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
Haydar Husayn

Were The Classical Scholars Muqassirs?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hayder i don't believe in labelling people,though i strongly disagree with you most of the times,but did you find me calling you names even?(though i want to) :P

So how can we say something about dead scholars,there can be things attributed to them afterwards,who knows,Injeel,Torah,could be changed,these were only words of fallibles.There can be anything,we can't speculate with confirmation,it can be taqqiyah ,so who are we to label them?

Ok, forget about any names. Speaking generally, if someone had the views that were mentioned in this thread as attributed to those scholars, could they be considered a muqassir?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one more view to add to the plethora of views already mentioned here, perhaps on a different issue. Abu Jafar ibn Qiba al-Razi, like Fadl ibn Shadhan, believed that the Imam's (as) knowledge was solely acquired through transmission or derivative of the Quran. In other words, they did not admit supernatural transmission of knowledge or pseudo-revelation as possibilities for them. I think the contemporary scholars generally admit the possibilities of the latter for the Imams (as).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, forget about any names. Speaking generally, if someone had the views that were mentioned in this thread as attributed to those scholars, could they be considered a muqassir?

We should logically refute those views not by giving such provocative response as you are ghaali,you are muqassir,the next person can only be disillusioned,not convinced.

Here's one more view to add to the plethora of views already mentioned here, perhaps on a different issue. Abu Jafar ibn Qiba al-Razi, like Fadl ibn Shadhan, believed that the Imam's (as) knowledge was solely acquired through transmission or derivative of the Quran. In other words, they did not admit supernatural transmission of knowledge or pseudo-revelation as possibilities for them. I think the contemporary scholars generally admit the possibilities of the latter for the Imams (as).

There was a tradition in Ayun Akhbar e Raza(as) that ''there is a pillar of light from where Imam(as) gets to know the ghaib''

now i don't know the pillar thing but a classical one is quoting it,and when Imam(as) called themselves Eye of God,was eye so limited in viewing the affairs of the world?

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should logically refute those views not by giving such provocative response as you are ghaali,you are muqassir,the next person can only be disillusioned,not convinced.

Well, sure. But surely we need to establish what ghuluw and taqsir are. For example, I can say that tafwid is an example of ghuluw. So we also need to give examples of taqsir. So can you name some beliefs that you would consider to be lowering the status of the Imams? Would sahw an-nabi be one of them? What about others?

This is what the thread is about, not refuting anything. There are plenty of other threads for that. You can even open your own if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one more view to add to the plethora of views already mentioned here, perhaps on a different issue. Abu Jafar ibn Qiba al-Razi, like Fadl ibn Shadhan, believed that the Imam's (as) knowledge was solely acquired through transmission or derivative of the Quran. In other words, they did not admit supernatural transmission of knowledge or pseudo-revelation as possibilities for them. I think the contemporary scholars generally admit the possibilities of the latter for the Imams (as).

Apparently Hisham b. al-Hakam, the companion of Imam Sadiq (a) and Imam Kazhim (a) also had a view like this, believing they were infallible transmitters of the Prophet's (sawa) teachings but denying that the Imams received ilham with it being identified as a Jarudi doctrine or that they were muhaddaths. Even the later scholars who accepted these things seem to have admitted that in believing such it became hard to distinguish the Imams from being prophets in all but name (frankly I can't really understand what the difference between ilham and wahi really even is other than semantics)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people are not being honest with themselves. They most likely do believe the views attributed to these scholars are examples of taqsir (especially since they view anyone else who has these views as a muqassir), but don't want to say it because of the status of these men. This is a little cowardly in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, sure. But surely we need to establish what ghuluw and taqsir are. For example, I can say that tafwid is an example of ghuluw. So we also need to give examples of taqsir. So can you name some beliefs that you would consider to be lowering the status of the Imams? Would sahw an-nabi be one of them? What about others? This is what the thread is about, not refuting anything. There are plenty of other threads for that. You can even open your own if you want.
Yes belief in sahw e Nabi(saww) is taqsir,but mind it i am not calling Sheikh Sadooq a muqqasir,we don't know his intentions,neither circumstances,not even that, Was it his original statement?kept intact since centuries.

No i am not coward i say what i feel,and i have said that,just noticed your post now,so did reply late.

Now you tell me if someone says that ''Mohammad(saww) and Ali(as) were created before universe,were protectors of universe,messengers,angels,is he a ghaali for you?

Now your turn to be brave,and honest.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Hisham b. al-Hakam, the companion of Imam Sadiq (a) and Imam Kazhim (a) also had a view like this, believing they were infallible transmitters of the Prophet's (sawa) teachings but denying that the Imams received ilham with it being identified as a Jarudi doctrine or that they were muhaddaths. Even the later scholars who accepted these things seem to have admitted that in believing such it became hard to distinguish the Imams from being prophets in all but name (frankly I can't really understand what the difference between ilham and wahi really even is other than semantics)

I thought ilham occurred while sleeping and wahi occurred while awake? The view that they are infallible transmitters of the Prophet's (pbuh) teachings is more inline with our legalism, just one thing to note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Hisham b. al-Hakam, the companion of Imam Sadiq (a) and Imam Kazhim (a) also had a view like this, believing they were infallible transmitters of the Prophet's (sawa) teachings but denying that the Imams received ilham with it being identified as a Jarudi doctrine or that they were muhaddaths. Even the later scholars who accepted these things seem to have admitted that in believing such it became hard to distinguish the Imams from being prophets in all but name (frankly I can't really understand what the difference between ilham and wahi really even is other than semantics)

Were all companions truthful?

When Prophet(saww) could n't get ones,how our Imams(as) had 'immaculate friends'?

I thought ilham occurred while sleeping and wahi occurred while awake? The view that they are infallible transmitters of the Prophet's (pbuh) teachings is more inline with our legalism, just one thing to note.

Are dreams ilham? heard it for the first time.

If it is then how did Ibrahim(as) got Wahi in dream?

That means dreams are not limited to one thing,they can be wahi,can be ilham,and similarly,wahi is not confined to dreams,so how does ilham is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Hisham b. al-Hakam, the companion of Imam Sadiq (a) and Imam Kazhim (a) also had a view like this, believing they were infallible transmitters of the Prophet's (sawa) teachings but denying that the Imams received ilham with it being identified as a Jarudi doctrine or that they were muhaddaths. Even the later scholars who accepted these things seem to have admitted that in believing such it became hard to distinguish the Imams from being prophets in all but name (frankly I can't really understand what the difference between ilham and wahi really even is other than semantics)

Rationally the doctrine seems problematic. How does a nine year old Imam possess sufficient knowledge of Deen? I presume that the doctrine implies that the older Aimmah had memorised the contents of the books, that Ahlulbayt had, to a sufficient level and had been taught by their father or previous Imam. It seems necessary that the Imams receive knowledge.

Do correct me if my understanding is mistaken.

Some companions might have believed in this doctrine. But their belief in this matter does not constitute proof.

al-Irshad, The Imams could hear but not see the angels. The Prophets could see the angels in their dreams and hear them awake awake and asleep. The Messengers could hear and see the angels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rationally the doctrine seems problematic. How does a nine year old Imam possess sufficient knowledge of Deen? I presume that the doctrine implies that the older Aimmah had memorised the contents of the books, that Ahlulbayt had, to a sufficient level and had been taught by their father or previous Imam. It seems necessary that the Imams receive knowledge.

Do correct me if my understanding is mistaken.

Some companions might have believed in this doctrine. But their belief in this matter does not constitute proof.

al-Irshad, The Imams could hear but not see the angels. The Prophets could see the angels in their dreams and hear them awake awake and asleep. The Messengers could hear and see the angels.

Could it be that Allah (swt) gave them stronger fitra/aql by which they were supreme interpreters of the Quran and referential authorities of Islam? Then any knowledge beyond transmission wasn't really required. These are just my thoughts.

Thanks for the clarification, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes belief in sahw e Nabi(saww) is taqsir,but mind it i am not calling Sheikh Sadooq a muqqasir,we don't know his intentions,neither circumstances,not even that, Was it his original statement?kept intact since centuries.

Ok, that's all I'm asking for, that you tell me which views you consider to be taqsir and which aren't. You don't need to label anyone if you don't want to. However, if you don't trust that the views of these scholars were properly preserved, then why do you trust the hadiths found in their books? I think people would have more motivation for tampering with al-Kafi, say, than some theological work of a scholar.

No i am not coward i say what i feel,and i have said that,just noticed your post now,so did reply late.

Now you tell me if someone says that ''Mohammad(saww) and Ali(as) were created before universe,were protectors of universe,messengers,angels,is he a ghaali for you?

Now your turn to be brave,and honest.

What does 'protectors of the universe mean'? I don't believe in pre-existence, but I don't necessarily consider it to be ghuluw in itself. Ghalis are more likely to strongly believe in it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were all companions truthful?

When Prophet(saww) could n't get ones,how our Imams(as) had 'immaculate friends'?

I didn't claim they were immaculate. However it would seem strange that a close companion of the Imams who was particularly renown for his prowess in matters of beliefs would get basic `aqeeda issues so wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't claim they were immaculate. However it would seem strange that a close companion of the Imams who was particularly renown for his prowess in matters of beliefs would get basic `aqeeda issues so wrong.

That is not point who is narrating,but the point is what is narrating,and the narration is contradicting many other facts.So i said so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rationally the doctrine seems problematic. How does a nine year old Imam possess sufficient knowledge of Deen? I presume that the doctrine implies that the older Aimmah had memorised the contents of the books, that Ahlulbayt had, to a sufficient level and had been taught by their father or previous Imam. It seems necessary that the Imams receive knowledge.

Do correct me if my understanding is mistaken.

It does pose difficulties when you come to the issue of the child Imams. But that said, it's not impossible for a child to be a prodigy (Mozart was showing his skill by age 3 and composing at the age of 5...), and it's safe to assume that if anyone would have been especially gifted at a young age, it would have been the future Imams.

But even if we are to admit some more miraculous means of the knowledge being transmitted from Imam to Imam (say at the moment the Imam's father passes away and he becomes the new Imam), ilham seems to go further than this, and refers to a type of "inspiration" the Imam receives to get the right answers and learn matters previously unknown to him when he has need of it. How exactly this is different from wahi I don't know. Believing them to be prophets is kufr of course, so it makes me wonder if "ilham" wasn't just a way of trying to get around that by giving it a different name.

Apart from that problem, the question ilham and such beliefs leave would be things like why do the hadiths mention the books in the Imams possessions and their consulting of them. If they just needed to be "inspired" to know whatever they needed to know, why look it up in a book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that's all I'm asking for, that you tell me which views you consider to be taqsir and which aren't. You don't need to label anyone if you don't want to. However, if you don't trust that the views of these scholars were properly preserved, then why do you trust the hadiths found in their books? I think people would have more motivation for tampering with al-Kafi, say, than some theological work of a scholar.

What does 'protectors of the universe mean'? I don't believe in pre-existence, but I don't necessarily consider it to be ghuluw in itself. Ghalis are more likely to strongly believe in it though.

I don't believe in those Ahadees because they were written there,but they are matched with Quran,and logic thats why.

So what is ghuluw in your sense?

And people can have motivation of tampering anywhere,which could effect the Shia Aqaid regarding Masoomeen(as),what were they doing since centuries apart from that,living example is there in form of 'hcy'.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were all companions truthful?

When Prophet(saww) could n't get ones,how our Imams(as) had 'immaculate friends'?

Yet you presumably trust those companions to truthfully narrate the words of the Imams (as), don't you? If you can't even trust the close companions, then who can you trust?

It would be fascinating to know exactly what your methodology would be for getting from the sources of our religion to your beliefs if someone was stuck on a desert island and didn't know anything about Islam. Because as far as I can see, you just pick and choose whatever you want from the Quran and ahadith in order to support the views you already have. If an ayah goes against your view, you dismiss it in favour of a hadith, or a 'rational' argument. If a hadith goes against your view, you dismiss it in favour of an ayah, or another hadith, or some 'rational' argument. If a famous scholar says something against your view, you wonder if his words were tampered with. I've never quite seen anything like this.

Honestly, if you knew nothing about Islam, had never met any Muslims, and just had the sources, how on earth would you come to your views? Do think it's possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the issue of ilham, wouldn't some kind of divine inspiration exist between Allah and the Hidden Imam? Wouldn't he be waiting for Allah's divine order to reveal himself, as his appearance does not seem conditional or an issue of no bada. On the issue of communication, I think there are enough traditions out there that suggest that the Imam at times can hear angelic voices. Wahi on the other hand would imply an archangel revealing a new order or new law; which is the function of a prophet. Nonetheless, Maryam (as) saw and heard the angel (in a human form), and Allah says "awHayna" in relation to the mother of Musa (though unclear if it's an order via an angel, or just an implicit inspiration/ ilham). What about Talut (as), didn't Allah need to order him and his people not to drink from the water? Or Fatima (as) and her mus`haf? I don't see the issue with supernatural transfers of knowledge as it seems to have happened to non-prophets too, as long as it fits within the Qur'an and the Sunna.

Edited by Qa'im

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does pose difficulties when you come to the issue of the child Imams. But that said, it's not impossible for a child to be a prodigy (Mozart was showing his skill by age 3 and composing at the age of 5...), and it's safe to assume that if anyone would have been especially gifted at a young age, it would have been the future Imams.

But even if we are to admit some more miraculous means of the knowledge being transmitted from Imam to Imam (say at the moment the Imam's father passes away and he becomes the new Imam), ilham seems to go further than this, and refers to a type of "inspiration" the Imam receives to get the right answers and learn matters previously unknown to him when he has need of it. How exactly this is different from wahi I don't know. Believing them to be prophets is kufr of course, so it makes me wonder if "ilham" wasn't just a way of trying to get around that by giving it a different name.

Apart from that problem, the question ilham and such beliefs leave would be things like why do the hadiths mention the books in the Imams possessions and their consulting of them. If they just needed to be "inspired" to know whatever they needed to know, why look it up in a book?

Baby Jesus spoke in His Mother's lap,these are miracles no need to be prodigies only.

Wahi is always brought by Angels,and the message has to be conveyed to the masses most of the time,wahi was method to design Sharia in this world,whereas the purpose of ilham was to convey the knowledge of unseen as much as is desired.

Yet you presumably trust those companions to truthfully narrate the words of the Imams (as), don't you? If you can't even trust the close companions, then who can you trust?

It would be fascinating to know exactly what your methodology would be for getting from the sources of our religion to your beliefs if someone was stuck on a desert island and didn't know anything about Islam. Because as far as I can see, you just pick and choose whatever you want from the Quran and ahadith in order to support the views you already have. If an ayah goes against your view, you dismiss it in favour of a hadith, or a 'rational' argument. If a hadith goes against your view, you dismiss it in favour of an ayah, or another hadith, or some 'rational' argument. If a famous scholar says something against your view, you wonder if his words were tampered with. I've never quite seen anything like this.

Honestly, if you knew nothing about Islam, had never met any Muslims, and just had the sources, how on earth would you come to your views? Do think it's possible?

Hayder all of your allegations going against your own self,where do you find Mufeed is saying something of your desire,you take it,then the same mufeed says something against your choice then his teacher becomes right.

In one thread you were arguing Quran has been distorted(nauzbillah),then you start bringing verses which again you may find feasible to relate with your philosophies.Whats the assurance these are not distorted ones,as per your view?

When we talk about modern scholars they become ghaali,when mutahri say something of your choice then you forget even if classicsl is saying something against it.

Seriously we need to know according to you what is reliable?Who is reliable?

My way of judgement is never to support specific set of texts ,or people,but to follow what Imam Ali(as) said ''knowledge is lost treasure of momin,take it where ever you find'',He did n't mention such and such people will give you knowledge only.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...