Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Haydar Husayn

Were The Classical Scholars Muqassirs?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

(salam)

In this thread I would like to discuss whether the classical Shia scholars can be considered muqassirs (those who lower the true status of the Imams (as)) from the point of view of current popular Shia beliefs. I will post a little evidence for such a claim, and insha'Allah others can post more, or can argue against that position. In my post I'll be concentrating on Shaykhs Saduq, Mufeed, and Tusi.

Shaykh Saduq:

He is perhaps the most obvious candidate for considering a muqassir, due to his famous beliefs on sahw an-nabi (forgetfulness of the Prophet (pbuh)). However, he had other beliefs that might lead a person today to not recognise him as a mainstream Shia.

Sahw an-nabi:

As for the claim of Abu Ja‘far (Shaykh Saduq), may Allah have mercy upon him, that he who accuses the learned divines of Qum of attributing to the Imams less than their due, should be stigmatized as an extremist. In fact, the charging of this group with such attribution is not a sign of excess, since amongst those who are mentioned as learned divines and scholars, there are many who accuse the bona fide scholars of attributing less than their due to the Imams, be they from Qum or from any other country or any other people.

We have heard a narration, the meaning of which is plain, related to the authority of Abu Ja`far Muhhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Walid" (one of Saduq's teachers), may Allah have mercy upon him, and the interpretation in favour of taqsir is inescapable. This is what is related on his authority: "The first degree of excess is to deny that the Prophet and the Imãms were ever fallible (sahw)", Then if this was indeed related by him, he in fact attributes less than their due to the Imams, and yet he is one of the divines of Qum.

(Shaykh Mufeed's Tashih al-I`tiqad)

Description of the Imams:

Sheikh Sadooq said, “The Imam is born. He also has children. He gets ill and he gets cured. He eats and drinks. He urinates and defecates. He gets married. He sleeps. He forgets and he makes mistakes. [337] He gets happy and sad. He laughs and cries. He lives and then dies. He is buried and the people go to visit his shrine. He is resurrected and questioned. He is rewarded and honored. He intercedes. There are two important signs for him: his knowledge and the fulfillment of his prayers. He has heard the news that he gives about the events in the future from his grandfathers from the Prophet of God (s). The Prophet of God (s) has heard them from Gabriel. Gabriel has heard them from the Almighty God.

[337] The author has interpreted this in Man La Yahdharohu al-Faqih as follows, When for some reason God wills the Imam to forget or make a mistake, the Imam himself will immediately inform others about it so that no one gets misled." Of course, this is what the author and his master Ibn al-Walid believe, not all the great Sheikhs. They say forgetting and making mistakes are in contradiction with innocence or “Ismat” which is the criteria for being the Imam. Thus they either interpret or reject all such cases.

(uyun akhbar al-ReDa, vol 1, commentary on hadith 19:2, p.400)

http://www.maaref-fo...glish/index.htm

Powers of the Imams:

Now (undoubtedly) Allah has delegated matters concerning religion to His Prophet and He, the Mighty and Glorious, says: "And whatsoever the Messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it) " [59:7]. And this (that is, religious authority) has also been delegated to the Imams.

(I'tiqadqtu 'l-Imamiyyah)

http://www.shiachat....and-delegation/

Third Shahada in adhan:

The Mufawwida (a group of the ghulat who claimed that Allah created the Ma`sumeen then delegated to them the responsibility and power to create the universe and be the ones providing its sustenance), may Allah curse them, have forged narrations and added in the adhan “MuHammad wa aali MuHammad khayru ‘l-bariyyah” two times, and in some of their reports after “ashhadu anna MuHammadan rasoolullaah” “ashhadu anna `Aliyyan waliyullaah” two times, and some of them that narrate in place of that “ashhadu annna `Aliyyan ameer al-mu’mineen haqqa” two times. There is no doubt that `Ali is the Wali of Allah, and that he is the Commander of the Believers truly, and that Muhammad and the Family of Muhammad are the best of people, however that is not from the original adhan. And I have only mentioned this that thereby may be known that those who have been accused of concocting (the doctrine of) tafwid and have insinuated themselves in our ranks may be known.

(Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih)

http://www.tashayyu....hahada-in-adhan

Shaykh Mufeed:

Powers of the Imams:

The adherents of the doctrine of delegation (al-Mufawwidah) are a group of extremists who are distinguished from the others by their peculiar claim that though the Imãms are created, originated beings, and not eternal, yet they ascribe to them creation and sustaining. Also, they maintained that Allãh, the Exalted, created them and ceased to create, delegating to them the creation of the world and what lay therein.

[...]

Indeed, it is a sufficient sign of excess to claim that the Imãms are not created beings, and that they are divine and eternal, since the only logical conclusion of this assertion is excess; that the Imãms are the creators of bodies, originators of substances, and bring into existence accidents which are beyond human power. We need no more than this to judge or to ascertain their position without the signs which Abū Ja‘far, holds the marks of excess.

(Tashih al-I`tiqad)

http://www.shiachat....and-delegation/

Description of the Imams:

And I say that the messengers from humanity of Allah, be He exalted, and His prophets and the Imams from his khulafa are contingent created beings, afflictions are attached to them and pleasures occur for them, their bodies are made to grow by food and decreased by the passing of time, death is put (?) for them, and passing away is permitted upon them. And the consensus of the people of tawhid is upon this doctrine. And those belonging to (the heresy of) tafwid (those who believe Allah created the Imams and then delegated the ruling of creation and giving sustenance to the universe to them) and the categories of the ghulat (the exaggerators of the status of the Imams) have opposed us in it.

(awail-al-maqalat)

http://www.tashayyu....ams-after-death

Martyrdom of the Imams (as):

As for what Abu Ja`far (Shaykh Saduq) mentions of the death of our Prophet and the Imams by poison or murder, some of this is confirmed as fact and some not. What is confirmed is that the Commander of the Believers, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, departed from this world by murder, none of them died a natural death. Musa ibn Ja`far, peace be upon him, was killed by poison. It is highly probable that ar-Rida (`Ali ibn Musa) was poisoned, yet this cannot be confirmed. As for the others, there is no justification for the claim that they were either poisoned or murdered or killed through persecution, since the reports concerning this matter are extremely confused and there are no means of proving it definitely.

(Tashih al-I`tiqad)

He (Imam al-Jawad) died in the month of Dhul al-Qa`da in the same year. It was said that he died as a result of poisoning but in my view no report has established that, and I bear witness to that.

(Kitab al-Irshad)

Shaykh Tusi:

On creation:

The intended meaning of creation (in this verse) is taqdir (ordainment) apart from ihdath (generation). It is said in the explanation that he made from clay as the shape of a bat, and blew thereon and so it became a bird. And the meaning of “I blow thereon”, meaning: I blow the soul (ar-ruh) in it, and it is a subtle body like the wind. And it is other than the life (al-hayat), for the body is only made alive by what Allah ÊÚÇáì does in it of life, for bodies – all of them – are alike, Allah makes to live from them whatever He wills. And he only conditioned his saying of “and it shall become a bird by the permission of Allah” and did not condition his saying of “I will create for you out of clay as though it were the form of a bird” with mention of the permission of Allah so that he might remind by the mention of the permission (al-idhn) that it is from the act of Allah apart from `Isa. But as to the formation and the blowing, then it was his (`Isa’s) act, for it is not of what enters under the determined (maqdur) of qadr. But the transformation of the inanimate body into a living creature is not like that, for no one is able to do that apart from Him ÊÚÇáì. And his saying “and I will bring the dead to life by the permission of Allah” is on a figurative sense in adjoining it to himself, while its reality is that he would pray to Allah to revive the dead, so Allah would revive them and they would live by His permission.

(Tafsir at-tibyan)

http://www.tashayyu....yu/aal-imran/49

Of course, a common belief is that the Imams (as) have the 'power' to create and revive the dead, just like `Isa (as) had, but we see that Shaykh Tusi doesn't appear to believe in any such 'powers'.

Third Shahada in adhan:

And as to what has been narrated from the odd reports of the saying “ashhadu anna `Aliyyan waliyullaah wa aali MuHammad khayru ‘l-bariyyah”, then it is from that which is not acted upon in the adhan and the iqama. So whoever acts upon it is in error.

http://www.tashayyu....hahada-in-adhan

More to come, insha'Allah.

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaykh Karjaki (a student of Shaykh Mufeed) :

59 – And that they (the Imams) are originated human beings, created servants. They do not create and they do not provide sustenance. They eat and they drink, and they have wives. Pains and sickness takes them, and they are harmed. They fear so they do taqiyya. And from them are those who are killed and from them are those who died.

(Mukhtasar `Aqa'id ash-Shi`a al-Imamiyya, Synopsis of the beliefs of the Imami Shi`a)

Views of some modern scholars on the classical ones:

And the bottom line is that it is apparent that the beliefs of the classical scholars were different, so sometimes something according to them would be invalid/corrupt, kufr (disbelief) or ghulu, while according to the latter scholars it would not be so, in fact it would be regarded obligatory to believe in it. Therefore it is required to think over their jarh (attacking/weakening of hadith narrator by rijal scholars) due to the issues such as those mentioned.

(Taraiful Maqal, Ayatullah Burujerdi, Volume 2, Page 356)

We have warned more than once that an accusation from the classical scholars, especially of the ones from Qum, of a man (hadith narrator) being ghali should not be taken into consideration. This is because overall what is considered among the fundamentals of the religion these days was considered ghulu by them. Do not you see that they counted denial of the belief that the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) can forget as ghulu, even though one who does not deny that they (as) may forget would not be considered a momin (believer) these days. And Ayatullah Fadhil al Haeri excellently put it, where he said: "Accusation by the classical scholars of Qum, of hadith narrators being ghali and their exiling them from Qum (on charges of ghulu) does not prove in principle their da'f (weakness/unreliability). For indeed, most of our scholars and their most trustworthy ones would have been considered ghali by them, and if they had found them in Qum then they would have definitely exiled them from it inevitably."

(Allama Mamqani, Tanqihul Maqal, Volume 1, Page 334)

Syed Ali Bahrul Uloom wrote in his book "Al Burhan al Qati' (The definitive proof)", in its second volume's page 435 at the end of the page that "one who believes that the Imams (as) do takhleeq (creation of the creatures), provide rizq, give and take life by the permission of Allah (swt) and His help and will is a kafir"; while presently in our age it is among the fundamental beliefs of the Imami (Shia Ithna Ash'ari) religion to have belief on their power over everything by the permission of Allah (swt) and His help and will.

And he (Syed Bahrul Uloom) did not just stop at this, he even said that "one who advocates it or deems it among the fundamentals of the religion is a kafir."

(Ihqaqul Haq by Allama Musa al Ihqafi al Iskoi, Page 173)

"Indeed what is counted presently among the fundamentals of religion with regards to the characteristics of the Imams (as), professing by it was regarded as ghulu and elevation (of the status of the Imams), and even highly trustworthy men would be slandered and cast aside for ghulu due to professing by it."

(Allama Mamqani, Tanqihul Maqal, Volume 3, Page 230, in the biography of Mu'alla b. Khunais)

"The point is that Shaikh al Kashi reported (in his book Rijal al Kashi) under the biography of Muhammad b. al Furat two ahadith, I (i.e. Allama Mamqani) think that his (Shaikh al Kashi) intention was to prove Muhammad b. al Furat's ghulu through those two narrations, despite that there was nothing in those ahadith which evidences upon ghulu because their content is counted among the fundamentals of religion these days."

(Allama Mamqani, Tanqihul Maqal, Volume 3, Page 230, in the biography of Muhammad b. al Fura)

"And we have explained many times that we can not trust their (classical scholars) decision of casting aside a man (hadith narrator) due to ghulu, because what is now considered among a necessity of religion according to the Shias with regards to the ranks of the Imams (as), it was in those days ghulu, such that Shaikh Sadooq (ra) listed the belief that the Ma'soomeen (as) do not forget as ghulu although at present this belief is among the fundamentals of our religion."

(Allama Mamqani, Tanqihul Maqal, Volume 3, Page 230, in the biography of Muhammad b. Sinan)

"But the saying of ibn al Gadairi eludes to the occasional acceptance of his narrations, and it is not unlikely that they would accept his narrations which were void of ghulu while abandoning the one which had ghulu.

Since indeed, in the times of the classical scholars ghulu would be attributed to the man (hadith narrator) for a minute issue, in fact most of what we believe now about the ahlulbayt (as) would be labeled ghulu in those days."

(Allama Mamqani, Tanqihul Maqal, Volume 6, Page 340)

http://realtashayyu....-classical.html

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

It is a tricky issue. Taqsir can only really be measured against the absolutely certain as we do not know the actual reality. So long as they do not deny the wilayah and divine authority of the Imams [as] and such fundamentals, they are not muqasireen. As to the accusations of Ghuluw, it is truly something highly subjective, so I agree to some extend that their jarh about ghuluw is not absolute and can be overcome (maybe for example the hadith about X topic is mutawatir or mashhoor, and Fulan is narrating nothing suspicious or shaaadhth). Saduq and Mufid [rh] disagreed about the Imams' deaths, which is also a point that has nothing to do with ghuluw and taqseer.

On a side note: Has anyone noticed how the Mutaqaddimeen [rh] are different from the two groups within our madhhab today? They were super rawafidh, anti-"unity" (no idea existed then I believe) and were excessive in their anti-ghuluw.

في امان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For people whom say Imams don't forget, does that mean they remember every little thing that happens? For example, they remember exactly what they ate last year, every day, exactly what?

Yes they do remember.

And nobody can label them muqassir as we were not born in those days,what they actually said ,and did n't say who can decide?

We just have to judge by Quran,and through research in what matter a modern alim is correct,and in which of it the classical was.Both are fallible we can't take their word as final word,but have to criticize logically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

On a side note: Has anyone noticed how the Mutaqaddimeen [rh] are different from the two groups within our madhhab today? They were super rawafidh, anti-"unity" (no idea existed then I believe) and were excessive in their anti-ghuluw.

This is grossly incorrect. I can argue that the classical scholars and post classical scholars were even more unity, and this anti-Sunni sentiment didn't start until the Safawid dynasty. You won't have to look to far, just look at al-Tūsī and how some of his teachers were Sunnis (before th Suljuqs came and he had to leave), or the Hilliyeen or even Shahīd al-Thānī.

While today, you will never see a Shī`ah scholar actually learn any part of Islām from a non-Shī`ah, apart from the falsafah and irfāni sciences.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

(bismillah)

This is grossly incorrect. I can argue that the classical scholars and post classical scholars were even more unity, and this anti-Sunni sentiment didn't start until the Safawid dynasty. You won't have to look to far, just look at al-Tūsī and how some of his teachers were Sunnis (before th Suljuqs came and he had to leave), or the Hilliyeen or even Shahīd al-Thānī.

While today, you will never see a Shī`ah scholar actually learn any part of Islām from a non-Shī`ah, apart from the falsafah and irfāni sciences.

(salam)

(wasalam)

I could understand how you'd misunderstand what I meant by anti-Unity, bro. What I mean is this sort of denial and changing of ideas/beliefs cause the Sunnis were uncomfortable with it. al-Murtada [rh], Ibn Idris [rh], and others, iirc, said non-Imamis are kuffar. I think Ibn Idris said they are najis and all. Shaykhayn, `Aisha, etc. Even believing salaah behind them is valid.

في امان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just want to mention when it comes to the sahw an nabi part, dont mufeed and sadooq (ra) differ where Mufeed in fact has some strong indirect words for those who say the Prophet (pbuh) had sahw?

So even in their own time, they were differences in beliefs and I think ur angle of approach here of labelling ppl muqassir and ghulati can be changed to trying to find the most correct belief.

rather then saying "he is a Muqassir"

you can get to the bottom of the issues by asking "are these beliefs taqsir and why or why not"

As always though, ur accusatory tone is ever present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just want to mention when it comes to the sahw an nabi part, dont mufeed and sadooq (ra) differ where Mufeed in fact has some strong indirect words for those who say the Prophet (pbuh) had sahw?

Yes, so?

So even in their own time, they were differences in beliefs and I think ur angle of approach here of labelling ppl muqassir and ghulati can be changed to trying to find the most correct belief.

Nobody said they didn't have some difference, however as a group, their beliefs were generally quite different from what people believe now, as supported by what I posted above.

As for labeling, I'm not really in the business of doing that, even though I do consider many views to be ghuluw, I usually keep that to myself, unlike those who are very free with their accusations of taqsir.

rather then saying "he is a Muqassir"

you can get to the bottom of the issues by asking "are these beliefs taqsir and why or why not"

As always though, ur accusatory tone is ever present.

If someone posted that stuff as his own views on here, plenty of people would accuse him of being a muqassir. And if taqsir is lowering the status of the Imams (as), and they had lesser beliefs about the Imams than we do, while relying on the same sources, then how are they not muqassirs?

(salam)

(bismillah)

This is grossly incorrect. I can argue that the classical scholars and post classical scholars were even more unity, and this anti-Sunni sentiment didn't start until the Safawid dynasty. You won't have to look to far, just look at al-Tūsī and how some of his teachers were Sunnis (before th Suljuqs came and he had to leave), or the Hilliyeen or even Shahīd al-Thānī.

While today, you will never see a Shī`ah scholar actually learn any part of Islām from a non-Shī`ah, apart from the falsafah and irfāni sciences.

(salam)

I think he's referring to stuff like this:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

I could understand how you'd misunderstand what I meant by anti-Unity, bro. What I mean is this sort of denial and changing of ideas/beliefs cause the Sunnis were uncomfortable with it. al-Murtada [rh], Ibn Idris [rh], and others, iirc, said non-Imamis are kuffar. I think Ibn Idris said they are najis and all. Shaykhayn, `Aisha, etc. Even believing salaah behind them is valid.

Do you have an explicit statement from al-Murtada that states ALL non-12'ers are kuffār? Not scholars saying al-Murtada believed this, an exact statement from his own books.

I think he's referring to stuff like this:

I see many of the contemporary scholars who say the same thing. Words are one thing, and actions are totally different. Getting ijāzah to narrate hadīth from Sunnīs, having Sunnī students, rubbing elbows with other judges who were Sunnī, are the actions of many classical scholars. I highly doubt if those classical scholars believed all non-Imāmīs were kuffār that they would have teachers, contemporaries and students who were of non-Imāmī faith.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is pretty clear, and I cannot emphasize it more, they were SUPER SPECIAL so the poll choice is a no. How many times have members brought forward references from their books against your arguments? :)

For example - reading a few lines in Kitab al-Irshad alone, about how the sun returned, or how Imam Ali (as) talked to the serpent melts hearts of the most :P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

(bismillah)

Do you have an explicit statement from al-Murtada that states ALL non-12'ers are kuffār? Not scholars saying al-Murtada believed this, an exact statement from his own books.

(wasalam)

Nope =] But I know that you know that Ibn Idris said this.

I see many of the contemporary scholars who say the same thing. Words are one thing, and actions are totally different. Getting ijāzah to narrate hadīth from Sunnīs, having Sunnī students, rubbing elbows with other judges who were Sunnī, are the actions of many classical scholars. I highly doubt if those classical scholars believed all non-Imāmīs were kuffār that they would have teachers, contemporaries and students who were of non-Imāmī faith.

(salam)

(wasalam)

[some] Sunnis come to Qum and study, though they don't remain Sunni for long. I never said all of them had these views, either.

Once you're done with working out which classical scholars are guilty of taqsir maybe we should move on to ShiaChat members....

ALI

I'll tell you a good way of identifying the ghulat on ShiaChat. It's the ones that are always running around accusing people of being muqassirs.

Oh the irony...

في امان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, so?

this shows that in that very time, even between teacher and student, there was difference on opinion about aqeeda but would mufeed call saduq a muqassir? They both came to different conclusions with pretty much the same resources at their disposal and so this shows that the labelling of muqassir and ghulati isnt black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you a good way of identifying the ghulat on ShiaChat. It's the ones that are always running around accusing people of being muqassirs.

You may be right but I know I'd rather err on the side of too much than too little when it comes to the Ahlebayt (as) - better safe than sorry....

ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

You may be right but I know I'd rather err on the side of too much than too little when it comes to the Ahlebayt (as) - better safe than sorry....

ALI

It's actually the other way around. Being a "muqasir" is better than a ghaali. I think there's even narrations on this.

في امانه

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right but I know I'd rather err on the side of too much than too little when it comes to the Ahlebayt (as) - better safe than sorry....

Considering ghuluw puts you in hellfire, I don't really think you want to be 'erring on the side of too much'.

Shaykh Saduq on the ghulat:

Says the Shaykh Abu Ja'far: Our belief concerning those who exceed the bounds of belief (ghaal, pl. ghulat) and those who believe in delegation al-mufawwida) is that they are deniers (kuffar) of Allah, Glory be to His name. They are more wicked than the Jews, the Christians, the Fire-Worshippers, the Qadarites or the Kharijites (Haruriya), or any of the heretics (ahlu'lbid'a) or those who hold views which lead astray (alahwa'u 'l-mudilla ). None have belittled Allah more, Glory be to Him;

Told us Muhammad b. Musa al Mutawakkil (ra) who said: Told us Ali b. Ibrahim b. hashim from his father from ali b. Mu'bad from al Husain b. Khalid al Seerfi who said: Said abu al Hasan al Redha (as): "Whoever professed by the (belief in) reincarnation so he is a kafir (disbeliever)." Then Imam (as) said: "La'nah (curse/removal from mercy) of Allah (swt) on the ghulat, they are jews, they are majoosi (fire worshippers), they are christians, they are qadariyah (adherents of free will), they are murji'ah (name of a sect), they are Haruriyah (name of a sect)." Then Imam (as) said: "Do not sit with them and do not affirm them and dissociate from them, Allah (swt) is dissociated from them."

Told us Muhammad b. Ali b. Bashar (rh) who said: Told us abul Faraj al Mudhaffar b. Ahmad b. al Hasan al Qazwini who said: Told us al Abbas b. Muhammad b. Qasim b. Hamza b. Musa. b. Ja'far who said: Told us al Hasan b. Sahl al Qummi from Muhammad b. Khalid from abi Hashim al Ja'fri who said: I asked aba al Hasan al Redha (as) about the ghulat and mufawwidha, so [imam (as)] said: "The ghulat are kuffar (disbelievers) and the mufawwidha are polytheists, whoever sits with them or mingles with them or eats with them or drinks with them or sticks/holds on to them or gives in marriage to them or marries among them or gives them peace/security or takes them as safekeepers upon their things or affirms their saying or helps them with a word, he is expelled from wilayah of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, and wilayah of Rasool Allah (pbuh) and our wilyah of ahlulbayt (as)."

(Uyun Akhbar al Redha, Shaykh Sadooq, Volume 1, Page 219)

http://realtashayyu....-and-ghulu.html

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Through my little study of narrators and narrations, I have looked through about 5,000+ names. And I have yet to find any of our classical Shee`ah scholar weaken any of the narrators because they were "muqassir", on the other hand you find an innumerable amount of times that narrators were weakened because they were ghulaat.

Besides the hadeeth of "Don't put us too high or too low", is there really a punishment through hadeeth for being a muqassir? As opposed to the umpteen number of narrations that say they will go to hell, kaafir, mushrik, etc.

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

[sigh] Funny how you take things literally when it suits you.

I wrote err, not fall headlong into ghulat. I would rather believe they were peerless and extra ordinary rather than have deficiencies.

If you think that makes me a ghulat then fine, I will live with it and.leave the muqassir side of things to you.

ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Through my little study of narrators and narrations, I have looked through about 5,000+ names. And I have yet to find any of our classical Shee`ah scholar weaken any of the narrators because they were "muqassir", on the other hand you find an innumerable amount of times that narrators were weakened because they were ghulaat.

Besides the hadeeth of "Don't put us too high or too low", is there really a punishment through hadeeth for being a muqassir? As opposed to the umpteen number of narrations that say they will go to hell, kaafir, mushrik, etc.

(salam)

This makes sense because the onus on the one who accepts the Imams [a] is to follow them, not engage in speculation about them and their status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the beliefs described of ghulaats don't fit anywhere into mainstream Shia Beliefs today,so you can't copy paste these narrations on them,if you do then even Sheikh Sadooq,and Sheikh Mufeed believed ,and narrated all those stuff which is ghuluw in your dictionary,so then start a new thread.

'Was sheikh mufeed,and sadooq,ghaalis?'' lets have a poll.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the beliefs described of ghulaats don't fit anywhere into mainstream Shia Beliefs today,so you can't copy paste these narrations on them,if you do then even Sheikh Sadooq,and Sheikh Mufeed believed ,and narrated all those stuff which is ghuluw in your dictionary,so then start a new thread.

'Was sheikh mufeed,and sadooq,ghaalis?'' lets have a poll.

Which beliefs described above do you not see fitting into mainstream Shia beliefs? Just one example mentioned above is tafwid, which many Shias believe in bi-ithnillah. Also, I don't understand your point about Sheikh al-Saduq and Sheikh al-Mufid... What exactly are you trying to say? Also, why is it that many of your posts are ad hominem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the beliefs described of ghulaats don't fit anywhere into mainstream Shia Beliefs today,so you can't copy paste these narrations on them,if you do then even Sheikh Sadooq,and Sheikh Mufeed believed ,and narrated all those stuff which is ghuluw in your dictionary,so then start a new thread.

'Was sheikh mufeed,and sadooq,ghaalis?'' lets have a poll.

If we want to know their views, then we should look at what they wrote, not what they narrated in their books. They may not have understood the hadith in the same way you do, for example.

Anyway, did everyone just skip over my second post. Here is a well-known modern scholar explicitly saying the classical scholars had different beliefs:

And the bottom line is that it is apparent that the beliefs of the classical scholars were different, so sometimes something according to them would be invalid/corrupt, kufr (disbelief) or ghulu, while according to the latter scholars it would not be so, in fact it would be regarded obligatory to believe in it. Therefore it is required to think over their jarh (attacking/weakening of hadith narrator by rijal scholars) due to the issues such as those mentioned.

(Taraiful Maqal, Ayatullah Burujerdi, Volume 2, Page 356)

The idea that in comparison to today's popular beliefs (which is also what I was comparing their alleged 'taqsir' to), that the classical scholars could be considered ghulat is completely absurd. However, it is not at all absurd to wonder whether such beliefs would now be considered as taqsir.

I often get accused of being a muqassir for example, yet you would be hard-pressed to find anything I believe in that wasn't the belief of at least one of the scholars I referenced above. So if I'm a muqassir for repeating their views, then how can they not be?

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to know their views, then we should look at what they wrote, not what they narrated in their books. They may not have understood the hadith in the same way you do, for example.

Anyway, did everyone just skip over my second post. Here is a well-known modern scholar explicitly saying the classical scholars had different beliefs:

And the bottom line is that it is apparent that the beliefs of the classical scholars were different, so sometimes something according to them would be invalid/corrupt, kufr (disbelief) or ghulu, while according to the latter scholars it would not be so, in fact it would be regarded obligatory to believe in it. Therefore it is required to think over their jarh (attacking/weakening of hadith narrator by rijal scholars) due to the issues such as those mentioned.

(Taraiful Maqal, Ayatullah Burujerdi, Volume 2, Page 356)

The idea that in comparison to today's popular beliefs (which is also what I was comparing their alleged 'taqsir' to), that the classical scholars could be considered ghulat is completely absurd. However, it is not at all absurd to wonder whether such beliefs would now be considered as taqsir.

I often get accused of being a muqassir for example, yet you would be hard-pressed to find anything I believe in that wasn't the belief of at least one of the scholars I referenced above. So if I'm a muqassir for repeating their views, then how can they not be?

for example how would you interpret these?

Source: Al-Toosi, Tahdheeb Al-aHkaam, vol. 2, pg. 321

My father - Allah have mercy on Him - said: Sa`d b. `Abdullah narrated to us, he said: Ahmad b. Muhammad b. `Isa narrated to us, from Hasan b. Sa`eed, from Fudalah b. Ayyub, from Abban b. `Uthman, from Muhammad b. Muslim, who said: I heard Aba `Abdillah (as) say:

"Indeed Allah, Mighty and Exalted, created certain creatures from His light, and a mercy from His mercy for the sake of His Mercy. For these are the eye of Allah that sees, and His ear that hears, and His tongue that speaks to His creation by His permission, and the safeguards over what has descended from (His) justifications and warnings and proofs. And through them He wards off grievances, and through them He sends down mercy, and through them He enlivens the dead, and causes to die the living. And through them He afflicts His creation (with tribulations), and through them He judges cases among His creation."

I asked: May I be your ransom - Who are these?

He (as) replied: Al-Awsiyaa (the vice-regents).

[source: Al-Tawheed by Sheikh Sadooq, Pg 167, H 24]

Imam Reza(as)

"When a hardship befalls you seek Allah’s help through us, and this is the saying of Allah, the Mighty and the Majestic, ‘And for Allah are the beautiful names, thus call upon Him by them." Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 91, p. 6

Imam Ali (a) says:

"I am the beautiful names of Allah, His great exemplars and His great signs." Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 53, p. 47, Hadith #20

I have many more,but what about them,they interpreted in other ways? how do you know? and what was the interpretations? These words are quite clear.

What a baseless refutation is that narrating something does n't become part of their beliefs,so when they considered such things ghuluw,or kufr,why were they propagating kufr?

As for Ayatollah borujerdi,he is may be referring to those 'sahw' sort of beliefs,but still that is just an opinion of scholar,whereas we have their written proofs as well,so we may not know ,in which context ,Ayatollah borujerdi is referring,but what they narrated is quite clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give a crack at this...

for example how would you interpret these?

Source: Al-Toosi, Tahdheeb Al-aHkaam, vol. 2, pg. 321

My father - Allah have mercy on Him - said: Sa`d b. `Abdullah narrated to us, he said: Ahmad b. Muhammad b. `Isa narrated to us, from Hasan b. Sa`eed, from Fudalah b. Ayyub, from Abban b. `Uthman, from Muhammad b. Muslim, who said: I heard Aba `Abdillah (as) say:

"Indeed Allah, Mighty and Exalted, created certain creatures from His light, and a mercy from His mercy for the sake of His Mercy. For these are the eye of Allah that sees, and His ear that hears, and His tongue that speaks to His creation by His permission, and the safeguards over what has descended from (His) justifications and warnings and proofs. And through them He wards off grievances, and through them He sends down mercy, and through them He enlivens the dead, and causes to die the living. And through them He afflicts His creation (with tribulations), and through them He judges cases among His creation." The first part of the hadith shows that the Ahl al-Bayt (as) carry out the will of Allah (swt) on earth. The second part of the hadith underscores the obligation to follow them and be loyal to them. Those who follow them (as) taste His Mercy because He blesses them with iman, those who reject them or are wishy-washy in their views towards them (as) are afflicted by Him. The people are judged in accordance to their love of them (as), and there are explicit hadith on this. Those who have recognized the imam of their time and follow him (which includes his predecessors) are truly alive, and those who have not are truly dead. I don't see any other strange, esoteric, odd meaning you could pin to this hadith.

I asked: May I be your ransom - Who are these?

He (as) replied: Al-Awsiyaa (the vice-regents).

[source: Al-Tawheed by Sheikh Sadooq, Pg 167, H 24]

Imam Reza(as)

"When a hardship befalls you seek Allah’s help through us, and this is the saying of Allah, the Mighty and the Majestic, ‘And for Allah are the beautiful names, thus call upon Him by them." Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 91, p. 6 This is a rather vague saying, and I don't know what the Imam (as) necessarily means here. What does it mean to ask for Allah's help through them (as)? What's the original source, by the way?

Imam Ali (a) says:

"I am the beautiful names of Allah, His great exemplars and His great signs." Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 53, p. 47, Hadith #20 What's the original source, by the way? Majlisi had a knack for discovering new hadith.

I have many more,but what about them,they interpreted in other ways? how do you know? and what was the interpretations? These words are quite clear.

What a baseless refutation is that narrating something does n't become part of their beliefs,so when they considered such things ghuluw,or kufr,why were they propagating kufr? Your argument rests on the assumption that what they narrated they actually interpreted to be ghuluww, and that's something you'll need to demonstrate first. Otherwise, they just narrated what they believed to be authentic by their standards and may have understood differently than you or present-day scholars.

Edited by al-Irshad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two relevant scans from a book...

6yySl.jpg

"However, the minimalist approach, which limits the knowledge of the Imams to the area of law alone, was more popular in his day and in the following generations. [...] A similar opinion was held by two of the most prominent Imami scholars of the Buwayhid era, al-Sharif al-Murtada and Abu Jafar al-Tusi."

Assuming this is accurate, is nobody still willing to consider this taqsir?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming this is accurate, is nobody still willing to consider this taqsir?

In recent times, due to the influx of mysticism into the Shia world and whatnot, I feel that many Shias have conflated and mixed issues which otherwise have nothing to do with each other. That leads them to take extreme positions on issues related to imamate and fall into ghuluww.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give a crack at this...

What a crack you gave to it really!

If they are carrying out Allah's will on Earth,then what else we believe in?

That has been declared ghuluw from SC scholar so often,now if you say they were carrying out His will only when they were alive.

Then what do you say they were Allah's eyes,but then the eyes closed?

I don't need to waste lot of time,even this much refutation is enough.

In recent times, due to the influx of mysticism into the Shia world and whatnot, I feel that many Shias have conflated and mixed issues which otherwise have nothing to do with each other. That leads them to take extreme positions on issues related to imamate and fall into ghuluww.

Ok ghuluw is kufr,so by your definition,what the marjas are?

Do you declare them kaafir on this forum,they almost all believe in tawassul,YA ALI(AS) MADAD,so kindly shed your light on this as well?

We must know if you are more worthy than them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

There was obviously a difference in opinion concerning the status of the Imams amongst the companions of the Imams and hence those who succeeded them. Accusations of ghuluw and taqseer were thrown around. In those times, it would have been easier to distinguish those who were correct from those who were false, by examining the evidences and questioning the individuals involved (if not the questioning the Imams themselves). In these days, it is harder with the loss of evidences and the death of individuals involved. We must therefore rely on surviving evidences, usually the books of the successors to the involved individuals, i.e. our scholars. The problem is that there is a contrast between the beliefs of someone like Sadooq and someone like Mufeed; so which is more correct?

If someone were to look at Sadooq and his associates amongst his predecessors and contemporaries as being wrong or muqassirs just because many modern Imamis believe something different, that would be narrow-minded. Indeed, if we assume that the majority of scholars held many of the positions that Sadooq did on these issues, then that they are closer to the time of the present Imams and their access to individuals of knowledge and books, etc, means that they are more likely to be correct.

There also people who fancy themselves as academics who condemn Sadooq and the Qummis but are actually biased individuals with poor research.

In Deen, it should be clear that the Imams opinions/words are the weightiest evidence on an issue. Definitely more so than rational arguments. The implications of this are important.

Shaykh Saduq:

He is perhaps the most obvious candidate for considering a muqassir, due to his famous beliefs on sahw an-nabi (forgetfulness of the Prophet (pbuh)). However, he had other beliefs that might lead a person today to not recognise him as a mainstream Shia.

Sahw an-nabi:

As for the claim of Abu Ja‘far (Shaykh Saduq), may Allah have mercy upon him, that he who accuses the learned divines of Qum of attributing to the Imams less than their due, should be stigmatized as an extremist. In fact, the charging of this group with such attribution is not a sign of excess, since amongst those who are mentioned as learned divines and scholars, there are many who accuse the bona fide scholars of attributing less than their due to the Imams, be they from Qum or from any other country or any other people.

We have heard a narration, the meaning of which is plain, related to the authority of Abu Ja`far Muhhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Walid" (one of Saduq's teachers), may Allah have mercy upon him, and the interpretation in favour of taqsir is inescapable. This is what is related on his authority: "The first degree of excess is to deny that the Prophet and the Imãms were ever fallible (sahw)", Then if this was indeed related by him, he in fact attributes less than their due to the Imams, and yet he is one of the divines of Qum.

(Shaykh Mufeed's Tashih al-I`tiqad)

There are ahadeeth for sahw an-nabi, including sihhaat. See: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234992181-did-the-prophet-do-sahw-in-salat/

It would be difficult to deny these ahadeeth based on rationality. Taqiyyah would seem to be the best possible refutation. To call Sadooq a muqassir because he chose to accept the authentic ahadeeth on this issue does not make sense to me personally.

Views of some modern scholars on the classical ones:

And the bottom line is that it is apparent that the beliefs of the classical scholars were different, so sometimes something according to them would be invalid/corrupt, kufr (disbelief) or ghulu, while according to the latter scholars it would not be so, in fact it would be regarded obligatory to believe in it. Therefore it is required to think over their jarh (attacking/weakening of hadith narrator by rijal scholars) due to the issues such as those mentioned.

(Taraiful Maqal, Ayatullah Burujerdi, Volume 2, Page 356)

We have warned more than once that an accusation from the classical scholars, especially of the ones from Qum, of a man (hadith narrator) being ghali should not be taken into consideration. This is because overall what is considered among the fundamentals of the religion these days was considered ghulu by them. Do not you see that they counted denial of the belief that the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) can forget as ghulu, even though one who does not deny that they (as) may forget would not be considered a momin (believer) these days. And Ayatullah Fadhil al Haeri excellently put it, where he said: "Accusation by the classical scholars of Qum, of hadith narrators being ghali and their exiling them from Qum (on charges of ghulu) does not prove in principle their da'f (weakness/unreliability). For indeed, most of our scholars and their most trustworthy ones would have been considered ghali by them, and if they had found them in Qum then they would have definitely exiled them from it inevitably."

(Allama Mamqani, Tanqihul Maqal, Volume 1, Page 334)

He seems to be judging the beliefs of scholars based on the modern beliefs. Whereas an alternative to this perspective would be: /index.php?showtopic=16110"]http://islamic-4forum.net/index.php?showtopic=16110

Remove the 4 from the hyperlink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

There was obviously a difference in opinion concerning the status of the Imams amongst the companions of the Imams and hence those who succeeded them. Accusations of ghuluw and taqseer were thrown around. In those times, it would have been easier to distinguish those who were correct from those who were false, by examining the evidences and questioning the individuals involved (if not the questioning the Imams themselves). In these days, it is harder with the loss of evidences and the death of individuals involved. We must therefore rely on surviving evidences, usually the books of the successors to the involved individuals, i.e. our scholars. The problem is that there is a contrast between the beliefs of someone like Sadooq and someone like Mufeed; so which is more correct?

If someone were to look at Sadooq and his associates amongst his predecessors and contemporaries as being wrong or muqassirs just because many modern Imamis believe something different, that would be narrow-minded. Indeed, if we assume that the majority of scholars held many of the positions that Sadooq did on these issues, then that they are closer to the time of the present Imams and their access to individuals of knowledge and books, etc, means that they are more likely to be correct.

There also people who fancy themselves as academics who condemn Sadooq and the Qummis but are actually biased individuals with poor research.

In Deen, it should be clear that the Imams opinions/words are the weightiest evidence on an issue. Definitely more so than rational arguments. The implications of this are important.

There are ahadeeth for sahw an-nabi, including sihhaat. See: http://www.shiachat....-sahw-in-salat/

It would be difficult to deny these ahadeeth based on rationality. Taqiyyah would seem to be the best possible refutation. To call Sadooq a muqassir because he chose to accept the authentic ahadeeth on this issue does not make sense to me personally.

He seems to be judging the beliefs of scholars based on the modern beliefs. Whereas an alternative to this perspective would be: http://islamic-4foru...showtopic=16110

Remove the 4 from the hyperlink.

If sahw e Nabi(saww) can be accepted (nauzbillah),then whats the guarantee of whole Prophethood?

Even if there is a Hadees that is the contradiction to Quran,in which Allah says ''He does n't stir His lips except what i permit''

so how He got sahw? its contradicting Quran,so has to be rejected,no matter what the ilm ul rijaal says,and who narrated it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If sahw e Nabi(saww) can be accepted (nauzbillah),then whats the guarantee of whole Prophethood?

Even if there is a Hadees that is the contradiction to Quran,in which Allah says ''He does n't stir His lips except what i permit''

so how He got sahw? its contradicting Quran,so has to be rejected,no matter what the ilm ul rijaal says,and who narrated it?

You've misquoted and misunderstood the verse. Here is the preface from Abdel Haleem of an-Najm followed by his modern translation of the first 22 verses. The verse you were referring is 3, which in Shakir's rendering is: "Nor does he speak out of desire."

wCgqn.png

This verse (or the surah even) is not talking about the Prophet's (pbuh) daily conduct and whatnot. It's reaffirming the divine origins of the Quran. I don't even know how this verse could apply to forgetfulness. Forgetfulness is not something that one does of his own desire, it just happens really without any control.

Edited by al-Irshad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...