Rijjal System Is Trash - Why?

[aladdin]

Rijjal system is trash in the hand of novices as it has an inherent flaw and is against the requirement of the Holy Quran, where at least two witnesses are required for almost everything.

However, the rijjal system in the hands of our Alims, our Marjas is different. They recognize the inherent flaw in the rijjal system, thus they look at other criteria when evaluating hadiths. The first and foremost is the matn of the hadith, how it agrees with the Quran or not, and then look at the complete Islam based on their years of study and research to see how the hadith fits with the complete Islam.

The Bidah Of One Witness Only!

It was abu Bakr who started the bidah of one witness only when narrating hadiths and went against the Holy Quran.

Usually, the Holy Quran requires at least two witness, this is the minimum requirement according to the Holy Quran. Based on the situation and the type of witnesses, it could be up to eight witnesses.

Here is how abu Bakr started the bidah of requiring only one witness when narrating hadiths and went against the Holy Quran.

1. It was abu Bakr who started going against the Holy Quran on the issue of Fadak. Being the caliph, the judge, the jurors, the prosecutor and the only witness, he decided that only one witness is sufficient (himself) alone that he has heard the rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) say that alhulBayt are not entailed to inherit.

2. Thus this bidah of requiring only one witness for the transmission of the hadith, was from none other than abu Bakr.

3. Even though he required Bibi Fatima (as) to produce two witnesses for her claim on Fadak. He was sufficient enough to be the only witness. Of course being the caliph, the judge, the jurors and the prosecutor and the sole witness who can argue with him.

4. Bibi Fatima (as) produced, imam Ali (as), the two imams Hassan (as) and Hussain (as), and the house help as her witnesses. Abu Bakr rejected the testimony of Bibi Fatima (as) giving the excuse that she has stake in the Fadak. He also rejected the testimonies of the two imams, giving the excuse they both being minors. He accepted the testimony of Imam Ali (as) and the house help. He said that it makes 1 and 1/2 witnesses as the house help is female, less than the two witnesses required by the Holy Quran.

Thus, here abu Bakr sets the precedent for narrating the hadiths by one person only. Who can argue with the caliphaahaa, the judge, the jury, the prosecuting attorney and the sole witness at the same time.

I had an earlier thread on this here:

http://www.shiachat....e-witness-only/

Any thoughts?

Edited October 7, 2011 by aladdin

[alimohamad40]

brother tawator is two types

tawator in itself

tawatpor due to other

the idea of tawator is the insurance of having many diverse witnesses were their conspiracy to lie about on object would be impossible

most important things in Islam have to be based on some sort of tawator not single reports

but ofcourse any Naql has the possibility of fault in it because naql (transmission) is a process would automatically introduce uncertainty

so the matn has to be looked at all the time and It has to comply with Usool aldeen

[ImamAliLover]

Salam brother aladdin, it's interesting that you keep saying that we shouldn't give out fatwas unless we are an 'alim, yet i keep seeing you go around giving fatwas, saying this is trash and this is garbage etc etc. Are you an 'alim?

[The Green Knight]

^^ Ilm ul-Rijaal is a part of a tool set that is used by scholars (not e-scholars (with all due respect to them and the tool itself) who have abused it time and again! (to misguide people on the internet!)). It does have its use but it requires proper and complete knowledge that real life scholars and maraja can possess.

That said, it has flaws, its quite unreliable since:

- Its entirely man-made

- It has been passed down in written form over the course of a millennium and about 400+ years. The Ai'mma did not preserve, offer or use this tool so you can take a wild guess whose hands it were that passed it down all along. Ordinary people.

- Ordinary people sin, hold grudges and friendships for reasons other than the pleasure of God, and they can be very wrong about others.

- The written and compiled codex being "passed down" can be distorted, just like there is abundant proof that even the ahadith collections have suffered untold abuse.

- Its laws are all weird sometimes. For example: "Your hadith has no isnaad!", or "There is a missing person in the chain!", or the Rijaalists' blind and illogical insistence that dha'eef = fabricated!, and my personal favorite "There is a Rafidhi (omg!) in the chain of narrations! So its dha'eef! (because they're all liars!)".

See, when you set the foundations or start to correct and recompile your religion on such ignorant terms, exactly like salafism or wahabism, then guess where it will lead you... Not on Siraat-ul-Mustaqeem thats for sure. And such a path is not where I'd personally or any sane person would like to go (I think!). So as long as REAL scholars use it (since they know its flaws and the time and place and the how-to of using it! And are renowned honest believers too! Not unknown internet specters and revanents (as usual!)) only then thats worth following in my book. ^^

[ImamAliLover]

^Salam i don't disagree overall. While i like to study 'ilm al-RIjal, you won't see me coming here and giving fatwas on hadiths. i was just advising brother Aladdin to take his own advice about not giving fatwas unless he's an 'alim.

[Gypsy]

(salam)

You can’t use the example of Abu Bakr to point out the problem with one witness in the ilm al-rijl because he and and Umar al-Khattab opposed the Prophet’s family. Abu Bakr was motivated politically and was quite insincere when he narrated the hadith about Prophet not leaving anything for Fatima.

We know that Abu Bakr’s action was not Islamic when Fatima (sa) came out against him. She narrated many Quranic verses about prophets of the past leaving behind inheritance. One of the examples used by Fatima (sa) was when she narrated about Sulaiman (as) who inherited his father’s kingdom, wealth and prophet hood.

[Haydar Husayn]

The only reason most people here don't like rijal is that it is used as a proof against the beliefs they hold dear. You can bet that if someone was making threads showing that ahadith that conformed with their beliefs were sahih, and ones that went against their beliefs were da'if, then the same people would all be saying "Masha'Allah".

The reality is that many people here have a much firmer belief in the 'oral tradition' (if you can call it that) passed down to them by their families and community than they do to the books of hadith or the views of scholars. If the ahadith go in their favour, then all well and good, but if not they are to be rejected as fabrications, and if a scholar agrees with them then that is proof, but if he disagrees with them then that can be dismissed since the scholar isn't infallible. People talk about hadith conforming with the Quran, but again, that is applied very subjectively. Some people will twist verses from the Quran, even quite clear ones, to mean whatever they want it to mean. So in reality, unless a hadith said something completely ridiculous, like Allah is not one, hardly ever will you see a hadith rejected on the grounds that is contradicts the Quran. As for 'conforming' with the Quran, well, two hadiths can contradict each other but still conform with the Quran if the Quran is silent on the issue.

For example, let's take an issue that is often reject, Aisha's age at the time her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) was consumated. Do we have a sahih hadith confirming she was 10? Yes. Do we have any contradicting it? No. Does it contradict the Quran? No. Does the report conform with the Quran and Sharia? Yes. Do scholars say the report is true? Yes. Yet certain people still claim it is a fabrication. On what grounds? Because they don't like it.

Or to take another example, the same people that will criticise the Wahhabis for attributing anthropomorphic properties to Allah (swt) based on a literal reading of the Quran, will try to argue that the Quran says the Prophet (pbuh) was made from light, based on a clearly metaphorical verse, and will give strange interpretations to other verses that say the Prophet (pbuh) is a human just like us. There is absolutely no consistency to the methodology of these people.

[aladdin]

^^^^^ As far as Aisha age is concerned, there are contradictory hadiths about her age. Even there are contradictory hadiths about Bibi Fatima's age. The age difference is ten years for Bibi Fatima as per the contradictory hadiths. If one takes that Bibi Fatima was 14 when she married Imam Ali, then it makes Bibi Khadijah 55 when Bibi Fatima was born. At age 55 a woman is way, way past menopause.

However, when one takes Bibi Fatima to be 24 when she married Imam Ali, then it makes Bibi Khadijah to be 45, nearly approaching menopause. For some women it is even earlier. The Prophet married Bibi Khadijah when she was 40, and thus it makes Bibi Fatima to be exclusive and the only daughter of Bibi Khadijah through Prophet. For women approaching menopause it is very hard to conceive, let alone to conceive four children, while approaching menopause.

However, I don't want to get into war about Aisha's age based on hadiths. As I have said in the OP, the hadiths are trash in the hands of novices. And, most of the hadiths are contradictory to each other. Take for example, the hadiths of The Two Weighty Things.

Edited October 7, 2011 by aladdin

[Haydar Husayn]

^^^^^ As far as Aisha age is concerned, there are contradictory hadiths about her age.

No there are not. No hadith gives her age as anything else than 9 or 10. The hadith that supposedly contradict this age are talking about other things where we have less certainty on the timing. For example, a hadith says she remembered when surah al-qamar was revealed, and people try to use that to prove she must have been a certain age in order for that to be true. The problem is there is no certainty on when surah al-qamar was revealed, so the whole argument is bogus.

Even there are contradictory hadiths about Bibi Fatima's age. The age difference is ten years for Bibi Fatima as per the contradictory hadiths. If one takes that Bibi Fatima was 14 when she married Imam Ali, then it makes Bibi Khadijah 55 when Bibi Fatima was born. At age 55 a woman is way, way past menopause.

However, when one takes Bibi Fatima to be 24 when she married Imam Ali, then it makes Bibi Khadijah to be 45, nearly approaching menopause. For some women it is even earlier. The Prophet married Bibi Khadijah when she was 40, and thus it makes Bibi Fatima to be exclusive and the only daughter of Bibi Khadijah through Prophet. For women approaching menopause it is very hard to conceive, let alone to conceive four children, while approaching menopause.

As far as I know, the overwhelming consensus among Shias is that Bibi Fatima (as) was 18 when she died, and there are ahadith indicating she was young when her mother died (which would not be the case if she was about 18 at the time). On the other hand, there is far less certainty on the age of Bibi Khadija when she married the Prophet (pbuh), but the ages commonly given are 40 and 28. Shia in general seem to prefer to age of 28, and considering that no mention of miraculous births are found, and for other reasons, I think it is far more reasonable that she would have been around this age. Given this age at the time of marriage, Bibi Khadija (as) would have been in her mid to late 40s when Bibi Fatima (as) was born.

However, I don't want to get into war about Aisha's age based on hadiths. As I have said in the OP, the hadiths are trash in the hands of novices. And, most of the hadiths are contradictory to each other. Take for example, the hadiths of The Two Weighty Things.

You don't even seem to trust the Sayyid al-Khoei's (and other scholars) usage of ahadith, judging my what you said on the thread about Umar's marriage to Umm Kulthum. Once again, you are totally inconsistent. What you do isn't check ahadith against the Quran, but you check them first and foremost against your aql, which is far from an objective criterion.

[aladdin]

^^^^^ You just proved how trashy the hadiths are and how they contradict both the ages of Bibi Fatima and Bibi Khadijah.

Now can you add 2 + 2, or subtract 24 - 5.

There are hadiths which say that Bibi Fatima was 5 years older than Aisha. Now if Bibi Fatima was 24 when she married Imam Ali, what would be the age of Aisha be. Oops 19.

Imagine the Prophet at the age 52 marring a 6 years old, while her unmarried daughter is 11 years old.

(salam)

You can’t use the example of Abu Bakr to point out the problem with one witness in the ilm al-rijl because he and and Umar al-Khattab opposed the Prophet’s family. Abu Bakr was motivated politically and was quite insincere when he narrated the hadith about Prophet not leaving anything for Fatima.

We know that Abu Bakr’s action was not Islamic when Fatima (sa) came out against him. She narrated many Quranic verses about prophets of the past leaving behind inheritance. One of the examples used by Fatima (sa) was when she narrated about Sulaiman (as) who inherited his father’s kingdom, wealth and prophet hood.

Excellent post.

However, for the Muslims, abu Bakr in the matter of Fadak, set the precedent for narrating hadiths by one witness only, man or woman. Quran requires at least two men or four women as witnesses for everything. But for narrating hadiths:

1. One witness is fine.

2. The narrating of hadith by a man is equal to narrating of hadith by a woman.

Abu Bakr set the precedent, the Muslims at least 250 years later after the death of the Prophet, built terms around it, terms like Science of Hadith, Ilum al-Rijjal, Sahih, Hasan and so forth

All three caliphaahaa, abu Bakr, Umar and Usman burned hadith books, and Umar beat abu Hurairah for narrating excessive hadiths, the hadiths they didn't like.

[Haydar Husayn]

^^^^^ You just proved how trashy the hadiths are and how they contradict both the ages of Bibi Fatima and Bibi Khadijah.

Now can you add 2 + 2, or subtract 24 - 5.

There are hadiths which say that Bibi Fatima was 5 years older than Aisha. Now if Bibi Fatima was 24 when she married Imam Ali, what would be the age of Aisha be. Oops 19.

Imagine the Prophet at the age 52 marring a 6 years old, while her unmarried daughter is 11 years old.

What hadith says that Bibi Fatima (as) was 5 years older than Aisha?

Anyway, let me simplify this for you, since you seem confused:

Bibi Khadija was about 28 when she married the Prophet (pbuh). Her age is the one on which there is least certainty due to various factors such as the comparative lack of biographical information and the fact that the marriage took place long before an agreed upon calendar was in place.

Bibi Fatima (as) was about 18 when she died. We are virtually certain about this age, despite the fact that Sunnis often give the age of 28 at the time of her death.

Aisha was around 9 or 10 at the time of her age to the Prophet (pbuh). There has been a consensus on this among Sunnis and Shias until recent times when some Muslims became embarrassed about it under the influence of Western opinions.

[aladdin]

^^^^ Like I said earlier, I don't want to get into war on contradictory hadiths regarding the ages of Bibi Fatima, Bibi Khadijah and Aisha.

As far as 5 years age difference between Bibi Fatima and Aisha, there are quite a few hadiths. I am a novice, and as a novice I am not in the hadiths business. I consider hadiths to be trash in the hands of the novices like me, you, Mr Zaveri and so forth.

It clearly says in the OP.

[Lanatin]

What hadith says that Bibi Fatima (as) was 5 years older than Aisha?

It's the Isaba of Ibn Hajar that says that.

Bibi Khadija was about 28 when she married the Prophet (pbuh). Her age is the one on which there is least certainty due to various factors such as the comparative lack of biographical information and the fact that the marriage took place long before an agreed upon calendar was in place.

Then why boldly claim that she was 28 when she married the Prophet in the first place?!

[aladdin]

Even the hadiths on "The Two Weighty Things" contradict with each other.

^^ Ilm ul-Rijaal is a part of a tool set that is used by scholars (not e-scholars (with all due respect to them and the tool itself) who have abused it time and again! (to misguide people on the internet!)). It does have its use but it requires proper and complete knowledge that real life scholars and maraja can possess.

Salam brother,

I couldn't agree more. Love the term e-scholars.

That said, it has flaws, its quite unreliable since:

- Its entirely man-made

- It has been passed down in written form over the course of a millennium and about 400+ years. The Ai'mma did not preserve, offer or use this tool so you can take a wild guess whose hands it were that passed it down all along. Ordinary people.

- Ordinary people sin, hold grudges and friendships for reasons other than the pleasure of God, and they can be very wrong about others.

- The written and compiled codex being "passed down" can be distorted, just like there is abundant proof that even the ahadith collections have suffered untold abuse.

- Its laws are all weird sometimes. For example: "Your hadith has no isnaad!", or "There is a missing person in the chain!", or the Rijaalists' blind and illogical insistence that dha'eef = fabricated!, and my personal favorite "There is a Rafidhi (omg!) in the chain of narrations! So its dha'eef! (because they're all liars!)".

Lol, well said, especially about, "There is a Rafidhi (omg!) in the chain of narrations! So its dha'eef! (because they're all liars!)".

See, when you set the foundations or start to correct and recompile your religion on such ignorant terms, exactly like salafism or wahabism, then guess where it will lead you... Not on Siraat-ul-Mustaqeem thats for sure. And such a path is not where I'd personally or any sane person would like to go (I think!).

I wonder if any Salafi or Wahhabi knows the term, Siraat-ul-Mustaqeem?

How can they, to them The Two Weighty Things are Quran and Sunnah, rather than Quran and AhlulBayt (as). They hate the AhlulBayt so how can they be on Siraat-ul-Mustaqeem.

So as long as REAL scholars use it (since they know its flaws and the time and place and the how-to of using it! And are renowned honest believers too! Not unknown internet specters and revanents (as usual!)) only then thats worth following in my book. ^^

Well said again. You complete post is excellent.

Wa' Salam.

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ]

If narrations are sooo important, which they clearly are, I fail to understand why god left us with such a rubbish system as rijaal. We can't be decisive on any issue! We hold one narration as the gospel truth, and then an online shiachat aalim comes along and somehow proves such narration wrong, hence negating our belief, and sprouts up other weird narrations. I've said this before countless of times we just cant ever be sure what is true or false with utmost confidence. There are people who doubt the authenticity of hadeeth al kisa' merely based on the issue that it's not found in any major hadeeth book. Anyone can abuse the sanad, rijal system the way they want, it's a pretty lame mechanism.

yeah, sure, I know the excuses... "we can't be spoon fed everything" or "this is a test for us" or "we have to use our brain" --- not good enough! If we can't agree on a seemingly simple "age" issue, then it just goes to show that we can't be sure of anything really. Might as well hold up Shia Islam as a mere slogan and make up my own ideology by applying "weak" and "authentic" tags to any narration that suits me. You have to come to the terms to the fact that using rationality and logic is impossible if everything is conflicting one another all the time.

And the Quran. It's the book of god but I'm sorry to say this, it may be beautiful and all, but it's a "reference" book and a "diary". It needs explanation by hadeeth. Which goes back to my main question. Why were we left with this very bad system?

[Haydar Husayn]

It's the Isaba of Ibn Hajar that says that.

And this is binding on Shias in what way? I've already said that Sunnis generally give Bibi Fatima's age as higher than Shias. Anyway, there even a consenus among Sunnis that Bibi Fatima was 5 years older than Aisha? Presumably not since they also seem to think there was approximately a 10 year age gap.

Then why boldly claim that she was 28 when she married the Prophet in the first place?!

I didn't boldly claim anything. I indicated there was some uncertainty about the issue, but of the ages that are commonly given, this is by far the more likely of the two. Anyway, I'm not sure how important this is since it has nothing to do with the issue of Aisha or Bibi Fatima's ages at the time of their marriages.

[Lanatin]

Forget the e-scholars who hold no credentials Ahlul Bait. That should make things a tad bit easier.

As for your other complaints, I really cba writing detailed paragraphs in response to them and hope Haidar Husayn gives you some sort of decent reply.

In a bit bruvs

[aladdin]

If narrations are sooo important, which they clearly are, I fail to understand why god left us with such a rubbish system as rijaal. We can't be decisive on any issue! We hold one narration as the gospel truth, and then an online shiachat aalim comes along and somehow proves such narration wrong, hence negating our belief, and sprouts up other weird narrations. I've said this before countless of times we just cant ever be sure what is true or false with utmost confidence. There are people who doubt the authenticity of hadeeth al kisa' merely based on the issue that it's not found in any major hadeeth book. Anyone can abuse the sanad, rijal system the way they want, it's a pretty lame mechanism.

Salam brother,

Excellent, and I couldn't have said it any better.

yeah, sure, I know the excuses... "we can't be spoon fed everything" or "this is a test for us" or "we have to use our brain" --- not good enough! If we can't agree on a seemingly simple "age" issue, then it just goes to show that we can't be sure of anything really. Might as well hold up Shia Islam as a mere slogan and make up my own ideology by applying "weak" and "authentic" tags to any narration that suits me. You have to come to the terms to the fact that using rationality and logic is impossible if everything is conflicting one another all the time.

It is said that Prophet knew the Quran, but it is said at the same time that the Prophet suspected for almost two months his wife regarding Zina. This is what the Quran's says:

024.023 Those who slander chaste women, indiscreet but believing, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter: for them is a grievous Penalty,-

And the Quran. It's the book of god but I'm sorry to say this, it may be beautiful and all, but it's a "reference" book and a "diary". It needs explanation by hadeeth. Which goes back to my main question. Why were we left with this very bad system?

Again, excellent observation.

[Lanatin]

Again, excellent observation.

I can't believe you just said that.

[aladdin]

I can't believe you just said that.

Lol, why?

How would you answer him?

[Haydar Husayn]

If narrations are sooo important, which they clearly are, I fail to understand why god left us with such a rubbish system as rijaal. We can't be decisive on any issue! We hold one narration as the gospel truth, and then an online shiachat aalim comes along and somehow proves such narration wrong, hence negating our belief, and sprouts up other weird narrations.

No e-scholar same up with anything. Whatever Nader said was already well known among scholars. You think he knows these things and they don't? If you want to take the long Hadith Kisa to be authentic, then go ahead. Nobody can stop you. But there is no reason to expect everyone to take it to be Gospel truth, when there are serious grounds to be uncertain about it.

The issue seems to be that you have an irrational emotional attachement to this hadith, and are unduly disturbed by someone casting doubt on it. In reality, whether or not this hadith is authentic, it makes hardly one bit of difference to Shia beliefs.

I've said this before countless of times we just cant ever be sure what is true or false with utmost confidence.

What can you state with utmost confidence? Doubts can be created about anything. You just have to do the best under the circumstances.

There are people who doubt the authenticity of hadeeth al kisa' merely based on the issue that it's not found in any major hadeeth book. Anyone can abuse the sanad, rijal system the way they want, it's a pretty lame mechanism.

You make it sound like not been found in any major hadith book is a small issue.

I'm not sure what you mean about the system been abused though. Can you give an example?

yeah, sure, I know the excuses... "we can't be spoon fed everything" or "this is a test for us" or "we have to use our brain" --- not good enough! If we can't agree on a seemingly simple "age" issue, then it just goes to show that we can't be sure of anything really. Might as well hold up Shia Islam as a mere slogan and make up my own ideology by applying "weak" and "authentic" tags to any narration that suits me. You have to come to the terms to the fact that using rationality and logic is impossible if everything is conflicting one another all the time.

The thing is there aren't all these contradictions that you are talking about. There may be a few hadnful of issues here and there, but that's it. Nothing important. What difference does it make to our faith if we know exactly how old someone was? None. There is no real issue about most of these ages anyway. It's just some people who are embarrassed about the behaviour of their Prophet because they are incapable of thinking outside their little modern secular box.

And the Quran. It's the book of god but I'm sorry to say this, it may be beautiful and all, but it's a "reference" book and a "diary". It needs explanation by hadeeth.

Yes, and what is the problem? The problem is you want an unrealistic system that can give you complete certainty on everything. Just because there are a few issues where we aren't sure about something, it doesn't make the whole system bad. Nobody's place in paradise is going to be at stake because of any small problems in the hadith system over peripheral issues. We have more than enough to go on in order to stay true to the message of the Prophet (pbuh).

Which goes back to my main question. Why were we left with this very bad system?

You think this system is bad? What kind of system do you think the Christians had for 600 years?

[aladdin]

^^^^^ So you agree that the system created by abu Bakr that hadiths are to be transmitted by either one man or woman, as he did regarding Fadak is the best system?

Also, you agree it doesn't matter that it goes against the Quranic requirement for having at least two witnesses for everything?

[Haydar Husayn]

The problem with the hadith narrated by Abu Bakr was that he was an unreliable narrator due to his deviant aqeedah the fact that he had a personal interest in fabricating the hadith. If someone reliable passes information on to you, then you don't need other witnesses. But otherwise, are you saying that you will only believe a hadith than can be verified to come through two independent primary narrators?

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ]

Age doesn't make a difference to our faith? Really? Then why are we having a polemical discussion about something as 'trivial' as this? Hey, what about history! Let's just throw that behind our backs since history relies on narrations + we always throw random antithetical historical 'facts' at each other, even relating to the event of kerbala + it doesn't make a difference to our faith since I can be a good person and attain paradise without having to listen to all these long winded rhetoric historical debates.

I'm actually sick all of this "he said this, but he said that" conflicts and im sick of Nader Zaveri's long winded way of determining what narration is authentic through his own science that most people dont understand. "Uzma ibn Abdillah ibn washi ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn blah blah blah said that Rasullulah said that:....." , and I'm just thinking : what the hell. How the heck am I meant to know how true this is?

I'm also sick of how Nader Zaveri backs up weird hadiths with "well, it's been authenticated by majlisi, kulaini" or whatever and it's like these scholar have the magic wand and they're are ALWAYS right. And then someone brings another hadeeth which contradicts and refutes Nader Zaveri's weird Hadith and Nader Zaveri, through his magical rijal science, gives it a stamp of "dhaeef". -.-

I'm left bemused.

Never ending twist and turns and plot holes. Sometimes, I just think, forget everything. Forget lectures, forget reading, Just do what you think is right, don't judge, love Ahlul bayt and visit their shrines and do matam and charity like everyone else and you'll enter paradise. Forget these silly arguments that don't achieve anything and neither facilitate felicity in the hereafter.

God judges the heart. End of.

[aladdin]

The problem with the hadith narrated by Abu Bakr was that he was an unreliable narrator due to his deviant aqeedah the fact that he had a personal interest in fabricating the hadith. If someone reliable passes information on to you, then you don't need other witnesses. But otherwise, are you saying that you will only believe a hadith than can be verified to come through two independent primary narrators?

What you fail to understand that abu Bakr by narrating the hadith that prophet children don't inherit. He was the caliph, the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the sole witness, he was the might, thus he set the precedent that only one man or only woman is required to narrate hadiths.

Who can go against him. Then him, Umar and Usman burned all the hadiths books. Even Umar beat abu Hurairah for narrating excessive hadiths. Hadiths the mighty caliphaahaa didn't like.

The Sunnis cannot go against their master abu Bakr with the requirement of one man or one woman is enough to narrate the hadith. So, 300 years later the Sunnis build the Science of Hadiths, relying solely on Sanad and Ilum al-Rijjal. The Sunnis knew that regarding Fadak and the claim that the children of Prophet didn't inherit is against the Holy Quran. So they discarded the Matn of hadith in favor of Sanad and Ilum al-Rijjal.

The text (Matn) of the hadith didn't matter much as long as the Sanad was SaHeeH, SaHeeH. Even in Sahih Bukhari there are lots of hadiths, where the Matn is against the Quran and the total religion.

Where as the Shia took a different approach. They relied more on the Matn of the hadith, that it agrees with the Holy Quran and the total religion. Sanad and Ilum al-Rijjal became secondary to them. Thus, each of our Alim or Marja with years of studies behind him, if he uses any hadiths, he grades the hadiths for his own use. He does extensive research on the hadith to see that:

1. The matn (text) of the hadith agrees with the Holy Quran and the total religion.

2. He looks at the Sanad and even if the Sanad might be weak but the matn is strong, he might use the hadith.

So the matn takes precedent over the Sanad.

Edited October 7, 2011 by aladdin

[aladdin]

I'm actually sick all of this "he said this, but he said that" conflicts and im sick of Nader Zaveri's long winded way of determining what narration is authentic through his own science that most people dont understand. "Uzma ibn Abdillah ibn washi ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn blah blah blah said that Rasullulah said that:....." , and I'm just thinking : what the hell. How the heck am I meant to know how true this is?

I'm also sick of how Nader Zaveri backs up weird hadiths with "well, it's been authenticated by majlisi, kulaini" or whatever and it's like these scholar have the magic wand and they're are ALWAYS right. And then someone brings another hadeeth which contradicts and refutes Nader Zaveri's weird Hadith and Nader Zaveri, through his magical rijal science, gives it a stamp of "dhaeef". -.-

I'm left bemused.

Salam brother,

These are magical people with magical wands, and the terms to razzle dazzle. Terms like Sanad, Ilum al-Rijjal, SaHeeH, HaSaN, DHaiF, GiDDaN, GiDDaN and so forth. They are out there to revive Islam, as Islam is dead. It is not the Islam they want to revive, it is the Shia Islam. Wolves in the clothing of sheep.

Never ending twist and turns and plot holes. Sometimes, I just think, forget everything. Forget lectures, forget reading, Just do what you think is right, don't judge, love Ahlul bayt and visit their shrines and do matam and charity like everyone else and you'll enter paradise. Forget these silly arguments that don't achieve anything and neither facilitate felicity in the hereafter.

God judges the heart. End of.

Ya' brother ahlul bayt, Allah bi haqe AhlulBayt (as) to give you and your family good in this life and afterlife.

You said it, "Just do what you think is right, don't judge, love Ahlul bayt and visit their shrines and do matam and charity like everyone else and you'll enter paradise."

But these magical people will tell your everything is a bidah. Love of AhlulBayt is bidah, matam is bidah, shedding tears is bidah, bidah, bidah, bidah ..........

You will enjoy the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhleUoucs2s

[baradar_jackson]

This discussion is above my head, but I have to say I have been enjoying the posts by brother aladdin, as well as the ones by brother Abu Dujana and brother Ahlul-Bayt.

@ Haidar Husayn

You said:

The reality is that many people here have a much firmer belief in the 'oral tradition' (if you can call it that) passed down to them by their families and community than they do to the books of hadith or the views of scholars. If the ahadith go in their favour, then all well and good, but if not they are to be rejected as fabrications, and if a scholar agrees with them then that is proof, but if he disagrees with them then that can be dismissed since the scholar isn't infallible.

This is completely and utterly false.

I challenge you to go around this website and ask three groups of people, what is their source in religion?

- Shirazis

- Sistani followers

- Hezbollahis

All of them will say their respective marja.

Ask them what they do when their personal inclinations conflict with their marja's ruling. They will say that they assume themselves to be wrong and their marja to be correct.

There is a strict obedience.

You don't even need to make an opinion poll of it. Just look around the site. Look at the posts. How often do you see a hezbollahi REALLY emphasis the point of Seyyed Ali Khamenei being "infallible" ? How often do the followers of Sayyed Sistani do this? When someone asks for Sayyed Sistani's ruling, do they come and post the ruling but then say "But Sayyed Sistani is infallible so of course don't take this ruling as an outright command."

The fallible / infallible question is not even mentioned on this site except by your team. Your team is the one who uses this card to reject ALL authority and cause others to question it as well. You're the ones who use this card to make Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah no better than Silvio Berlusconi. "He's fallible! I only follow infallible leadership!"

You are trying to turn this issue -- which is an issue of your rebellion and your rejection -- and flip it on people who are not rebellious at all, and in fact make it a habit to discard any personal opinions which conflict with that of their authority. Your team has no such habit, because it is not within your capacity. You have too much pride.

Edited October 8, 2011 by baradar_jackson

[aladdin]

^^^^ Salam brother,

Excellent post.

During chat Haider Husayn and I made up. He is a dear son to me. God to give you, your family, Haider Husayn and his family bi haqe AlhulBayt (as) good in the life and afterlife too.

Amin.

[aladdin]

Abu Bakr was motivated politically and was quite insincere when he narrated the hadith about Prophet not leaving anything for Fatima.

We know that Abu Bakr’s action was not Islamic when Fatima (sa) came out against him. She narrated many Quranic verses about prophets of the past leaving behind inheritance. One of the examples used by Fatima (sa) was when she narrated about Sulaiman (as) who inherited his father’s kingdom, wealth and prophet hood.

Well said sister.

[The Green Knight]

The only reason most people here don't like rijal is that it is used as a proof against the beliefs they hold dear. You can bet that if someone was making threads showing that ahadith that conformed with their beliefs were sahih, and ones that went against their beliefs were da'if, then the same people would all be saying "Masha'Allah".

EXACTLY my point.

You see, its a two-way street. Take the parable of Atheists. They may not admit that Atheism is a religion or belief while we know otherwise. Same goes for Rijaalists. They, you, most obviously have a manifest agenda against everything that is orthodox, and by orthodox I mean the established belief that people have lived and died while believing in since the dawn of Islam, i.e., 1400+ years. You want to prove that they were wrong, and you e-scholars are, with the severely lacking crutch of Rijaalism, have found the truth after 1400 years. Clinging on to your self-confidence in this most serious of matters with as much pride as the Fallen. Sorry to be blunt, but its clearly obvious by your vain efforts. You call it revival, I call it heresy and fitna. Nothing personal. But why, like Atheists, try to force this very flawed and unreliable garbage onto others, thats disturbing for the naive but should be worth contemplating. Time and again, the Rijaalism peddlers here on SC have failed incredibly and their arguments and lies demolished, so its amazing why people simply don't give up. May be there are no other pseduo-intellectual crutches left to sabotage the deen, even though its a shame how flawed this one is. Perhaps your kind too, should resort to the use of bullets and bombs as all enemies of God do and fulfill your destiny.

[Ali_Hussain]

EXACTLY my point.

You see, its a two-way street. Take the parable of Atheists. They may not admit that Atheism is a religion or belief while we know otherwise. Same goes for Rijaalists. They, you, most obviously have a manifest agenda against everything that is orthodox, and by orthodox I mean the established belief that people have lived and died while believing in since the dawn of Islam, i.e., 1400+ years. You want to prove that they were wrong, and you e-scholars are, with the severely lacking crutch of Rijaalism, have found the truth after 1400 years. Clinging on to your self-confidence in this most serious of matters with as much pride as the Fallen. Sorry to be blunt, but its clearly obvious by your vain efforts. You call it revival, I call it heresy and fitna. Nothing personal. But why, like Atheists, try to force this very flawed and unreliable garbage onto others, thats disturbing for the naive but should be worth contemplating. Time and again, the Rijaalism peddlers here on SC have failed incredibly and their arguments and lies demolished, so its amazing why people simply don't give up. May be there are no other pseduo-intellectual crutches left to sabotage the deen, even though its a shame how flawed this one is. Perhaps your kind too, should resort to the use of bullets and bombs as all enemies of God do and fulfill your destiny.

Brother, I think you have completely missed the point of using rijal, which is to give us a pure form of islam that way it was practiced 1400 years ago without all the later innovations. On what basis are you saying certain things are

established beliefs that people have lived and died while believing in since the dawn of Islam, i.e., 1400+ years.

The fact that they are not in our books or were narrated by unreliable people should be enough to tell us they are not what people believed since the dawn of islam, that is your own assumption, you should at least be open to the idea that there is a possibily you might be wrong.

You want to prove that they were wrong, and you e-scholars are, with the severely lacking crutch of Rijaalism, have found the truth after 1400 years

Again, I don't think this is the case, the rijalists believe the people 1400 years ago or even 1000 years ago, or even 600 years ago knew better than the people of today, why do you assume that what people believe today is what they believed 1400 years ago, especially when brothers bring proof to show that the modern beliefs are not even the beliefs of people during the time of people like Sheikh al-Mufeed or Allama al-Hilli, so how could they possibly be the beliefs of people 1400 years ago?

Even the fact that your call fellow muslims enemies of God shows that you have made up your mind that you have a monopoly on the truth, you always talk about years of study needed, how many years of studay have you done to make takfeer on so many people? Even the scholars who have had years of learning say that who ever says the shahadatayn, then you can't call him a kafir, so perhaps you should follow your own words and refrain from making these kinds of statements

Edited October 8, 2011 by Ali_Hussain

[The Green Knight]

Again, I don't think this is the case, the rijalists believe the people 1400 years ago or even 1000 years ago, or even 600 years ago knew better than the people of today, why do you assume that what people believe today is what they believed 1400 years ago,

How about you try to prove that Shi'ism today is not the same before asking me such an absurd thing?

Even the fact that your call fellow muslims enemies of God shows that you have made up your mind that you have a monopoly on the truth, you always talk about years of study needed, how many years of studay have you done to make takfeer on so many people? Even the scholars who have had years of learning say that who ever says the shahadatayn, then you can't call him a kafir, so perhaps you should follow your own words and refrain from making these kinds of statements

Please re-read my statements. I did not make any direct, calculated "takfeers" rather I gave parables which are quite amazingly fitting. You can keep your disingenuous assertions to yourself. What I write about Rijaalists is crystal clear and pure observation, and I am not a politician that I should hide the truth. I don't need a qualification to tell the difference between daylight and darkness. I don't think most people do either. Do you or your team ever even introduce yourselves? You're not even real, credible or verifiable people, leave alone the need to ask YOUR qualifications. I'm not bothered with that anyway. Why should I refrain from pointing out whats obvious and logical to all?

This persistence is absurd although sad by the way.

Remember, that this "hadith science" and its "tools" are the very first weapon that was used by Shaitaan when the team that always wished to assassinate the holy Prophet (pbuh) and take over (and did so) used 40 minions of theirs to swear falsely that "Caliphate and Imamate can't both stay in Ahl-al-Bayt (as)". They abused it to sell onions! Buy [Abu Sufyan's (or whoever's)] 3 onions planted in such and such place and get 3 acres in heaven! Buy 2 and get 2 acres! preached by the same monkeys on the pulpit that the Prophet (pbuh) saw in his dream. How do you suppose Muawiya lanatullah alaiyh founded the system that facilitated continued tabarra and blasphemy on Imam Ali (as) with jumm'ah sermons for centuries? And then why do you think Al-Mansur of the Abbasid burnt hundreds and thousands of ahadith?

But of course, I speak of the "dha'eef" accounts. Isn't it, dear Rijaalists? Hah.

Remember the hadith of Thaqalayn, now this one no master Rijaalist can deny.

What are the Thaqalayn?

- The Qur'an.

- The Ahl-al-bayt (as).

Only TWO things that we're supposed to adhere to. Yes, many other things can be used to augment religion, but its not the place for ordinary people to trifle with them.

Remember, this is the delicate time of ghaybah. Read the predictions. People from among Shiahs (no less) are foretold to go astray. We're ordered to be very cautious, careful. Don't get mislead by the seemingly greener meadow of "Revival of Al-Islam" and other such poison. Only the Awaited can do that. And if you don't believe in that, then by all means, don't wait. Fulfill the predictions, as foretold, but you won't be able to say that you weren't warned by anyone. My sincere advice to you all is to repent. Some of you took a wrong turn, and to err is perfectly human. We make mistakes. Reconsider your possible wrongs and turn back. Allah is most forgiving, merciful.

[Ali_Hussain]

How about you try to prove that Shi'ism today is not the same before asking me such an absurd thing?

Well, on an apparent level, lets take ashura, and every thing that goes with it, I don't think anyone really believes that wearing black, street processions, matam, zanjeer, sajdah to horses, alams etc etc etc are in anyway similar to how the Imams (a) told us to mourn Imam al-Husayn Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, that being the big event of the shi'a year shows that at least on some level, things have changed.

[baradar_jackson]

Again, I don't think this is the case, the rijalists believe the people 1400 years ago or even 1000 years ago, or even 600 years ago knew better than the people of today, why do you assume that what people believe today is what they believed 1400 years ago, especially when brothers bring proof to show that the modern beliefs are not even the beliefs of people during the time of people like Sheikh al-Mufeed or Allama al-Hilli, so how could they possibly be the beliefs of people 1400 years ago?

This makes no sense.

Assuming that your dream team is truthful about what the classical scholars thought and believed (which in many cases this turns out to be incorrect, and it is shown to ignorant rabble like myself that you are either mistaken in your claims, or you are purposefully distorting the truth to misguide people who don't know any better), this argument is still trash.

It operates on the assumption that the farther back in time you go, the closer scholars' opinions were to the truth. How is this the case?

So a scholar today -- who is 1400 years apart from ahlul bayt -- is less credible than a scholar who is 600, 700. 800 years apart from ahlul bayt? On what basis?

You people are so clumsy with your reasoning. Trying to reason with you is like trying to milk a chicken.

Ahlul bayt message is eternal. It isn't stuck somewhere 1400 years ago. It doesn't get any easier to follow them if you were living 1000 years ago (and therefore "closer" to them). If that were the case, then what about the people living during the time when ahlul bayt were alive? Wouldn't they all be followers of them???!?!?!? And yet we know this is not the case; we know how oppressed they were.

Stop trying to use reasoning. Stick to your selective hadith application and nonsensical self-serving grading system.

Edited October 8, 2011 by baradar_jackson

[The Green Knight]

Well, on an apparent level, lets take ashura, and every thing that goes with it, I don't think anyone really believes that wearing black, street processions, matam, zanjeer, sajdah to horses, alams etc etc etc are in anyway similar to how the Imams (a) told us to mourn Imam al-Husayn عليه السلام, that being the big event of the shi'a year shows that at least on some level, things have changed.

Sajda to a horse? To the 'alam? Are you saying that ALL Shiah today are ghulaat? What insolent nonsense answer is this.