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

Apostates: Why Did You Leave Islam?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

تحت الارضين السبع

This hadith may or may not be authentic. Lets assume for a second it is. The phrase 'تحت الارضين السبع' could have many

meanings. One of them could be that the wind has its origin 'under the earth' meaning under the ground or inside the

earth. The earth has layers, you know. See Diagram below.(I counted seven layers )

http://library.think...or_diagram1.jpg

We know that magma rises up from the center of the earth to create volcanos. So it is also possible that wind could rise up in a similar fashion.

Also, there are other hadith that talk about '7 earths' meaning that there are 6 other planets in the universe that are like earth. So the winds may

come from one of these planets and travel thru space to reach our earth. That is also possible. Your assertion that this

hadith 'absolutely must' be interpreted as meaning the earth is flat is wrong, once again.

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The earth has layers, you know. See Diagram below.(I counted seven layers )

The layers of the Earth don't all count as arD, since they're not all solid. There is a reason why the oceans do not count as arD: arD refers to a solid structure, but the mantle and parts of the core are liquid, so even if your Imams meant the layers of the Earth, they are not referring to the layers you have referred to in the linked image.

But even if we wrongly assume that there are seven separate solid layers and this is what your Imam is referring to, even then there is nothing beneath the seventh layer, since that is the core of the planet (you cannot be "beneath" the center of a sphere). But your Prophets and Imams had no idea about there being a center of the planet so they kept referring to the Earth as if it was a flat structure.

Also, there are other hadith that talk about '7 earths' meaning that there are 6 other planets in the universe that are like earth. So the winds may come from one of these planets and travel thru space to reach our earth. That is also possible.

You need to sharpen your Arabic skills. Putting aside the crazy assumption that wind from a planet in a different star system can actually travel through empty space to reach us, the hadith itself says that it emerges from beneath the seven earths; it doesn't say from beneath the seventh earth. If there are different planets, each comprising an arD, then there is nothing beneath the seven arDs. There may be something beneath the surface of each arD, but nothing that is simultaneously beneath all seven of them (which is what the hadith is saying: taHt al-arDeen al-Sab`). The hadith does make sense if you assume that your Imams believed in a flat Earth (with seven layers), but you're not willing to accept this obvious truth since you have to defend your faith at all costs, no matter how desperate you seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The layers of the Earth don't all count as arD, since they're not all solid. There is a reason why the oceans do not count as arD: arD refers to a solid structure, but the mantle and parts of the core are liquid, so even if your Imams meant the layers of the Earth, they are not referring to the layers you have referred to in the linked image.

I'm not sure where you got that supposition about the term 'ard'. Arabic speakers use the term to refer to the earth, and what is part of the earth. Since the layers of the earth are part of the earth, they would be considered 'ard'. The oceans are 'bihar' plural or 'bahr' singular. Noone brought that term in so I don't see how it's relevant ?

But even if we wrongly assume that there are seven separate solid layers and this is what your Imam is referring to, even then there is nothing beneath the seventh layer, since that is the core of the planet (you cannot be "beneath" the center of a sphere). But your Prophets and Imams had no idea about there being a center of the planet so they kept referring to the Earth as if it was a flat structure.

How do you know what is in the core of the earth ? Noone has ever been there and no scientific instruments would survive the heat and pressure, assuming they could even get to it. So you assume there is nothing 'under' it. That is your assumption, or supposition. You have no evidence for that.

You need to sharpen your Arabic skills. Putting aside the crazy assumption that wind from a planet in a different star system can actually travel through empty space to reach us, the hadith itself says that it emerges from beneath the seven earths; it doesn't say from beneath the seventh earth. If there are different planets, each comprising an arD, then there is nothing beneath the seven arDs. There may be something beneath the surface of each arD, but nothing that is simultaneously beneath all seven of them (which is what the hadith is saying: taHt al-arDeen al-Sab`). The hadith does make sense if you assume that your Imams believed in a flat Earth (with seven layers), but you're not willing to accept this obvious truth since you have to defend your faith at all costs, no matter how desperate you seem.

Now you are talking about the structure of the 7 earths. Have you ever seen any of them ? Please let me know I would be very interested. And it doesn't say it is 'simultaneously' beneath all 7 of them , it says 'The seventh earth' which means it only has to be under the 'The seventh earth' not all. It looks like you need to sharpen your Arabic skills. Also, you are supposing that nothing could reach us from the '7th earth' and yet many things reach us from outer space, the solar winds, comets, asteroids, cosmic radiation. But, of course, in your universe it is impossible for something to reach us from another planet or celestial body via outer space. O.K. looks like you need to brush up on your astronomy also.

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Arabic speakers use the term to refer to the earth, and what is part of the earth. Since the layers of the earth are part of the earth, they would be considered 'ard'.

Really? Find me one example where arD is being used to refer to a non-solid object. Go ahead.

If your knowledge of Arabic is this poor, then just don't bother commenting on such topics.

How do you know what is in the core of the earth ? Noone has ever been there and no scientific instruments would survive the heat and pressure, assuming they could even get to it. So you assume there is nothing 'under' it. That is your assumption, or supposition. You have no evidence for that.

Boy, you're stunningly ignorant. The reason we know that the inner core is solid and not liquid or hollow is because of the frequency of the seismic waves generated from earthquakes in different parts of the world (and other evidence as well; see this). We also have a fairly good understanding of what the chemical composition of the inner core is (see this). Your total ignorance of this subject doesn't mean there is no evidence for this.

And it doesn't say it is 'simultaneously' beneath all 7 of them , it says 'The seventh earth'

It says "the seven earths", not "the seventh earth"! Is there really no one around who you can ask for confirmation before making a public fool of yourself like this???

Read that again, the wind is emerging from beneath the SEVEN earths, not the sevenTH earth. So while I have to give you credit for your fanciful imagination, it nevertheless does nothing to address the problem of your Imams believing in flat layers of earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
You see, unlike most of you people on here, I was a true believer. I actually believed that doing honest research into Islam would give me the answers to all the objections that critics put forward (unlike the rest of you who do "research" starting with the assumption that Islam is correct, and ignore every bit of evidence to the contrary). It just happened that the research I did lead me to the opposite direction. If anyone else on here also does honest research instead of clinging to blind faith, they would also reach the same conclusions that I did. But for many people, the crutch of religion is too dear to let go.
Salaam brother, you raise many valid points and there is no doubt that certain aspects of Islam are troubling to anybody who isn't an indoctrinated zealot - but is that not the case with any and every religion?

The verses from the Quran you mention, could be explained away as being merely allegorical or simplified for their original audience, and having lost context and meaning through translation. The Hadiths you have found are only purported narrations, which may or may not be true and entirely accurate, despite being considered "authentic" by ancient scholars working with limited records under constant political influence.

If you have left Islam to follow another faith, then I'm sure you will find (even more) flaws once you start scratching underneath its surface?

If you have left Islam to become an Atheist, then how do you come to terms with concept of freewill and the origin of the universe using only science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Salaam brother, you raise many valid points and there is no doubt that certain aspects of Islam are troubling to anybody who isn't an indoctrinated zealot - but is that not the case with any and every religion?

The verses from the Quran you mention, could be explained away as being merely allegorical or simplified for their original audience, and having lost context and meaning through translation. The Hadiths you have found are only purported narrations, which may or may not be true and entirely accurate, despite being considered "authentic" by ancient scholars working with limited records under constant political influence.

If you have left Islam to follow another faith, then I'm sure you will find (even more) flaws once you start scratching underneath its surface?

If you have left Islam to become an Atheist, then how do you come to terms with concept of freewill and the origin of the universe using only science?

I always say the quran isnt a literal book. People dont understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If you have left Islam to follow another faith, then I'm sure you will find (even more) flaws once you start scratching underneath its surface?

If you have left Islam to become an Atheist, then how do you come to terms with concept of freewill and the origin of the universe using only science?

Yes, I’m atheist now. And though I disagree with your assessment that other religions have more problems than Islam (Taoism, for example, is a much more humane and ethical religion in my opinion), I do agree that all religions have significant flaws of their own (hence I’m atheist).

As for the issues of free will and origin of the universe, there isn’t a complete scientific explanation to either right now. But tremendous breakthroughs have been made because of science on both these topics (especially on the latter). And though I can’t be sure about this, it isn’t unreasonable to assume that at some point in the future we would be able to explain them in purely physical terms.

But the real issue isn’t how science explains these topics; the real issue is how religion (Islam, in particular) explains them. The issue of free-will is one of the primary reasons why I remained a believer in God (for a few years) even after I had left Islam. But if you think carefully about what free will entails, then assuming that we humans have free will actually implies the non-existence of God (i.e., the Abrahamic God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. There are other conceptions of a more limited “God” where such conflicts can reasonably be avoided.).

The issue about the origin of the universe is actually even more straightforward. Every argument about the universe requiring an external cause applies at least equally to God, so even this topic is actually a good reason to reject Islam, since Islam provides no good answers to such questions, and the ones it does provide are very amateurish.

At least with science there is hope that some day in the future I will be able to understand these topics, but the answers Islam provides are deeply and irreconcilably inconsistent, so the rational choice is to accept atheist over Islam. (And this is while not taking into account the moralistic and historical problems with Islam.)

Edited by Sytematic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a geologist, I dont think I would try to make sense of common winds coming from the center of the earth, or wherever. Because wind is gas, or gases, and it being less dense than rock, there is really no reason wind would originate from under rock.

In the case of magma, magma must originate from deep down, because that is the only place rock is hot enough to melt, deep down. Wind however, isnt dependent on temperature in that sense.

Also, normal winds, i dont think they would come from other planets either, simply because planets are...well, they are really really really really really really really really really far away.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I would assume that, the winds or wind, spoken about in the hadith, would have to be referring to something, other than literal wind blowing, like we percieve it now. That, or whoever wrote the hadith is mistaken, or whoever is translating the hadith or interpretting the hadith, is mistaken.

I recall hearing a mosque leader talk about how, during the time of Muhammad, each planet was viewed, and may have been what was considered a heaven. There are 7 other planets in our solar system. Thus, sevel layers in the heavens.

Just something I heard.

It is true that, science may not provide all answers, though perhaps one day, it may provide clear answers on this topic.

Best of luck with that, inshaAllah.

Religion, or Islam in particular. If we are muslims, and Islam is truth, then there is essentially nothing that will be proven, that is not within the spectrum of Islam.

What I mean by this is...lets say, we lived back in the days of the prophet. Lets say, someone said that...for example, someone said, there are seven layers of earth. Or someone said that, Angels are made of light.

Back in the day, perhaps someone believed that, angels were literally light, or believed that there were 7 layers within the earth.

As time goes on though, we find new discoveries and we gain a better understanding of things, and now we can say, well, angels are likely not literal light, but perhaps, figuratively, light that guides us in darkness, or guidance that guides us in chaos.

Or that, rather than there being 7 layers of earth, what was viewed was the 7 planets, or what may have once been considered the 7 heavens.

So, as we discover, Islam, acts as an umbrella and grows in clarity with the discoveries. Its not that the discoveries cancel out Islam, rather Islam,simply reaches a more clear depiction of its true form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Thank You br. iDevonian for that response.

The point of my response was simply to show that there are many possible meanings for this hadith, in fact, I don't know what it means and it's not really that important to me because hadiths such as these (obscure hadiths) are not central to my faith in Islam. The Quran speaks about '7 earths' and there are many hadith about the '7 earths' and what this means. My father in law, who is an alim, believes, and I agree with him at this point, that the '7 earths' are the earth we live on plus 6 planets in the universe that are like the earth.

Systematic is trying to build a case based on obscure hadith and misinterpretation of the Quran to show that the Islam believes in a flat earth and that this hadith 'absolutely must' mean that the Imams(a.s) are talking about a flat earth. That was my point. Some people understood this, and some didn't.

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You br. iDevonian for that response.

The point of my response was simply to show that there are many possible meanings for this hadith, in fact, I don't know what it means and it's not really that important to me because hadiths such as these (obscure hadiths) are not central to my faith in Islam. The Quran speaks about '7 earths' and there are many hadith about the '7 earths' and what this means. My father in law, who is an alim, believes, and I agree with him at this point, that the '7 earths' are the earth we live on plus 6 planets in the universe that are like the earth.

Systematic is trying to build a case based on obscure hadith and misinterpretation of the Quran to show that the Islam believes in a flat earth and that this hadith 'absolutely must' mean that the Imams(a.s) are talking about a flat earth. That was my point. Some people understood this, and some didn't.

Ah, I see, yes I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Yes, I’m atheist now. And though I disagree with your assessment that other religions have more problems than Islam (Taoism, for example, is a much more humane and ethical religion in my opinion), I do agree that all religions have significant flaws of their own (hence I’m atheist).
I put "even more" in brackets, as not all religions have more problems than Islam, I'd say most have fewer (obvious) flaws. Funny you should mention Taoism as its famous for its peculiar sexual customs and the encouragement of men to seek many partners - an interesting choice my friend lol!

In practice you are quite right, many of the Dharmic traditions make Muslims look like savages in comparison (I'm particularly impressed by Jainism myself) but this is not specifically the fault of Islam itself, you should blame the misguided interpretation of it. The problem with these other faiths is not so much the practice, which is undoubtedly very beautiful and compelling, it is their theory. The basic internal logic of their belief, fails at the most fundamental levels, which puts them in the realm of well-meaning human fantasy, as opposed to direct communion with our Creator. Taoism which you mentioned has a very vague and almost contradictory understanding of "God" yet simultaneously has many deities and even venerates its mortal founder up to the status of a God, a common and fatal weakness.

As for the issues of free will and origin of the universe, there isn’t a complete scientific explanation to either right now. But tremendous breakthroughs have been made because of science on both these topics (especially on the latter). And though I can’t be sure about this, it isn’t unreasonable to assume that at some point in the future we would be able to explain them in purely physical terms.
I think you'll find it is unreasonable. For every question that cutting edge physics answers, another question immediately materialises. It is safe to say that we will never truly understand the origin of the universe, or find the ultimate answer, purely by the pursuits of science. This is a sentiment echoed by even the celebrated leaders in the field, most of whom still believe in some form of Creator, albeit in a more Pantheistic form. Even the one and only Albert Einstein remained a Deist after he turned away from his Jewish roots.

Not believing in Religion is understandable brother, but not believing in God is completely illogical. Indeed it requires an act of blind devotion which far exceeds even the most implausible aspects of Islam.

But the real issue isn’t how science explains these topics; the real issue is how religion (Islam, in particular) explains them. The issue of free-will is one of the primary reasons why I remained a believer in God (for a few years) even after I had left Islam. But if you think carefully about what free will entails, then assuming that we humans have free will actually implies the non-existence of God (i.e., the Abrahamic God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. There are other conceptions of a more limited “God” where such conflicts can reasonably be avoided.).
I disagree, our consciousness is what defines us as sentient beings, and its our freewill which separates us from the world of scientific predictability. If humans were "robots" merely living our lives through the macro and micro consequences of cause and effect, then you would have a point. However despite the "biological machine" aspect of being just a carrier for our DNA, we still function as independent creatures with the freedom to choose, which means we exist outside the boundaries of a (fully) deterministic universe.

I doubt you'll convince anyone that Freewill actually implies the non-existence of God, when it intrinsically does exactly the opposite.

The issue about the origin of the universe is actually even more straightforward. Every argument about the universe requiring an external cause applies at least equally to God, so even this topic is actually a good reason to reject Islam, since Islam provides no good answers to such questions, and the ones it does provide are very amateurish.
Quite the contrary, pretty much the definition of God (atleast in the Abrahamic tradition) is that He required no external cause to come in to existence, indeed He is existence, the very first cause or the primary source if you will. This concept answers the ultimate question that science never will. God provides the only explanation, without God, there is absolutely no explanation, nor could there ever be, if you're truly honest with yourself my friend.
At least with science there is hope that some day in the future I will be able to understand these topics, but the answers Islam provides are deeply and irreconcilably inconsistent, so the rational choice is to accept atheist over Islam. (And this is while not taking into account the moralistic and historical problems with Islam.)
The best way to view the moral and historical problems is to leave them where they belong, in the ancient past. If you live in a Western country then you have the privilege of practicing Islam entirely as you see fit. Nobody is forcing you to marry a child or keep a slave or kill an infidel! If you have doubts then it might be best to avoid Muslims who suffer the curse of blind faith, and find people who are more in tune with the spirituality of Islam and its philosophical teachings. I'm sure that if you focus more on the Batin aspect of Islam, it will call to your soul and guide you back.

Keep an open mind brother, otherwise you may turn in to a zealot yourself, just on the opposite side of the fence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The problem with these other faiths is not so much the practice, which is undoubtedly very beautiful and compelling, it is their theory. The basic internal logic of their belief, fails at the most fundamental levels, which puts them in the realm of well-meaning human fantasy, as opposed to direct communion with our Creator. Taoism which you mentioned has a very vague and almost contradictory understanding of "God" yet simultaneously has many deities and even venerates its mortal founder up to the status of a God, a common and fatal weakness.

I absolutely agree that all religions, including Taoism, have contradictory conceptions of God. But you seem to be under a false impression that the Islamic conception of God is any better. Of course you would say that since you're Muslim, but you can ask a person of any faith and they all will say that only the conception of their own Divine Being is free from defects. The Islamic divinity is also rife with contradictions, but it appears that you're not willing to accept them.

It is safe to say that we will never truly understand the origin of the universe, or find the ultimate answer, purely by the pursuits of science. This is a sentiment echoed by even the celebrated leaders in the field, most of whom still believe in some form of Creator, albeit in a more Pantheistic form. Even the one and only Albert Einstein remained a Deist after he turned away from his Jewish roots.

Not believing in Religion is understandable brother, but not believing in God is completely illogical. Indeed it requires an act of blind devotion which far exceeds even the most implausible aspects of Islam.

Sadly, this is just wishful thinking. There isn't any good reason to believe in God (at least the Abrahamic one), let alone it being illogical to not believe in one. I would like it if there were a God, since I don't want to lose all my loved ones irreversibly after they die, but all such conceptions of a God (that allows an afterlife) are severely problematic from a rational point of view (though certainly very appealing from an emotional one), and hence it is more reasonable to assume that no such God exists (regardless of how we feel about it).

As for Einstein, theists often bring him up, but let's be clear that his conception of God is closer to mine than to yours. As he said: "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

And: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."

So if you are going to resort to using arguments from authority, I don't think Einstein is a good candidate for your position.

I doubt you'll convince anyone that Freewill actually implies the non-existence of God, when it intrinsically does exactly the opposite.

Regardless of whether or not I convince anyone on a Shi'a forum about free-will disproving God's existence, it nevertheless remains true that free-will (in the sense used by Abrahamic faiths) does disprove the existence of the Abrahamic God. It appears that you're not familiar with these arguments, so for reference I suggest you read the following articles that discuss it briefly: http://ffrf.org/lega...barker/fang.php and http://www.vexen.co...._free_will.html

One of the commonly used counter-arguments here by Muslims is the notion that God is "outside time". Now I don't want to go into detail about the flaws in this argument and why it actually proves the non-existence of an Islamic God even more strongly, since I don't know where you stand on it, but if you want to read a general formulation of this disproof, try this article: http://prosblogion.e...a-timeless.html (written by a Christian theist). For a more rigorous, academic analysis, see chapters 8 and 9 of God, Time, and Knowledge by William Hasker (Christian), as well as the chapters by William Lane Craig and Nicholas Wolterstorff (chapters 4 and 5 respectively) in the book, God and Time - Four Views (Gregory Ganssle, editor).

Quite the contrary, pretty much the definition of God (atleast in the Abrahamic tradition) is that He required no external cause to come in to existence, indeed He is existence, the very first cause or the primary source if you will. This concept answers the ultimate question that science never will. God provides the only explanation, without God, there is absolutely no explanation, nor could there ever be, if you're truly honest with yourself my friend.

lol! I'm well aware of the definition of God, my friend. I think you misunderstood my comment. I was saying that if you have any proof about the universe needing a cause, then that proof invariably applies equally to God as well, and thus you end up having proved that your God requires a cause as well. But since you define your God to be uncaused, but at the same time have proven your God to be caused, you end up refuting the existence of your own God. So the fact that you define your God to be free from any external causes is part of the reason why your God doesn't exist. If you think you have a proof of the universe needing a cause that doesn't apply equally to your God, then I'd love to see it. But I'd be very careful if I were you when presenting this proof, since you might just be providing a proof for your own God being caused. lol!

The best way to view the moral and historical problems is to leave them where they belong, in the ancient past. If you live in a Western country then you have the privilege of practicing Islam entirely as you see fit. Nobody is forcing you to marry a child or keep a slave or kill an infidel! If you have doubts then it might be best to avoid Muslims who suffer the curse of blind faith, and find people who are more in tune with the spirituality of Islam and its philosophical teachings. I'm sure that if you focus more on the Batin aspect of Islam, it will call to your soul and guide you back.

Again, the idea that the inner spirituality of Islam is beautiful and uplifting is simply a myth. Most Muslims are largely ignorant about their religion so they assume it is good because they want it to be so. But any honest research shows exactly the opposite. Keep in mind that Islam is not what you or your scholars practice; Islam is the teachings of your Prophet and Imams. So, sure there are lots of ethical, spiritual Muslims in the world, but the question is, how spiritual and ethical Islam (i.e., the teachings of your Prophet/Imams) is. And for a religion that allows slavery, child sexual abuse, rape of prisoners of war, and killing for blasphemy, there isn't a strong case to be made for it.

Edited by Sytematic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Again, the idea that the inner spirituality of Islam is beautiful and uplifting is simply a myth. Most Muslims are largely ignorant about their religion so they assume it is good because they want it to be so. But any honest research shows exactly the opposite. Keep in mind that Islam is not what you or your scholars practice; Islam is the teachings of your Prophet and Imams. So, sure there are lots of ethical, spiritual Muslims in the world, but the question is, how spiritual and ethical Islam (i.e., the teachings of your Prophet/Imams) is. And for a religion that allows slavery, child sexual abuse, rape of prisoners of war, and killing for blasphemy, there isn't a strong case to be made for it.

Tell me why its wrong to enslave prisoners of war? Why do they deserve honour? You have no objective morality so that's a non issue for a torn individual as yourself. As for child sexual abuse, are you referring to the fatwas of Khomeini and co about thighing babies? Well if so then that's the legalistic ruling which basically operates in the following: a) Something can only be prohibited/disliked if a text explicitly says so b ) since there's no text that explicitly speaks against thighing babies, it's all fine and dandy. These 'allowances' were never directly issued by the Prophet and Imams themselves, they were deduced legalistic rulings which have no bearing on the preachings of the faith itself. And killing blasphemers, what's wrong? What's abhorrent in punishing hate speech in an Islamic state? Hmm? Again you have no objective basis in your faux 'disgust' since you have no objective morality (leaving aside the harm principle). All these punishments and dealings with the law breakers and corrupt of society shouldn't even be a concern, the extent to which someone is punished and what is considered the limit for that punishment is all relative and changes throughout history. And rape is when someone is forced to sexual relations, you've already been shown all the proof that people cant be tormented if they displease/disobey and are sold instead in another thread (besides the waiting period for slave women before sexual relations are lawful). So better quit that point; also ponder over the fact that these slave women will be given top notch treatment beforehand during the 'waiting period' such as the same clothing and food as her master (and not being beaten severely). So there won't be complete aversion and eventually some attatchment after the emotional yearning for the killed men in the battle is overlooked (considering the men were bad people themselves). And As for the sahih narration where the Imam says the earth rests on a whole array of horns and whales, the Imam is not speaking about a shar3i issue and the imams don't have to be correct in other issues that don't relate to the sharee3a. Shaykh Tusi says in Talkhis al Shafi (vol.1 pg. 252): "It is not wajib for the Imam to have any knowledge of things which are not directly related to Islamic laws" So yeah...the Imam probably said this and yes he was wrong. Edited by Jahangiram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Also another interesting hadith:

al-Kafi, Vol. 8, page 89

محمد، عن أحمد، عن ابن محبوب، عن جميل بن صالح، عن أبان بن تغلب، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: سألته عن الارض على أي شئ هي؟ قال: هي على حوت، قلت: فالحوت على أي شئ هو؟ قال: على الماء، قلت: فالماء على أي شئ هو؟ قال: على صخرة، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الصخرة؟ قال: على قرن ثور أملس (2)، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الثور؟ قال: على الثرى، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الثرى؟ فقال: هيهات عند ذلك ضل علم العلماء

http://www.yasoob.co.../09/no0986.html

Translation:

Imam Ja'far was asked about the Earth, what is it (the Earth) on top of?

Imam Jafar replied: It is on top of a whale (or large fish).

He was asked: And the whale, what is it on top of?

Jafar relied: It is on water.

He was asked: And the water, what is it on top of?

Jafar relied: It is on a rock.

He was asked: And on what thing is the rock?

Jafar replied: On the smooth horn of a bull.

He was asked: And on what thing is the horn?

Jafar replied: On soil.

He was asked: And on what thing is the soil?

Jafar replied: What a strange notion! At this flounders the knowledge of the scholars!

Grading: Saheeh according to Allamah Majlisi

Ayatollah Ali Akbar Ghaffari and Mulla Faid Kashani explained that: "In this hadith is a message which is like a code, which could only be solved by one who is capable of it (i.e. the Imams or those having true knowledge of their ahadith). This is because (some of) their ahadith are difficult to understand and swallow

http://realtashayyu.blogspot.se/2012/08/imami-astrophysics.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Ayatollah Ali Akbar Ghaffari and Mulla Faid Kashani explained that: "In this hadith is a message which is like a code, which could only be solved by one who is capable of it (i.e. the Imams or those having true knowledge of their ahadith). This is because (some of) their ahadith are difficult to understand and swallow

http://realtashayyu....trophysics.html

....No its just an unscientific blunder of the imams which doesn't mean much, since they're not supposed to have all-encompassing knowledge of things outside the sharee3a (as the above quote from tusi makes clear).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, like a lot of these strange hadiths, it was just made up to try to demonstrate the cosmic knowledge of the Imam. Rijalis will disagree with me on this on since they consider him thiqa and give a lot of stock to his hadiths, but one consistent culprit I've found of such things is al-Hasan b. Mahbub, who narrated this one (and the aforementioned wind one). He's been caught out narrating from people he couldn't have possibly known, and narrating odd things, so personally I'm inclined to simply regard him as having been a forger, sort of an Abu Hurayra of Shiism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

....No its just an unscientific blunder of the imams which doesn't mean much, since they're not supposed to have all-encompassing knowledge of things outside the sharee3a (as the above quote from tusi makes clear).

Do you really think the Imam thought the earth with literally on top of a whale, etc? If they didn't know, they could have simply said that, rather than invent some crazy story. To go into such detail about something he would be clueless about would be ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Do you really think the Imam thought the earth with literally on top of a whale, etc? If they didn't know, they could have simply said that, rather than invent some crazy story. To go into such detail about something he would be clueless about would be ridiculous.

Nope at the time it would be a fairly reasonable explanation for why the earth is floating in a fixed location and not consistently falling. Anyway mac seems to have found a story teller in the isnad, and even if it is true it doesn't mean anything since the Imams don't have to be knowledgable about subjects outside the sharia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Nope at the time it would be a fairly reasonable explanation for why the earth is floating in a fixed location and not consistently falling. Anyway mac seems to have found a story teller in the isnad, and even if it is true it doesn't mean anything since the Imams don't have to be knowledgable about subjects outside the sharia.

the thing is bro, I believe they do. The matter is explaining these issues to people who are deep into jahilia. It would mess up the society. I was explaining this to a brother, its like the imams had a hadith on how to make an airplane or even them flying one in their time. That would be outrageous! However, your hadith you keep on mentioning seems reasonable, however it doesnt not conclude they have NO knowledge outside the sharia. I believe otherwise. For someone to be one on one with his creator it would be incomprehensible, if they didnt have knowledge about anything and everything. Think of it this way, our times are advancing. If our marjas can make permissibility issues based on new advances today, when our imam comes he would be clueless? No way. I believe for an IMAM to be an IMAM, they must know everything, as I believe it is a criteria for their posiiton. Being one with your spirit and soul in the way of Allah has perks, and one is infinite knowledge. How many times do our prophets and imams preach knowledge? you think all they do is just fiq? I dont think so brother. This is just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I absolutely agree that all religions, including Taoism, have contradictory conceptions of God. But you seem to be under a false impression that the Islamic conception of God is any better. Of course you would say that since you're Muslim, but you can ask a person of any faith and they all will say that only the conception of their own Divine Being is free from defects. The Islamic divinity is also rife with contradictions, but it appears that you're not willing to accept them.
List your contradictions brother. It's not so much a matter of accepting them, it's a matter of understanding them.
Sadly, this is just wishful thinking. There isn't any good reason to believe in God (at least the Abrahamic one), let alone it being illogical to not believe in one. I would like it if there were a God, since I don't want to lose all my loved ones irreversibly after they die, but all such conceptions of a God (that allows an afterlife) are severely problematic from a rational point of view (though certainly very appealing from an emotional one), and hence it is more reasonable to assume that no such God exists (regardless of how we feel about it).
The fact you think it's illogical to believe in God, is purely your own forced emotional opinion my friend. If you put that one emotion aside and focus on the others you mentioned, then you have made enough of an argument to believe, all by yourself.
As for Einstein, theists often bring him up, but let's be clear that his conception of God is closer to mine than to yours.
So you do believe in God? Also, from the same Wiki link:
Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
So if you are going to resort to using arguments from authority, I don't think Einstein is a good candidate for your position.
Actually brother, from his own words, he is a pretty good candidate, just from a slightly different angle lol.
Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.
Regardless of whether or not I convince anyone on a Shi'a forum about free-will disproving God's existence
Is that your intention?

The real reason you joined this forum was to "test" your new "faith" wasn't it my friend. You knew there would be a few Muslims here who still haven't evolved opposable thumbs, so would help you to confirm in your own mind, that you are right and that Islam is wrong. You have doubts about Religion but you also have doubts about Atheism - you will deny it of course, but the very fact you are here, speaks volumes. Welcome brother.

it nevertheless remains true that free-will (in the sense used by Abrahamic faiths) does disprove the existence of the Abrahamic God. It appears that you're not familiar with these arguments, so for reference I suggest you read the following articles that discuss it briefly: http://ffrf.org/lega...barker/fang.php and http://www.vexen.co...._free_will.html

One of the commonly used counter-arguments here by Muslims is the notion that God is "outside time". Now I don't want to go into detail about the flaws in this argument and why it actually proves the non-existence of an Islamic God even more strongly, since I don't know where you stand on it, but if you want to read a general formulation of this disproof, try this article: http://prosblogion.e...a-timeless.html (written by a Christian theist). For a more rigorous, academic analysis, see chapters 8 and 9 of God, Time, and Knowledge by William Hasker (Christian), as well as the chapters by William Lane Craig and Nicholas Wolterstorff (chapters 4 and 5 respectively) in the book, God and Time - Four Views (Gregory Ganssle, editor).

There is no such thing as a "proof" of the non-existence of God - all these desperate theories rely on limiting the omnipotence of God, although I admit have become much more sophisticated then they were in my day. Like we've already said, God is not contained by science or logic, so trying to make Him conform to your own quantifiable definition is futile.

Perhaps you should view things from a more neutral perspective, that God can be neither proven to exist nor proven to not exist. The fact anybody believes or disbelieves is purely a matter of choice born out of faith. In this regard we are both the same.

By the way, why do you feel Christian views against Islam, are beneficial to an argument for Atheism?

lol! I'm well aware of the definition of God, my friend. I think you misunderstood my comment. I was saying that if you have any proof about the universe needing a cause, then that proof invariably applies equally to God
The entire concept of God is that it doesn't! You are wasting your time with these non-sequitur irrelevances my friend. You'd be far better off saying you're turning to Atheism out of pure and simple choice, as is your prerogative. It would be much easier for your family to accept and understand. Do your parents know of your decision? How are they taking it?
Again, the idea that the inner spirituality of Islam is beautiful and uplifting is simply a myth.
If a person feels uplifted by Islam, it must be a reality, unless you are proposing that it was something external to Islam that gave them that feeling?
Most Muslims are largely ignorant about their religion so they assume it is good because they want it to be so. But any honest research shows exactly the opposite.
The "bad" has to be understood in context and the "good" far outweighs it.
Keep in mind that Islam is not what you or your scholars practice; Islam is the teachings of your Prophet and Imams. So, sure there are lots of ethical, spiritual Muslims in the world
Isn't that all that matters? What's preventing you from being one of them my friend?
but the question is, how spiritual and ethical Islam (i.e., the teachings of your Prophet/Imams) is.
The answer is, how spiritual and ethical you want it to be.
And for a religion that allows slavery, child sexual abuse, rape of prisoners of war, and killing for blasphemy, there isn't a strong case to be made for it.
I agree, not in the 21st century. However during the 7th century, it can be argued that there was little alternative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The fact you think it's illogical to believe in God

That's not what I said. I said it is not illogical to NOT believe in God. I didn't say that it was illogical to DO so. You should pay more attention to what is being said.

So you do believe in God?

No.

Perhaps you should view things from a more neutral perspective, that God can be neither proven to exist nor proven to not exist. The fact anybody believes or disbelieves is purely a matter of choice born out of faith.

Let me remind you that YOU are the one who said "but not believing in God is completely illogical".

It seems you don't have anything to back that claim up with so now you have to say that there is no proof either way.

Like we've already said, God is not contained by science or logic

So you're saying that God contradicts the rules of logic???

That is precisely my point. God's existence (the Islamic God, I mean) is illogical. If you agree with that, then that's perfect, since I have nothing further to add to that.

By the way, why do you feel Christian views against Islam, are beneficial to an argument for Atheism?

They aren't "Christian views against Islam". They were proofs refuting the existence of a time-less creator. Clearly you are having comprehension problems here.

The entire concept of God is that it doesn't!

And that is a contradictory concept, which is precisely my point. Again, try understanding the point before replying to it.

The "bad" has to be understood in context and the "good" far outweighs it.

I agree, not in the 21st century. However during the 7th century, it can be argued that there was little alternative.

Like I said before, that's just wishful thinking. You believe it because you want it to be true.

What's preventing you from being one of them my friend?

Maybe that I don't like willfully believing in lies???

The real reason you joined this forum was to "test" your new "faith" wasn't it my friend. You knew there would be a few Muslims here who still haven't evolved opposable thumbs, so would help you to confirm in your own mind, that you are right and that Islam is wrong. You have doubts about Religion but you also have doubts about Atheism - you will deny it of course, but the very fact you are here, speaks volumes. Welcome brother.

You got me there, O Wise One! It feels like you're looking straight into my soul! :cry:

Happy?

List your contradictions brother. It's not so much a matter of accepting them, it's a matter of understanding them.

I already did, but you couldn't even be bothered enough to read it. The proof for why a timeless God cannot freely create has already been presented here: http://prosblogion.e...a-timeless.html . If you are having trouble understanding it, that's fine. Just don't pretend that it doesn't exist.

Now you can argue in response that God is not timeless, but that would put you in more of a bind. But I'm going to wait to see if you're seriously going to go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

That's not what I said. I said it is not illogical to NOT believe in God. I didn't say that it was illogical to DO so. You should pay more attention to what is being said.

I say 6, you say half a dozen lol.
No.
That has been noticed my friend lol. Which is why I wondered why you said this: "As for Einstein, theists often bring him up, but let's be clear that his conception of God is closer to mine than to yours."
Let me remind you that YOU are the one who said "but not believing in God is completely illogical".

It seems you don't have anything to back that claim up with so now you have to say that there is no proof either way.

My claim stands to reason by the undeniable fact that we have no "ultimate" scientific explanation yet, nor is one likely in the future. If however science does come up with the goods, then you were right all along, and I will duly apologise and send you a cookie lol.
So you're saying that God contradicts the rules of logic???

That is precisely my point. God's existence (the Islamic God, I mean) is illogical. If you agree with that, then that's perfect, since I have nothing further to add to that.

God is beyond human logic. You don't feel it's supremely arrogant for mere mortals to think they can truly understand, what is by definition, outside our realm of comprehension?
They aren't "Christian views against Islam". They were proofs refuting the existence of a time-less creator. Clearly you are having comprehension problems here.
William Craig, one of the foremost Theists in the world, has refuted the existence of his own Creator? Are you sure?

All he has done is propose that God did not exist before our universe came in to existence, but must certainly exist now. This view is contrary to many religious theologies but still does not help your argument in favour of Atheism, does it my friend.

And that is a contradictory concept, which is precisely my point. Again, try understanding the point before replying to it.
You keep trying to define God to your own expectations, which is no different to setting up a straw-man. Why not try a different and more original angle brother.
Like I said before, that's just wishful thinking. You believe it because you want it to be true.
Feel free to explain why it definitely can't be true. I'm sure you'll raise some interesting points.
Maybe that I don't like willfully believing in lies???
Yes, but you have no real evidence that Atheism is the truth either. Sorry brother but incoherent "proofs" and emotional speculation, don't count.
You got me there, O Wise One! It feels like you're looking straight into my soul! :cry:
If I am wrong then please do enlighten me - why exactly did you join this forum?
I already did, but you couldn't even be bothered enough to read it. The proof for why a timeless God cannot freely create has already been presented here: http://prosblogion.e...a-timeless.html . If you are having trouble understanding it, that's fine. Just don't pretend that it doesn't exist.
Again with your "proofs" lol. At best you have a "theory" and a pretty weak one at that. If a genuine and concrete "proof" ever does materialise, it would change the world beyond all recognition, not just be a blog post on the internet lol.
Now you can argue in response that God is not timeless, but that would put you in more of a bind. But I'm going to wait to see if you're seriously going to go there.
I'm going to wait to see if you answer what I asked before: "Do your parents know of your decision? How are they taking it?"

Do you feel it's too personal or painful to talk about, or have you not told them yet as you're worried about their reaction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Tell me why its wrong to enslave prisoners of war? Why do they deserve honour?

since there's no text that explicitly speaks against thighing babies, it's all fine and dandy.

And killing blasphemers, what's wrong?

So there won't be complete aversion and eventually some attatchment after the emotional yearning for the killed men in the battle is overlooked (considering the men were bad people themselves).

Let me guess, you are a secret double-agent who preys on young Muslims who are having doubts about their faith?

Your dastardly mission being to solidly reinforce their claims of immorality by deliberately clouding ancient necessity with present day ethics, so that they eventually turn away from Islam completely - or are you an Iraqi, who fully accepts the victory of the West over your country, and thinks it's all fine and dandy if American soldiers rape Iraqi widows and thigh Iraqi babies?

I can't believe I doubted you when you first said it, but now I can see it is absolutely true; you really are a mighty defender of Islam against fanatics aren't you Jahangiram lol.

So yeah...the Imam probably said this and yes he was wrong.
I see, so in your "defender of Islam" opinion, our Imams (in this case, one of the most revered by all the Shia sects) can make mistakes and be incorrect. Basically, what you're saying is our infallible Imams are actually fallible.

Maybe I was wrong, you're not an Iraqi, you are a Saudi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

No one's posted these yet :)

From Sheikh al-Saduq's Ilal al-Sharai:

أبى رحمه الله قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله، عن احمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن علي بن الحكم بن أبى جميلة عن أبى جعفر " ع " قال: ان بنات الانبياء صلوات الله عليهم لا يطمثن إنما الطمث عقوبة وأول من طمثت سارة

Imam Baqir said: The daughters of Prophets don't menstruate. Verily, menstruation is a punishment, and the first to menstruate was Sara (wife of Abraham).

حدثنا محمد بن موسى بن المتوكل قال: حدثنا علي بن الحسين السعد آبادى قال حدثنا احمد بن أبى عبد الله البرقي قال حدثنا الحسن بن محبوب عن أبى أيوب الخزاز عن أبى عبيدة الحذاء عن أبى جعفر محمد بن علي " ع " قال: الحيض من النساء نجاسة رماهن الله بها، قال: وقد كن النساء في زمن نوح إنما تحيض المرأة في كل سنة حيضة حتى خرجن نسوة من حجابهن وهن سبعمائة امرأة فانطلقن فلبس المعصفرات من الثياب وتحلين وتعطرن ثم خرجن فتفرقن في البلاد فجلسن مع الرجال وشهدن الاعياد معهم وجلسن في صفوفهم فرماهن الله بالحيض عند ذلك في كل شهر أولئك النسوة باعيانهن فسالت دمائهن فخرجن من بين الرجال وكن يحضن في كل شهر حيضة، قال: فاشغلهن الله تبارك وتعالى بالحيض وكثر شهوتهن، قال: وكان غيرهن من النساء اللواتى لم يفعلن مثل فعلهن كن يحضن في كل سنة حيضة قال فتزوج بنو اللاتى يحضن في كل شهر حيضة بنات اللاتى يحضن في كل سنة حيضة، قال: فامتزج القوم فحضن بنات هؤلاء وهؤلاء في كل شهرحيضة، قال: وكثر أولاد اللاتى يحضن في كل شهر حيضة لاستقامة الحيض، وقل أولاد اللاتى لا يحضن في السنة إلا حيضة لفساد الدم قال: فكثر نسل هؤلاء وقل نسل أولئك

Imam Baqir said: Menstruation from women is impure, Allah afflicted them with it. The women during the time of Noah only menstruated once per year, until the women came out from behind their coverings, and they were 700 women. They wore yellow clothes, they perfumed themselves, and went throughout the land, sitting with men, and spending holidays with them. So at that time Allah afflicted them with menstruation every month. So, Allah gave them menstruation, and their excessive desire. There were other women who did not do that, so they were only given one menstruation per year. And the sons of those who menstruated every month, married the daughters of those who only menstruated once per year.

There is more to it. Anyway, it attempts to explain why women menstruate, and then why all women do it every month. Great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rijalis will disagree with me on this on since they consider him thiqa and give a lot of stock to his hadiths, but one consistent culprit I've found of such things is al-Hasan b. Mahbub, who narrated this one (and the aforementioned wind one). He's been caught out narrating from people he couldn't have possibly known, and narrating odd things, so personally I'm inclined to simply regard him as having been a forger, sort of an Abu Hurayra of Shiism.

حدثنا محمد بن موسى بن المتوكل قال: حدثنا علي بن الحسين السعد آبادى قال حدثنا احمد بن أبى عبد الله البرقي قال حدثنا الحسن بن محبوب عن أبى أيوب الخزاز عن أبى عبيدة الحذاء عن أبى جعفر محمد بن علي " ع " قال: الحيض من النساء نجاسة رماهن الله بها، قال: وقد كن النساء في زمن نوح إنما تحيض المرأة في كل سنة حيضة حتى خرجن نسوة من حجابهن وهن سبعمائة امرأة فانطلقن فلبس المعصفرات من الثياب وتحلين وتعطرن ثم خرجن فتفرقن في البلاد فجلسن مع الرجال وشهدن الاعياد معهم وجلسن في صفوفهم فرماهن الله بالحيض عند ذلك في كل شهر أولئك النسوة باعيانهن فسالت دمائهن فخرجن من بين الرجال وكن يحضن في كل شهر حيضة، قال: فاشغلهن الله تبارك وتعالى بالحيض وكثر شهوتهن، قال: وكان غيرهن من النساء اللواتى لم يفعلن مثل فعلهن كن يحضن في كل سنة حيضة قال فتزوج بنو اللاتى يحضن في كل شهر حيضة بنات اللاتى يحضن في كل سنة حيضة، قال: فامتزج القوم فحضن بنات هؤلاء وهؤلاء في كل شهرحيضة، قال: وكثر أولاد اللاتى يحضن في كل شهر حيضة لاستقامة الحيض، وقل أولاد اللاتى لا يحضن في السنة إلا حيضة لفساد الدم قال: فكثر نسل هؤلاء وقل نسل أولئك

Imam Baqir said: Menstruation from women is impure, Allah afflicted them with it. The women during the time of Noah only menstruated once per year, until the women came out from behind their coverings, and they were 700 women. They wore yellow clothes, they perfumed themselves, and went throughout the land, sitting with men, and spending holidays with them. So at that time Allah afflicted them with menstruation every month. So, Allah gave them menstruation, and their excessive desire. There were other women who did not do that, so they were only given one menstruation per year. And the sons of those who menstruated every month, married the daughters of those who only menstruated once per year.

And voila, there he is again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the argument rijalis use to say he is thiqa. Like if he clearly doesn't know these people, why do they still consider him?

They say he's thiqa because they say he's thiqa. Yes, it's really that simplistic. In this case I was pointing though to the oddity of the narration being on par for the type of things you find coming from him. In other cases though he would "narrate" from people who predeceased him.

In the case of the first hadith bored narrated he's not there, but the thing is that the primary narrator here, Abu Jamila, never knew al-Baqir (as) (I don't think he was even born yet), so how could he be narrating from him? Unless this is supposed to be al-Jawad, though that also seems unlikely since he's said to have died in the lifetime of ar-Rida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

They say he's thiqa because they say he's thiqa. Yes, it's really that simplistic. In this case I was pointing though to the oddity of the narration being on par for the type of things you find coming from him. In other cases though he would "narrate" from people who predeceased him.

In the case of the first hadith bored narrated he's not there, but the thing is that the primary narrator here, Abu Jamila, never knew al-Baqir (as) (I don't think he was even born yet), so how could he be narrating from him? Unless this is supposed to be al-Jawad, though that also seems unlikely since he's said to have died in the lifetime of ar-Rida.

Really? There is no reason behind it at all? That's weird. I would think they have info on each narrator ever. Maybe some narrators were left out which seems as if those who predeceased. Thanks for your input. You should start a thread and post your reasons with proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

My claim stands to reason by the undeniable fact that we have no "ultimate" scientific explanation yet, nor is one likely in the future.

"Undeniable", huh? lol! Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

God is beyond human logic.

I completely agree! Your God isn't even remotely logical. Glad we've come to an agreement on this.

Again with your "proofs" lol. At best you have a "theory" and a pretty weak one at that.

lol! It's okay, a lot of people don't understand formal proofs.

Really? There is no reason behind it at all? That's weird. I would think they have info on each narrator ever. Maybe some narrators were left out which seems as if those who predeceased. Thanks for your input. You should start a thread and post your reasons with proof.

Um, yes, there are reasons. As much as there are for any other narrator. Hasan bin Mahbub is one of the most renowned narrators for the Twelver Shi'ites. Here's what your scholars have said about him:

Hi name: Abu Ali, al-Hasan bin Mahbub bin Wahab al-Sarrad (some have referred to him as al-Zarrad)

He was a companion of Imam Kadhim and Imam Ridha

He also narrated ahadith from sixty narrators who narrated from Imam Sadiq.

Shaykh Kashshi (author of Rijal Kashshi, one of the most important, if not THE most important, works on rijal among Shi'ites) says about him: "Our companions are unanimous on the authenticity of what he narrates, and on his truthfulness, and he is acknowledged in fiqh and 'ilm"

Shaykh Tusi says: "He was the master of Bujaylah (his slave), he was from Kufa, he is thiqah"

Shaykh Ibn Idris al-Hilli says: "And he is thiqah among our companions, great in importance, has numerous narrations, one of the four pillars of his time"

Allamah Hilli says: "He is from Kufah, Thiqah, spring/source (of hadith), he narrated from Imam Rida, and was great in rank. He was considered one of the four pillars of his time."

Ayatullah Mamaqani said: "He is of high standing, and esteemed rank. And his fame is such that he is not in any need of tawtheeq (authentication), for he is among the most thiqah of the thiqaat among the Imamiyyah, and the narrations coming from him are saheeh without doubt!"

The narrations that contain him as a narrator come to about 1518. [so, yes, if you claim that he is a fabricator, then that's more than one thousand five hundred ahadith that you have to flush down the drain with him.]

He is the author of books on tafsir, hudood, diyat, talaq, 'itq, fara'id, nikah, (and several others)

http://www.al-shia.o...=ashabhm&id=106

Here is his tarjumah in Arabic (from which I translated the above):

اسمه وكنيته ونسبه

أبو علي، الحسن بن محبوب بن وهب السرّاد، ويقال له: الزرّاد.

ولادته

لم تُحدّد لنا المصادر تاريخ ولادته ومكانها، إلّا أنّه من أعلام القرن الثالث الهجري، ومن المحتمل أنّه ولد في الكوفة باعتباره كوفي.

صحبته

كان(رضي الله عنه) من أصحاب الإمامين الكاظم والرضا(عليهما السلام).

مكانته العلمية

* روى الحديث عن ستّين راوياً من رواة الإمام الصادق(عليه السلام).

* أحد الأركان الأربعة في عصره.

* عدّه جماعة من الذين أجمعت العصابة على تصديقهم، والانقياد لهم بالفقه.

قال الشيخ الكشّي(قدس سره): «أجمع أصحابنا على تصحيح ما يصحّ عن هؤلاء وتصديقهم، وأقرّوا لهم بالفقه والعلم، وهم ستّة نفر آخر، دون الستّة نفر الذين ذكرناهم في أصحاب أبي عبد الله(عليه السلام)، منهم: يونس بن عبد الرحمن، وصفوان بن يحيى بياع السابري، ومحمّد بن أبي عمير، وعبد الله بن المغيرة، والحسن بن محبوب، وأحمد بن محمّد بن أبي نصر البزنطي»(2).

من أقوال الإمام الرضا(عليه السلام) فيه

قال الإمام الرضا(عليه السلام) في كتابه إليه:«أنّ الله قد أيّدك بحكمة وأنطقها على لسانك، قد أحسنت وأصبت، أصاب الله بك الرشاد، ويسّرك للخير، ووفّقك لطاعته»(3).

من أقوال العلماء فيه

1ـ قال الشيخ الطوسي(قدس سره): «مولى لبجيلة، كوفي، ثقة»(4).

2ـ قال الشيخ ابن إدريس الحلّي(قدس سره): «وهو ثقة عند أصحابنا، جليل القدر، كثير الرواية، أحد الأركان الأربعة في عصره»(5).

3ـ قال العلّامة الحلّي(قدس سره): «كوفي، ثقة، عين، روى عن الرضا(عليه السلام)، وكان جليل القدر، يُعدّ في الأركان الأربعة في عصره»(6).

4ـ قال الشيخ محيي الدين المامقاني(قدس سره): «إنّ المترجم أرفع شأناً وأجلّ مقاماً وأوسع شهرة من أن يحتاج إلى التوثيق، فهو من أوثق الثقات عند الطائفة الإمامية، والرواية من جهته صحيحة بلا ريب»(7).

روايته للحديث

يعتبر من رواة الحديث في القرن الثالث الهجري، وقد وقع في إسناد كثير من الروايات تبلغ زهاء (1518) مورداً، فقد روى أحاديث عن الإمام الكاظم، والإمام الرضا، والإمام الجواد(عليهم السلام).

من مؤلّفاته

التفسير، الحدود، الديات، الطلاق، العتق، الفرائض، المراح أو المزاج، المشيخة، معرفة رواة الأخبار، النكاح، النوادر.

وفاته

تُوفّي(رضي الله عنه) عام 224ﻫ.

ـــــــــ

1. اُنظر: معجم رجال الحديث 6/96 رقم3079.

2. رجال الكشّي 2/830 ح1050.

3. الذكرى 2/70.

4. رجال الطوسي: 354 رقم5251.

5. مستطرفات السرائر: 589.

6. خلاصة الأقوال: 97.

7. تنقيح المقال 20/363 رقم5579.

So how is it that someone who your Imami scholars are unanimous about is supposedly fabricating ahadith and attributing them to your Imams?

If those accusations are true, then where does this place the rest of your narrators? The ones who haven't been as authenticated, glorified, and esteemed as he has by your entire field of Imami scholars?

But there is a bigger problem. If ibn Mahbub was going about lying and fabricating ahadith, then how is it that none of your Imams (from his time or afterwards) ever pointed this out to their companions? Remember that he lived in the time of your seventh and eighth Imams, and he wasn't just an unknown person, he was a prolific writer, narrator of ahadith, and one of the pillars of the community. So how come none of your Imams or their companions ever pointed out that he was a liar and a fabricator?

Ironically, this puts MacIsaac in a (relatively) good light, since he doesn't even believe in your 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th Imams, so from his perspective it makes sense that someone like ibn Mahbub could go about fabricating all these ahadith and not get caught, since all the Imams after Kadhim were all faking it anyway (according to Waqifi beliefs), so they wren't in a position to catch his fabrications.

In either case, the twelvers have a pretty big problem here. If they keep him (as authentic), then they have to deal with all the nonsensical ahadith that are coming through him (not that there aren't any without him, of course). But if they reject him as a fabricator, then how do you explain the unanimity of the Twelver scholars regarding his high rank, and that none of your later Imams ever condemned him for being a fabricator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In either case, the twelvers have a pretty big problem here. If they keep him (as authentic), then they have to deal with all the nonsensical ahadith that are coming through him (not that there aren't any without him, of course). But if they reject him as a fabricator, then how do you explain the unanimity of the Twelver scholars regarding his high rank, and that none of your later Imams ever condemned him for being a fabricator?

I just like the fact that people on Shiachat have offered analysis on a number of fiqh/rijal issues that are better and more in depth than those offered by any Shia scholar over the past 1,000 years. TBH, while their views are interesting for their historical nature, classical Shia scholars (the big names, at least) did not put a lot of critical commentary into these things, like we find today resulting from people exposed to Western styles of criticism and inquiry.

People have more at their disposal today in some ways. But it doesn't speak well of the scholars.

Edited by bored
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

"Undeniable", huh? lol! Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته

Small request, you're free to run through the threads showing us how stupid, ignorant, and wrong we are, with your usually Dha`eef Ahadeeth, but can you do that without being a complete douchebag (not saying that I'm particularly fond of Perfectionist, I've just noticed you've been doing it and it's rather annoying, also you've said some pretty retarded things, like accusing Cake of being Sunni thought that's besides the point), go talk to a therapist if you're so angry, no need to vent out your issues by acting tough online. Thank you.

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته

*Edit: While I'm at it, the multiple question marks are rather 'Fobish' per se, perhaps you can cut that out too, you know, stick to one. Is that doable? (<--Notice how you ask a question with one mark)

Edited by al-`Ajal Ya Imaam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Small request, you're free to run through the threads showing us how stupid, ignorant, and wrong we are, with your usually Dha`eef Ahadeeth, but can you do that without being a complete douchebag (not saying that I'm particularly fond of Perfectionist, I've just noticed you've been doing it and it's rather annoying, also you've said some pretty retarded things, like accusing Cake of being Sunni thought that's besides the point), go talk to a therapist if you're so angry, no need to vent out your issues by acting tough online. Thank you.

Awwww . . . Did I hurt your feelings? Are you going to cry now, little boy???

Take a hike, kid! I have no interest in your sissy requests.

Link to comment
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...