affects conscious behavior. It handles all processes that have been in conscious mind, but which are not being joust anymore. They "sink down" to subconscious. Handling "all processes" means also that feelings (fear, drifts, passions, weaknesses etc.) were also "processed within".

The atoms of reasoning, a technical analysis:

1.The Short-term memory

Short-term memory, sometimes referred to as "primary," "working," or "active" memory, is that part of memory which stores a limited amount of information for a few seconds. This can be contrasted to long-term memory, in which a seemingly unlimited amount of information is stored indefinitely. It can be described as the capacity (or capacities) for holding in mind, in an active, highly available state, a small amount of information.

The information held in short-term memory may be: recently processed sensory input; items recently retrieved from long-term memory; or the result of recent mental processing, although that is more generally related to the concept of working memory.

2. The Long-term memory (LTM)

It is memory, stored as meaning, that can last as little as 30 seconds or as long as decades. It differs structurally and functionally from working memory or short-term memory, which ostensibly stores items for only around 30 seconds. Biologically, short-term memory is a temporary potentiation of neural connections that can become long-term memory through the process of rehearsal and meaningful association. The proposed mechanism by which short-term memories move into LTM storage is via long-term potentiation, which leads to a physical change in the structure of neurons. Notably, the time scale involved at each level of memory processing remains under investigation.

As long-term memory is subject to fading in the natural forgetting process, several recalls/retrievals of memory may be needed for long-term memories to last for years, dependent also on the depth of processing. Individual retrievals can take place in increasing intervals in accordance with the principle of spaced repetition. This can happen quite naturally through reflection or deliberate recall, often dependent on the perceived importance of the material.

3. The working memory:

Working memory is a theoretical framework within cognitive psychology that refers to the structures and processes used for temporarily storing and manipulating information. There are numerous theories as to both the theoretical structure of working memory (i.e., the "organizational map" it follows) as well as to the specific parts of the brain responsible for working memory. This memory is generally considered to have limited capacity.

4. Mental development:

We can summarize the three structures of the psyche or personality:

* Id: a selfish, primitive, childish, pleasure-oriented part of the personality with no ability to delay gratification.

* Superego: internalized societal and parental standards of "good" and "bad" and "right" and "wrong" behaviour.

* Ego: the moderator between the id and superego which seeks compromises to pacify both.

Primary and secondary processes

In the ego, there are two processes going on. First, there is the unconscious primary process, where the thoughts are not organized in a coherent way, the feelings can shift, contradictions are not in conflict or are just not perceived that way, and condensations arise. There is no logic and no time line. Lust is important for this process. By contrast, there is the conscious secondary process, where strong boundaries are set and thoughts must be organized in a coherent way. Most conscious thoughts originate here.

The reality principle

Id impulses are not appropriate for civilized society, so society presses us to modify the pleasure principle in favour of the reality principle; that is, the requirements of the external world.

Formation of the superego

The superego forms as the child grows and internalizes parental and societal standards. The superego consists of two structures: the conscience, which stores information about what is "bad" and what has been punished and the ego ideal, which stores information about what is "good" and what one "should" do or be.

Before solving a problem, the human mind relates it with one's self, this forms the initial reaction to the problem and subconsciously influences the solution of a problem. It can be better explained with the example of "Defence mechanisms".

In psychoanalytic theory, defence mechanisms are unconscious resources used by the ego to reduce conflict between the id and superego and thereby anxiety. For that reason they are more accurately referred to as ego defence mechanisms. They can thus be categorized as occurring due to the following scenarios:

* When the id impulses are in conflict with each other;

* When the id impulses conflict with superego values and beliefs;

* When an external threat is posed to the ego.

List of defense mechanisms:

* Compensation. Compensation occurs when someone takes up one behaviour because one cannot accomplish another behaviour. An example of a compulsive type of compensation mechanism is a famous scholar's inability to say "I don't know" when asked about something which he isn't sure of; because of fear of being called ignorant about it.

* Denial. An ego defence mechanism that operates unconsciously to resolve emotional conflict, and to reduce anxiety by refusing to perceive the more unpleasant aspects of external reality; some times denial can be a deceptive denial to deny something with an ulterior motive (like Umar (la) denied the death of our prophet (saws) )

* Displacement. An unconscious defence mechanism, whereby the mind redirects emotion from a �dangerous� object to a �safe� object. In psychoanalytic theory, displacement is a defence mechanism that shifts sexual or aggressive impulses to a more acceptable or less threatening target; redirecting emotion to a safer outlet;

* Intellectualisation (isolation). Concentrating on the intellectual components of the situations as to distance oneself from the anxiety provoking emotions associated with these situations;

* Projection. Attributing to others, one�s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions. Projection reduces anxiety in the way that it allows the expression of the impulse or desire without letting the ego recognise it;

* Rationalisation. The process of constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process; Like justifying a fatwa that was proven to be against a nass by denying the authenticity of the nass itself.

* Reaction formation. The converting of unconscious wishes or impulses that are perceived to be dangerous into their opposites.

* Regression. The reversion to an earlier stage of development in the face of unacceptable impulses;

* Repression. The process of pulling thoughts into the unconscious and preventing painful or dangerous thoughts from entering consciousness;

* Sublimation. The refocusing of psychic energy (which Sigmund Freud believed was limited) away from negative outlets to more positive outlets. These drives which cannot find an outlet are rechanneled. Freud considered this defence mechanism the most productive compared to the others that he identified. Psychoanalysts often refer to sublimation as the only truly successful defence mechanism;

* Undoing. A person tries to 'undo' a negative or threatening thought by other actions.

* Suppression. The conscious process of pushing thoughts into the preconscious.

* Dissociation. Separation or postponement of a feeling that normally would accompany a situation or thought.

* Humor. Refocuses attention on the somewhat comical side of the situation as to relieve negative tension; similar to comic relief.

* Idealisation. Form of denial in which the object of attention is presented as "all good" masking true negative feelings towards the other.

* Identification. The unconscious modeling of one's self upon another person's behavior.

* Introjection. Identifying with some idea or object so deeply that it becomes a part of that person.

* Inversion. Refocusing of aggression or emotions evoked from an external force onto one's self.

* Somatisation. Manifestation of emotional anxiety into physical symptoms.

* Splitting. Primitive defence mechanism-when a person sees external objects or people as either "all good" or "all bad."

* Substitution. When a person replaces one feeling or emotion for another.

Conclusion:

The phenomena of mantiq, kalaam, falsafa etc. are higher levels of conscious thinking which depend in their roots, on the aforementioned factors.

Therefore, 'aql is:

1. Is highly subject to the strengths and weaknesses of one's thought process.

2. Response of one's 'aql greatly depends on his state of mind.

3. One's moral, ethical, emotional and intellectual values greatly influence the reaction of his 'aql to a given problem.

Derivation of a sub law from a nass involves the process of reverse engineering which is a form of nested conscious thinking which is under a greater influence of the subconscious. Where as, direct application with minimal variables is a straighter process with least scope for error. Apart from psychoanalytical defects of complex human reasoning, derivation of a law greatly depends on the extent of one�s knowledge of the concerned subjects (knowledge that in our case, is taken from provisional scientific evidence).

Let me provide a practical example of the dependencies in the process of derivation:

In many countries like Japan, Singapore etc, sewage is being converted to pure H2O where it loses all its impurities and then salts and minerals are added to this processed water which is finally packaged as re-cycled drinking water. Since this water is exactly identical (in all its material properties) to natural water; is this water mutahhar?

This is where an usooli uses his conjectural jurisprudence (or as he calls it, ijtihad sharai) and issues a verdict. Where as, an akhbari stops himself and says a humble "I don't know" based on the nass of:

Hadith no. 6, pg. 85, Baab 12, Kitab Al-Aql, Usool Al-Kafi

Ali bin Ibrahim narrates from Ahmad ibn Mohammad bin Khalid who narrates from Hamad bin Isa who narrates from Hareez bin Abdallah who narrates from Mohammad bin Muslim who narrates from Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) :

When any of you is asked a question for which the answer is not known then he shall say "I don't know" and shall not say "Allaho a'alam". Otherwise, one who asked the question will doubt that he knows. But when he says "I don't know", one who asked the question will not blame him.

[Comment: I have never heard an "I dont know" about any matter from a mujtahid, is he perhaps, the all knowing? that he issues a fatwa about everything asked to him and says "Allaho a'alam" after issuing the fatwa. This looks like an outcome of "Reaction formation" and "Compensation" defense mechanisms discussed earlier]

However, a mujtahid while issuing a verdict on such a matter may depend upon the provisional scientific truths i.e., he may consult a chemical scientist or at the most, personally inspect that process of purification of sewage and issue a verdict based on the position of qaidah matching it with the outcome of his investigation. After the fatwa is issued and followed, if there comes about a new research which proves the nature of re-cycled water contrary to his findings, which was not noticed previously, what happens then? Has he not accused Allah (swt)? This is just one example, there are many cases of shubahat that aught to be avoided but ironically the very same are proudly addressed.

To derive a law that is not fallible, the foremost need is of the infallible knowledge of the subjects (physics, chemistry, medicine etc.) relevant to which the law is to be derived. Where as, the knowledge we possess, changes, evolves and contradicts itself with changing, evolving and contradicting scientific percepts.

I admit that application of a nass, depending on various contexts, is best done by an expert in the field. Based on the presented evidence, do you not agree that derivation of subsidiary law from a nass is an erroneous practice?

Edited March 30, 2007 by zuhair_naqvi

[Adiba]

(salam)

Islamic Salvation and Zuhair Naqvi, may I print out your posts for my personal use only please?

[zuhair_naqvi]

(salam)

Islamic Salvation and Zuhair Naqvi, may I print out your posts for my personal use only please?

You may :)

With prayers for your success,

Siyyid Zuhair Naqvi

[zuhair_naqvi]

^yo dude, cool signature u got there eh ? atheist :)

Thanx but thats the truth, one day I thought to myself:

There have been many philosophers from around the world with fancy explanations of their own about creation and existence etc. Many of them were atheists and they had quite intriguing concepts but all of them witnessed a moment when they looked up to the heavens and said "You exist!" even if for a split second, every thinker encounters this point. But due to their arrogance they move beyond it. What is it that can hold a thinker's mind at that second and absorb his thinking into itself; turning that reluctant humility into a defining moment leading to a lifetime of inspiration. I did not find this gravity but in the charm of Imam Husayn bin Ali (as).

If it wasn't for karbala, I would have indeed been an atheist.

[Islamic Salvation]

Salaam Brother Zuhair Naqvi.

I am glad that some consensus has been reached on where the matter lies.

I understand that You don't believe in Tahrif Fil Quran Something you ahve made clear.

Based and That You may be ready to accept the Literal Implications of the Muhkam Verses as regards to forming Ahkam Shari Because the Imams have allowed us to do so Infact they have commanded us to Take Quran as a guide of their Akhbar and not the other way round as the Maqbula Proves.

They have also done so in their own arguments to their Oponents.

Hence I believe that Our main Concern Lies on what Is the Role of Reason or the Daleel Al Aqli.

Thus in the coming Posts I will start to Explain what Aql means when Used in Ijtihad Al Sharee and what it refers to including Its Legitimity.

I repeat again for the benefit of thosw who missed It.

Usuuli Dalil A-Aqli is not Similar to what You think.

It is Firstly It Is applied to the Text Or Nass and Not in a Vacuum.

Secondly It Can never Go against Quran and Sunnah.

Thirdly Its principles Have been Laid down By The Aimmah.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Islamic Salvation

[zuhair_naqvi]

Salaam Brother Zuhair Naqvi.

I am glad that some consensus has been reached on where the matter lies.

I understand that You don't believe in Tahrif Fil Quran Something you ahve made clear.

Based and That You may be ready to accept the Literal Implications of the Muhkam Verses as regards to forming Ahkam Shari Because the Imams have allowed us to do so Infact they have commanded us to Take Quran as a guide of their Akhbar and not the other way round as the Maqbula Proves.

They have also done so in their own arguments to their Oponents.

Hence I believe that Our main Concern Lies on what Is the Role of Reason And W

Salam brother,

One of the greatest achievements of our interactions is the mutual agreement about transmission of nass along with a fatwa. I am really optimistic about future developments.

We will discuss the traditional shia (akhbari) method of understanding Quran and its mohkamaat / zawahir, in the discussions to follow. Let us first be done with the permissibility of derivation / deduction from the sources.

Following my arguments which I seek answers for (In a point based manner, like our previous discussions):

-------------------------------------------------CONCERNS & QUESTIONS-------------------------------------------------------

The akhbari treatise against derivation of law from law (nass)

How 'aql when used for deducing laws from a law(nass), is not acceptable

Note: This is an important argument against generalized extraction of qaidah from nass and derivation of one law from another using 'aql (in nass). I request you to read each point carefully since these points are quite complex but very important.

Introduction

On the pretext of considering a nass from (quran or authentic hadith) as absolute and infallible truth, I find it irrational to assume that one can extract general qaida or (its real value / hidden meanings) using his principles based on 'aql / reasoning.

To explain this, we must analyze the factors affecting 'aql / reasoning of a human being:

Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment (surroundings).

Problem solving, analysis, reasoning and reaching apparent conclusions are based on the ability of one's conscious mind to construct and maintain contexts.

In simple words, conscious mind is the zahir of 'aql and the only part of 'aql that is within our control where as, there are other parts of aql in the batin of human mind, like the subconscious, which greatly influences our conscious thinking and are beyond our control. Hence, we can�t even notice how they influence human decisions.

Individuals are not directly aware of subconscious, but it still affects conscious behavior. It handles all processes that have been in conscious mind, but which are not being joust anymore. They "sink down" to subconscious. Handling "all processes" means also that feelings (fear, drifts, passions, weaknesses etc.) were also "processed within".

The atoms of reasoning, a technical analysis:

1.The Short-term memory

Short-term memory, sometimes referred to as "primary," "working," or "active" memory, is that part of memory which stores a limited amount of information for a few seconds. This can be contrasted to long-term memory, in which a seemingly unlimited amount of information is stored indefinitely. It can be described as the capacity (or capacities) for holding in mind, in an active, highly available state, a small amount of information.

The information held in short-term memory may be: recently processed sensory input; items recently retrieved from long-term memory; or the result of recent mental processing, although that is more generally related to the concept of working memory.

2. The Long-term memory (LTM)

It is memory, stored as meaning, that can last as little as 30 seconds or as long as decades. It differs structurally and functionally from working memory or short-term memory, which ostensibly stores items for only around 30 seconds. Biologically, short-term memory is a temporary potentiation of neural connections that can become long-term memory through the process of rehearsal and meaningful association. The proposed mechanism by which short-term memories move into LTM storage is via long-term potentiation, which leads to a physical change in the structure of neurons. Notably, the time scale involved at each level of memory processing remains under investigation.

As long-term memory is subject to fading in the natural forgetting process, several recalls/retrievals of memory may be needed for long-term memories to last for years, dependent also on the depth of processing. Individual retrievals can take place in increasing intervals in accordance with the principle of spaced repetition. This can happen quite naturally through reflection or deliberate recall, often dependent on the perceived importance of the material.

3. The working memory:

Working memory is a theoretical framework within cognitive psychology that refers to the structures and processes used for temporarily storing and manipulating information. There are numerous theories as to both the theoretical structure of working memory (i.e., the "organizational map" it follows) as well as to the specific parts of the brain responsible for working memory. This memory is generally considered to have limited capacity.

4. Mental development:

We can summarize the three structures of the psyche or personality:

* Id: a selfish, primitive, childish, pleasure-oriented part of the personality with no ability to delay gratification.

* Superego: internalized societal and parental standards of "good" and "bad" and "right" and "wrong" behaviour.

* Ego: the moderator between the id and superego which seeks compromises to pacify both.

Primary and secondary processes

In the ego, there are two processes going on. First, there is the unconscious primary process, where the thoughts are not organized in a coherent way, the feelings can shift, contradictions are not in conflict or are just not perceived that way, and condensations arise. There is no logic and no time line. Lust is important for this process. By contrast, there is the conscious secondary process, where strong boundaries are set and thoughts must be organized in a coherent way. Most conscious thoughts originate here.

The reality principle

Id impulses are not appropriate for civilized society, so society presses us to modify the pleasure principle in favour of the reality principle; that is, the requirements of the external world.

Formation of the superego

The superego forms as the child grows and internalizes parental and societal standards. The superego consists of two structures: the conscience, which stores information about what is "bad" and what has been punished and the ego ideal, which stores information about what is "good" and what one "should" do or be.

Before solving a problem, the human mind relates it with one's self, this forms the initial reaction to the problem and subconsciously influences the solution of a problem. It can be better explained with the example of "Defence mechanisms".

In psychoanalytic theory, defence mechanisms are unconscious resources used by the ego to reduce conflict between the id and superego and thereby anxiety. For that reason they are more accurately referred to as ego defence mechanisms. They can thus be categorized as occurring due to the following scenarios:

* When the id impulses are in conflict with each other;

* When the id impulses conflict with superego values and beliefs;

* When an external threat is posed to the ego.

List of defense mechanisms:

* Compensation. Compensation occurs when someone takes up one behaviour because one cannot accomplish another behaviour. An example of a compulsive type of compensation mechanism is a famous scholar's inability to say "I don't know" when asked about something which he isn't sure of; because of fear of being called ignorant about it.

* Denial. An ego defence mechanism that operates unconsciously to resolve emotional conflict, and to reduce anxiety by refusing to perceive the more unpleasant aspects of external reality; some times denial can be a deceptive denial to deny something with an ulterior motive (like Umar (la) denied the death of our prophet (saws) )

* Displacement. An unconscious defence mechanism, whereby the mind redirects emotion from a �dangerous� object to a �safe� object. In psychoanalytic theory, displacement is a defence mechanism that shifts sexual or aggressive impulses to a more acceptable or less threatening target; redirecting emotion to a safer outlet;

* Intellectualisation (isolation). Concentrating on the intellectual components of the situations as to distance oneself from the anxiety provoking emotions associated with these situations;

* Projection. Attributing to others, one�s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions. Projection reduces anxiety in the way that it allows the expression of the impulse or desire without letting the ego recognise it;

* Rationalisation. The process of constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process; Like justifying a fatwa that was proven to be against a nass by denying the authenticity of the nass itself.

* Reaction formation. The converting of unconscious wishes or impulses that are perceived to be dangerous into their opposites.

* Regression. The reversion to an earlier stage of development in the face of unacceptable impulses;

* Repression. The process of pulling thoughts into the unconscious and preventing painful or dangerous thoughts from entering consciousness;

* Sublimation. The refocusing of psychic energy (which Sigmund Freud believed was limited) away from negative outlets to more positive outlets. These drives which cannot find an outlet are rechanneled. Freud considered this defence mechanism the most productive compared to the others that he identified. Psychoanalysts often refer to sublimation as the only truly successful defence mechanism;

* Undoing. A person tries to 'undo' a negative or threatening thought by other actions.

* Suppression. The conscious process of pushing thoughts into the preconscious.

* Dissociation. Separation or postponement of a feeling that normally would accompany a situation or thought.

* Humor. Refocuses attention on the somewhat comical side of the situation as to relieve negative tension; similar to comic relief.

* Idealisation. Form of denial in which the object of attention is presented as "all good" masking true negative feelings towards the other.

* Identification. The unconscious modeling of one's self upon another person's behavior.

* Introjection. Identifying with some idea or object so deeply that it becomes a part of that person.

* Inversion. Refocusing of aggression or emotions evoked from an external force onto one's self.

* Somatisation. Manifestation of emotional anxiety into physical symptoms.

* Splitting. Primitive defence mechanism-when a person sees external objects or people as either "all good" or "all bad."

* Substitution. When a person replaces one feeling or emotion for another.

Conclusion:

The phenomena of mantiq, kalaam, falsafa etc. are higher levels of conscious thinking which depend in their roots, on the aforementioned factors.

Therefore, 'aql is:

1. Is highly subject to the strengths and weaknesses of one's thought process.

2. Response of one's 'aql greatly depends on his state of mind.

3. One's moral, ethical, emotional and intellectual values greatly influence the reaction of his 'aql to a given problem.

Derivation of a sub law from a nass involves the process of reverse engineering which is a form of nested conscious thinking which is under a greater influence of the subconscious. Where as, direct application with minimal variables is a straighter process with least scope for error. Apart from psychoanalytical defects of complex human reasoning, derivation of a law greatly depends on the extent of one�s knowledge of the concerned subjects (knowledge that in our case, is taken from provisional scientific evidence).

Let me provide a practical example of the dependencies in the process of derivation:

In many countries like Japan, Singapore etc, sewage is being converted to pure H2O where it loses all its impurities and then salts and minerals are added to this processed water which is finally packaged as re-cycled drinking water. Since this water is exactly identical (in all its material properties) to natural water; is this water mutahhar?

This is where an usooli uses his conjectural jurisprudence (or as he calls it, ijtihad sharai) and issues a verdict. Where as, an akhbari stops himself and says a humble "I don't know" based on the nass of:

Hadith no. 6, pg. 85, Baab 12, Kitab Al-Aql, Usool Al-Kafi

Ali bin Ibrahim narrates from Ahmad ibn Mohammad bin Khalid who narrates from Hamad bin Isa who narrates from Hareez bin Abdallah who narrates from Mohammad bin Muslim who narrates from Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) :

When any of you is asked a question for which the answer is not known then he shall say "I don't know" and shall not say "Allaho a'alam". Otherwise, one who asked the question will doubt that he knows. But when he says "I don't know", one who asked the question will not blame him.

[Comment: I have never heard an "I dont know" about any matter from a mujtahid, is he perhaps, the all knowing? that he issues a fatwa about everything asked to him and says "Allaho a'alam" after issuing the fatwa. This looks like an outcome of "Reaction formation" and "Compensation" defense mechanisms discussed earlier]

However, a mujtahid while issuing a verdict on such a matter may depend upon the provisional scientific truths i.e., he may consult a chemical scientist or at the most, personally inspect that process of purification of sewage and issue a verdict based on the position of qaidah matching it with the outcome of his investigation. After the fatwa is issued and followed, if there comes about a new research which proves the nature of re-cycled water contrary to his findings, which was not noticed previously, what happens then? Has he not accused Allah (swt)? This is just one example, there are many cases of shubahat that aught to be avoided but ironically the very same are proudly addressed.

To derive a law that is not fallible, the foremost need is of the infallible knowledge of the subjects (physics, chemistry, medicine etc.) relevant to which the law is to be derived. Where as, the knowledge we possess, changes, evolves and contradicts itself with changing, evolving and contradicting scientific percepts.

I admit that application of a nass, depending on various contexts, is best done by an expert in the field. Based on the presented evidence, do you not agree that derivation of subsidiary law from a nass is an erroneous practice?

[Islamic Salvation]

Salaam.

Brother Your claim that there is no role for General principles for Obtaining Law when it is not Explicit is not clear.

Our Imams have produced a variety of Ahadith for the legitimity of using General Principles.

Your View Implies that the Imams have not left us everything from the Shariah wile at the same time you have produced Narrations claiming that Everything has been made clear by the Ahlulbayt.

Your claim that The Akhbaris are Humble people who say they do not Know does not hold truth as The Usuulis do not say that they know they say that the Imams have made clear hat principles are to be used in All aspects of our Life thus they sue them.

For Example:

Imam Kazim was asked By Ammar A Question and the Imam answered :" If you doubt rely on certainity. Ammar said is that a Principle Imam Kazim said Yes it is.1

Also Imam Sadiq Was Asked about a person who Performed Wudhu then he has doubt wether he slept afterwards or not. Imam replied that because he was in a state of Doubt and had Certainity before he should assume that the Wudu was still there until he becomes certain it was not.

Then the Imam laid the foundation for the principle: He Never Reverses Certitude with Doubt but reverse Certitude with another Certitutude.2

This is the principle of Istishab which you cruelly attacked are you attacking the Imams?

Do not Assume that the Imams have not set a precedent when There is doubt they have commanded their Companions to use such Principles to gain the Ruling of Hukm. Other wise do you claim that the Imams Have not done the Job of fully propogating all aspects of The Shariah.

As I said before If the previous state is Known we apply Principle of Contuinity or Istishab.

If we do not know that an obligation is in Effect we aplly Exemption or Baraah.

This is similar to what you aplly but you apply it to all things when there is Doubt Ignoring the principles set up In order to get over the doubt and hence claim the Imams have not done their Jobs.

Refer to the Hadith of the Prophet on Baraah.3

If we know form A Nass that an Obligation is in Effect but we have conflicting Reports on how it is to perform it and All Reports are Strong then we apply Ihtiyat in the Former case and Ikhtiyar in the Latter to ensure the Obligation is Performed.

I can go in depth with the Amaliyyah You can take a shortcut abd Read Tahdhib Al Usul of Allamah Hilli or Qawanain Al Usuul of Mirza Qummi or Even Faraid Al Usuul of Shyakh Ansari.

If the Imams have laid principe to overcome Ilm Zann To Ilm Al Qatt why do you not Perform them?

Humbleness when there is a wajibaat and not performing it is Going to be Punished.

If you wnat furtyher Clarification of how these Quite strong Principles are applied just ask.

1.Wasail Al Shia of Shaykh Hurr Al Amili Chaper 8 on Al Khalal

2.Ibid. Chapter 1 on Nawaqid Al Wudu No.1

3.Wasail Al Shia Book of Jihad AL Nafs Chapter 56 No.1

[Adiba]

(salam) Br Zuhair,

Alhamdulillah, thank you for your permission.

Fi amanillah

[sajid naqvi]

Aslaam Alaikam

Before I proceed further into this conversation and look at the reasons on deriving laws forwarded by Shaikh Ansari.

I would like to ask kindly ask brother Islamic Salvation, to initially present proof of Ijthehaad inline with Ayat's of the Quran (WITH TAFSEER) AND narrations to that effect.

Please try to make it straight forward and do not paste me the views of any mujtahid. :)

[zuhair_naqvi]

Salaam.

Brother Your claim that there is no role for General principles for Obtaining Law when it is not Explicit is not clear.

Our Imams have produced a variety of Ahadith for the legitimity of using General Principles.

Brother, my rejection of General principles is quite clear and evident. Let me state it in a concise form:

1. YOU CANNOT IMPLY ONE LAW OVER ANOTHER.

2. YOU CANNOT TAKE A SITUATION AND CONSIDER ITS SIMILARITY WITH ANOTHER SITUATION ABOUT WHICH THERE MAY BE A NASS AND DERIVE A RULING THERE FROM.

3. YOU CANNOT STRETCH, EXPAND OR EXTEND (IN THE NAME OF EXPLAINING) THE INSTRUCTIONS OF IMAMS.

4. YOU CANNOT TAKE AN INSTRUCTION THAT IS TAUGHT FOR A PARTICULAR ACT AND APPLY IT ELSEWHERE. AN INSTRUCTION CAN BE APPLIED ONLY AND ONLY IN MATTERS WHERE IMAMS HAVE EXPLICITLY PERMITTED ITS USE.

I have never questioned the legitimate application of instructions of imams. However, I have rejected the practice of implying and theory of generalization and extension (in the name of explanation) of those instructions which is often resorted to by the mujtahideen.

Your View Implies that the Imams have not left us everything from the Shariah wile at the same time you have produced Narrations claiming that Everything has been made clear by the Ahlulbayt.

This means you have not understood my point. There is no doubt that everything that is a part of shariyah and that may be a takleef for a mukallaf, has been made clear by Ahlulbayth (as) This effectively means that all things that haven�t been explicitly addressed (or the so called new matters) are not a part of shariyat al-islam. And one has to act upon only those matters which he his certain about and revert the rest to Allah (swt) by not attaching them with Allah�s shariyah since one cannot calculate what Allah (swt) may agree with in a matter.

Your claim that The Akhbaris are Humble people who say they do not Know does not hold truth as The Usuulis do not say that they know they say that the Imams have made clear what principles are to be used in All aspects of our Life thus they sue them.

For Example:

Imam Kazim was asked By Ammar A Question and the Imam answered :" If you doubt rely on certainity. Ammar said is that a Principle Imam Kazim said Yes it is.1

Also Imam Sadiq Was Asked about a person who Performed Wudhu then he has doubt wether he slept afterwards or not. Imam replied that because he was in a state of Doubt and had Certainity before he should assume that the Wudu was still there until he becomes certain it was not. Then the Imam laid the foundation for the principle: He Never Reverses Certitude with Doubt but reverse Certitude with another Certitutude.2

This is the principle of Istishab which you cruelly attacked are you attacking the Imams?

Do not Assume that the Imams have not set a precedent when There is doubt they have commanded their Companions to use such Principles to gain the Ruling of Hukm. Other wise do you claim that the Imams Have not done the Job of fully propogating all aspects of The Shariah.

As I said before If the previous state is Known we apply Principle of Contuinity or Istishab.

If we do not know that an obligation is in Effect we aplly Exemption or Baraah.

This is similar to what you aplly but you apply it to all things when there is Doubt Ignoring the principles set up In order to get over the doubt and hence claim the Imams have not done their Jobs.

Refer to the Hadith of the Prophet on Baraah.3

If we know form A Nass that an Obligation is in Effect but we have conflicting Reports on how it is to perform it and All Reports are Strong then we apply Ihtiyat in the Former case and Ikhtiyar in the Latter to ensure the Obligation is Performed.

I can go in depth with the Amaliyyah You can take a shortcut abd Read Tahdhib Al Usul of Allamah Hilli or Qawanain Al Usuul of Mirza Qummi or Even Faraid Al Usuul of Shyakh Ansari.

If the Imams have laid principe to overcome Ilm Zann To Ilm Al Qatt why do you not Perform them?

Humbleness when there is a wajibaat and not performing it is Going to be Punished.

If you wnat furtyher Clarification of how these Quite strong Principles are applied just ask.

1.Wasail Al Shia of Shaykh Hurr Al Amili Chaper 8 on Al Khalal

2.Ibid. Chapter 1 on Nawaqid Al Wudu No.1

3.Wasail Al Shia Book of Jihad AL Nafs Chapter 56 No.1

Hadith 1, Baab wujoob al bina' alal akthar 'indasshakk fi adad al akheeratain wa itmama madhanna naqsahu ba'adattasleem wa adam wujoob al-e'ada baad-al ihtiyaat wa lau tayaqqun an naqs, Khalal al waqia' fis salat, chapter 8, Volume-5, Wasail us-shia

Mohammad bin Ali al Hussain narrates with the chain of narrators from Ammar who narrates that Abi Abdallah (as) told him:

"O Ammar I will converge together all the errors [in salat] for you in two statements: When you are doubtful [in the number of raka'ah etc.] base the action on higher side. And when you feel that you may have ommited something then complete [the salat] considering that you have actually ommited what you felt you may have ommited."

Reminder: YOU CANNOT TAKE AN INSTRUCTION THAT IS TAUGHT FOR A PARTICULAR ACT [in this case errors in salat] AND APPLY IT ELSEWHERE. AN INSTRUCTION CAN BE USED ONLY AND ONLY IN MATTERS WHERE IMAMS HAVE EXPLICITLY PERMITTED ITS USE [in this case salat]

Hadith 1, Page 295, Chapter 56, Volume 11, Wasail us-shia

Mohammad bin Al-Hussain (in tauheed al-khisaal) narrates from Ahmed bin Mohammad bin Yahya who narrates from Sa'ad bin Abdallah who narrates from Yaqoob bin Yazeed who narrates from Hammad bin Isa who narrates from Hariz bin Abdallah who narrates from Abi Abdallah (as):

Rasoolallah (saws) said "Nine things have been raised up from my ummah: Mistakes [unintentional], Forgetfulness, Acts that he is compelled to do, what [law] they do not know, Duties they are not capable of performing, Acts that are performed under duress or distress, Jealousy, Taking omens, thinking about others' faults under the influence of whisperings [of satan] unless he talks about them".

Relating these narrations with your ilm al-usool forms a very weak analogy. It is clear that Imams (as) have guided their shia to adopt Yaqeen and reject Shakk and not deduce laws from within shubahaat. Where as, you have implied these narrations the other way round by claiming that one can deduce Qatt from within his zann based on various factors and rational principles deviced by later muhaqqiqeen and mujtahideen. This is what we call an eisegesis of the sources or in other terms ijtihad al-usooliyyah which drives the interpretation of a source away from its clear and literal meaning.

Nauzobillah, I am not attacking the infallible imams (as) in anyway. I am but against those who imply one command over another and those who take an instruction out of its context and scope of its application, to use it as and where they may want.

I have already explained how reasoing in line with implication and conjecture for derivation / deduction of laws is a highly erroneous practice. There is no excuse for the fact that the process of derivation stands on two legs, one is the infallible knowledge of the sources (of shariyyah) and the second is the infallible knowledge of the subjects (which only the infallible imams have).

To derive a law that is not fallible, the foremost need is of the infallible knowledge of the subjects (physics, chemistry, medicine etc.) relevant to which the law is to be derived. Where as, the knowledge we possess, changes, evolves and contradicts itself with changing, evolving and contradicting scientific percepts.

The stance of Akhbariyyah in ambiguous matters is based on one straight usool. And that USOOL AL-AKHBARIYYAH is:

INTEZAAR: Awaiting the re-appearance of Imam Mahdi (as) for clarification of doubts through his and only his commands.

It is an usool which the hasty fail to comprehend and which only the patient can appreciate.

Let me also give you some background information about wasaail us-shia. The original name of this book is Man La Yahdharuhul Imam. It is written by Khatim ul-Akhbariyeen also known as Muttaqi ul-Akhbariyeen Shaykh Hur Al Amili, to counter the insurgence of ilm ul usool al fiqh in shia theology by directly providing the akhbar about almost every possible situation that a mukallaf may ever encounter.

Al-Muqaddama, Kitaab ut-tahaarat, Volume-1, Wasaail us-Shia.

You are quoting an akhbari a'alam (Shaykh Hur Al-Amili) against akhbariyyah only to have your own arguments refuted.

This adds an important point to our previous consensus about transmission of nass. That, in addition to transmission of nass a marja must also transmit the instructions of imams that form the process of his arrival on a fatwa. So that there will be no shakk that the muqallideen are indeed imitating the infallibles.

I am creating a poll to see if we can have ijma on our consensus (of transmission of nass & transmission of any method prescribed by imams) along with a fatwa. Just as any judge, even the cheif justice of country is bound to mention the sections of law along with his judgment, without which his verdict has no value.

Finally, let me rephrase the conclusion of this debate here under:

According to some, usooli ijtihad is used to extract from the sources an exegesis but the same is considered as an eisegesis by some.

When you say that a hadith of masoom is to be matched with the zawahir al-Quran to know its authenticity, what should a mujtahid's fatwa be matched against?

Any judge, even the cheif justice of a nation is bound to mention the sections of law along with his judgment, without which his verdict has no value.

Thus, a marja should transmit "nass" from the infallibles as dalil with every fatwa as well as the instructions of imams which form the process of his arrival on that fatwa.

The result of this would be:

1. There will be no shakk in the mind of any muqallid that he is indeed imitating the infallibles.

2. The unlimited power bestowed upon a fallible marja will be clearly bound by ahkam of the infallible Imams.

3. The contradiction and differences among marjas will be greatly reduced.

4. The marja who is from the mujtahids, will be be from the ruaat-e-ahadiith (whose obedience is ordered by the infallibles)

5. It will lead to a great reservoir of sahih ahaadith for the public on the authority of the ilm-al-hadith of the marja.

6. There will be no argument left with the Akhbaris.

7. This will end the age old akhbari vs usooli conflict for good.

Do you agree?

Edited April 13, 2007 by zuhair_naqvi

[Islamic Salvation]

I Will Try to Elucudiate Our Position going Step by Step As I do not want To Confuse Others.

As I said Before that you have Laucnhed an attack on the Usul Al Amaliyyah and I want to reply to that First.

I have done so before in my Latter Posts but you have Ignored them Hence I feel I should get Over This Particularity in Detail before we proceed as it keeps coming up so that you can object to what is Wrong and Illegal according to the Akhbari View.

The Practical Rulings comes In Effect only when there is doubt on the Real Ruling.

You yourself have agreed that there are certain Rulings that are contradictory.

Does it mean that the Imams have misguided us Far from It.

If We Doubt a text and Its Implication we may apply the following rules.

Note: Believing that they were invented by Shaykh Ansari is a Fallacy as they have been Used By the Imamiyah for Centuries and Explicitly Stated In the Exact words By Muhaqiq Al Thani and He was centuries Before Shaykh Ansari.

Infact I can go so far as stating that every Imamiyah has used the Same principles hich is a serious Allegation.

I mean if you claim such a thing without research you are sinning.

Are not you the one claiming that Akhbaris believe in Not acting when in Shakk then know and Understand that this is one of the Principles you calim Shaykh Ansari invented does it mean that even the Akhbaris used such a principle after Shaykh Ansari.

Four Situations can be considered Here According to the Usuuli Methodological Trend In Islamic Jurisprudence:

As I have said Before the Practical Rulings comes into effect only when there is a doubt on the Real Ruling. Taht means that there is A Contradictory Narrations which Have The Same Level of Authenticity. Obviously this Does not mean that both are True and hence we follow the following Applied Priciples:

There are Four Situations which will be considered here.

Sometimes the previous and Authentic Statement is Known and the Injuctions are Clear and Sometimes the Previous Statements Lack Authenticity.

If the Former Principle is known we apply Istishab or Priciple of Contuinity to resolve the Matter.

If not then we classify as follows Sometimes we know that a certain Mandatory Obliation is Required of us and sometimes we do not. If we do Not know wether the Obligation is In Effect we apply Baraah or the principle of Exemption. If we know for sure that an Obligation is in Effect But we do not know the exact details for performance of the action then we classify as follows. In the former case we apply Ihtiyat or Principle of Caution and in the Latter we apply the Takhyir or Principle of Choice. This is when there are two conflicting Duties and There is No any way to take precedence of on ove the other.

Note: These principles only applied to Matters in which there is Doubt in Authenticating the Correct Sunnah of the Prophet and His Ahlulbayt.

THE PRINCIPLE OF EXEMPTION (BARAAH)

There Are two types of Baraah or exemption. The religious And the Intellectual.

Religious Exemption or Al Bara'ah Al Shariyah.

If there is a doubt about wether there is an obligation or not then you are free from the Taklif through Rukhsa from the Azma it means an action is not binding if you do not find its Nass in the Quran and the Sunnah so you cannot say that something is Haram or Wajib if There is no evidence for it in the Religious Surces.

In case of Shubhat al Hukmiyah on a ruling one must Investigate and Consult the religious Sources To find out wether there is Textula Evidence for The Obligation if he finds No Such Evidence then obviously he is Free in acting on that Act.

The Glorious Quran:

"Allah lays not on a soul a burden except to the extent he has granted it; Surely Allah brings Relief after Difficulty" (5:57)

I also provided it by providing the Hadith as follows:

Mohammad bin Al-Hussain (in tauheed al-khisaal) narrates from Ahmed bin Mohammad bin Yahya who narrates from Sa'ad bin Abdallah who narrates from Yaqoob bin Yazeed who narrates from Hammad bin Isa who narrates from Hariz bin Abdallah who narrates from Abi Abdallah :

Rasoolallah (saws) said "Nine things have been raised up from my ummah: Mistakes [unintentional], Forgetfulness, Acts that he is compelled to do, what [law] they do not know, Duties they are not capable of performing, Acts that are performed under duress or distress, Jealousy, Taking omens, thinking about others' faults under the influence of whisperings [of satan] unless he talks about them".

Alas this is the Hadith we sue to practise The Principle of Exemption.

Is this an Innovation? Why do you claim that such A Narration Helps prove you point while this Point proves this principle which we follow and you follow to.

You Thought I dont understand what I post this Narration is Totally in Conformity with the above mentioned principle in Ilm Usul Fiqh.

Invented by Shaykh Ansari I dont think so.

Either you take blame for Misguiding people and Take back your claim of Invention of the Four Principles you ascribe to Shaykh Ansari or to avoid this claim that you dont follow such a principle and if you do have you taken it from Shaykh Ansari?

The phrase they were unaware even after intense Struggle of Ijtihad to Obtain A Nass enable one to conclude that we are exempted from such Action as Allah is Adil and If there is an Obligation it is made clear as we Tashayyu believe Allah does not punish one for Not Having clear signs and then rejecting it as the Kafirs do.

If My master wants me to perform such an action He Must Inform us of it. The punishing without Giving Clear Signs is not an action of the Most Just.

[aliasad51214]

Kisi Mujtahid ka dawa hai to sabat karien kay us ko Masomeen SUA ney Taqleed karwaney ki ijazat di hai.

Khuda ra Taqleed Sirf Masommen ki hoti hai ya jisay Masoom SUA Khud Muqarar karin.

Ye Sub Molvi Jo Taqleed Karwa rahay hein or jo dawa e Niabat kartay hein jisa ye Malon Allama Bay Zameer .Ye Sub Johtay hein.

Inkay apnay mafadat hein Taqleed karwanay aur na karwanay mein.

Masoomeen SUA kay haq kay Ghasib hein ye sub log.

Khuda ra APnay Zamanay kay Imam AJFS ko Sachay Dil say Pukaro aur in sazishi Molveeion say Bachoo.

Ye Mujtahid or Sazishi Molvi hamien taqseem kar kay apni daal roti kama rahay hein. Inka Maqsad sirf Paisa , Khums or Chanda /Donation hai.

Khalis Aalim e din ( Ulma e Haq) ko Duniya say koi sarokar nein hota. Wo aapko Moula AJFs say Milwa day tu samjh lo Khalis hai. Jo apni baat karay ya apnay peechay challay wo Fasiq hai.

Plz Dil ki Aankh say apnay Imam AJFs ko Dekho wo Khoon kay Aanso Ro ro kar Tumein Bula Rahin Hein. In Molvion ka Bycot kar kay Sirf Apnay Moula AJFs kay Hazoor Sajda Raiz ho kar Hidayat Mango Puray Khloos kay sath. Hidayat Milay Gi. InSha Allah.

Moula AJFs ki Maarfat kay liya Apni Marzi ka Khatma Zarrori Hai. Nafs Parasti say Bachoo aur Ro Ro kar Moula AJFs kay Juld Zahoor Ki Dua Mango.

Plz... Bachoo in Sazishoon say

[Faris-Al-Hujjat]

so basically the point of your urdu plea is that all the maraj'a are false and they do so to earn their bread and butter....

very strange how everyone can just write without any knowledge...

The people who spend their entire lives serving the relegion are in your eyes wrong and an ordinary man who calls upon the Imam Al Qaim (as) AJTFS can fulfill his desires by himself....

no more details ... just go on with your ignorance...

Was Salaam Ala Man Ittaba'a Al huda