Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Perpetual Guidance - (Fee Saqut Part Deux)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Edit: I seem to have posted an older version of my conclusions. Here is the correct version:

 

Conclusions:

 

Through many verses, ahadith, and rational arguments, it is well established within Shiism that Allah’s guidance in the world is perpetual. Even during times of trial, such as the occultation of the Hidden Imam عليه السلام, the effect of the hujja is present and the religion of Allah is available. The neo-Waqifa uphold that the Qur’an has been changed, that much of the tradition has been lost, that whatever survives has been tainted by Imamis, that there may not be a living Imam, and that a living Imam is incapable of guiding the believers during his occultation. If this were true, then truth itself would be absent from the Earth, and no pure medium between Allah and humanity would exist. And Allah is above all of that. The believers follow that which is in their hands and they await the revolution of the Qa’im عليه السلام. This article only addresses a few points, and a further examination of this topic is necessary. However, let the sources we have presented speak on behalf of Allah’s justice and mercy.

 

I don't want to put words in their mouths, but I'm not quite sure that what you have asserted is what they actually believe. At least not from my conversations with them, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

3_103.gif

 

And hold fast to the rope of Allah, all of you together, and do not be divided; and remember Allah's favour on you, that when there was enmity between you, He created affection between your hearts, so due to His grace you became like brothers to each other; and you were on the edge of a pit of fire (hell), so He saved you from it; this is how Allah explains His verses to you, so that you may be guided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

http://alkafi.net/vb/showthread.php?t=289

 

It seems as well that this belief was present in the Sunni school but somehow today it is very very exclusive to Shia. Mohamad bin Abdul Wahab was called Mujadid, salafists believed that Allah sends a reviver to religion each century. I think this is a remnant of the original belief.

 

Ibn Hajar Alasqalani in his comment on Bukhari said that in the prayer of Jesus behind a man from this Ummah with this being something to happen in the End of Times is strengthening the saheeh sayings that earth is never devoid from Hujja. This makes me wonder what were the saheeh saying that Ibn Hajr was referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

I don't want to put words in their mouths, but I'm not quite sure that what you have asserted is what they actually believe. At least not from my conversations with them, anyway.

 

Then perhaps you can ask them the following questions:

 

1. Is our present-day Qur'an the original that was revealed?

2. Have the Waqifi books of `aqeeda, fiqh, tafsir, history and eschatology been lost?

3. Have the Imamis tainted their books, chains, and narrations?

4. Is there a possibility that the current Imam is dead, or not on Earth?

5. Have there been Waqifis in the last 1000 years, by which we can assume that the Imam was guiding humanity?

 

If the answers to my questions are as I have said, then has Allah left the truth in any accessible place in the world? If this 39-hadith book is all we've got, a book preserved by a liar and fabricator, along with a tainted Qur'an, then what does this say about Allah's justice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Bro Abdul Qaim,

As far as I know, tahrif in al-Quran is what the founder of the neo-Waqifi believes though it's not clear to me to what extent in tahrif he believes in.

As for the Waqifi belief on al-Quran, I don't know and I don't think we can absolutely know about this due to the lack of information on Waqifi after the dormant (death?) of the sect about more than 1000 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Bro Abdul Qaim,

As far as I know, tahrif in al-Quran is what the founder of the neo-Waqifi believes though it's not clear to me to what extent in tahrif he believes in.

As for the Waqifi belief on al-Quran, I don't know and I don't think we can absolutely know about this due to the lack of information on Waqifi after the dormant (death?) of the sect about more than 1000 years ago.

 

Actually, there's reason to believe that tahreef was a common belief among most Imamis. Only post ghayba do we actually find some of our shuyookh, beginning with Sadooq, rejecting the notion. To suggest it is a uniquely Waqifi aqeedah is problematic, as much as many post-Ghayba scholars may like to distance themselves or re-interpret our traditions. Besides which, even post Sadooq, many Shi'ah still upheld the belief in tahreef of the Qur'aan, and continue to do so.

Edited by Abdul Qaim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Then perhaps you can ask them the following questions:

 

1. Is our present-day Qur'an the original that was revealed?

2. Have the Waqifi books of `aqeeda, fiqh, tafsir, history and eschatology been lost?

3. Have the Imamis tainted their books, chains, and narrations?

4. Is there a possibility that the current Imam is dead, or not on Earth?

5. Have there been Waqifis in the last 1000 years, by which we can assume that the Imam was guiding humanity?

 

If the answers to my questions are as I have said, then has Allah left the truth in any accessible place in the world? If this 39-hadith book is all we've got, a book preserved by a liar and fabricator, along with a tainted Qur'an, then what does this say about Allah's justice?

 

Akhee, why don't you ask them yourself? You had a chance to confront them in the FB group yet you kept completely silent. You may argue that, as opposed to the FB group, this is an open forum (though the member's of the FB group were free to invite whomever they wished), but the reality is that SC is hardly neutral ground for debate.

 

Although there are some of us who keep an open mind and are open to unconventional possibilities, most users here are not really interested in an impartial examination of the facts, and are simply looking for someone with a modicum of hadeeth knowledge to stand up and stick it to the neo-Waqifah. You can pretty much post whatever you wish and are guaranteed a throng of people here to cheer in ecstatic approval.

 

Now I'm not saying you haven't made some very good points, at least with your second article, anyway, because you have. But there's no real debate here because it's not neutral ground, and the most basic parameters for discussion haven't been agreed to. For example, 'Ali b. Abi Hamza is a known liar according to you, yet the bulk of his ahadeeth are still accepted, with the excuse that those riwayaat narrated from him prior to his apostasy are still valid. It's sort of like wanting to have your cake and eat it too, though understandable given the problematic nature of someone of 'Ali b. Abi Hamza's status - one of the ashaab al-'ijma - being the chief da'ee for the Waqifah. Given your position, it is not entirely difficult to dismiss his waqf traditions out of hand.

 

Anyway, you yourself know that many things discussed in the FB group are not going to be uttered openly by your opponents and what has been posted on the new *******.org is only a fraction of the information that Mac produced. You know he's not interested in giving the nawaasib even more ammunition against us, and he doesn't really care about actively proselytizing. It's frustrating for me personally, but I know his niyyah is sincere. He'd rather have people remain Twelvers than apostasize and leave Tashayyu' altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Actually, we had originally discussed some issues on a Facebook group, though the brother left it within a few days and created his own. He also made some public posts on Facebook, but when we answered he never wanted to "debate". Some time later, I was invited to the Waqifi Facebook group that you are familiar with, but was deleted/blocked off of his MSN and Skype. I made one post in public on the topic - which barely scratched the surface - and he requested that I don't discuss it in public. All of these things basically discouraged me from debating every little thing that was said in the group. So instead, I waited about 6 months for the brother to give this topic some more thought.

 

Before I'm blamed for making this a public issue, I don't believe I'm the one who started making public articles. Especially on a popular former-Twelver site. The Waqifiyya was originally presented as a discussion, a possibility, but over the last two months it has clearly become a religious movement. The brother is making da`wa to his religion, both publicly and privately. And so naturally, one would have to answer it. I wanted the Waqifis to build their case before I gave any kind of in-depth response, so that I'd look at all of their evidences together and make a judgment.

 

As I've said before, there's been many communication barriers, and now that I've deactivated Facebook, I see no other better place fit for this discussion. Yes, it's a "Twelver" forum, but I'm not going to start a blog separately for this issue when I could just as easily discuss it here. neo-Waqifism is a topic that concerns these forums and so it's the best place to discuss it, and not just a private corner somewhere. If the brother were concerned with the imaan of his fellow Shi`a, then he would not have uploaded his articles to tashayyu. Since they have, do I have much of a choice?

 

If you do wish to discuss with me in private, you know how to reach me akhi.

 

 

 

For example, 'Ali b. Abi Hamza is a known liar according to you, yet the bulk of his ahadeeth are still accepted, with the excuse that those riwayaat narrated from him prior to his apostasy are still valid. It's sort of like wanting to have your cake and eat it too, though understandable given the problematic nature of someone of 'Ali b. Abi Hamza's status - one of the ashaab al-'ijma - being the chief da'ee for the Waqifah. Given your position, it is not entirely difficult to dismiss his waqf traditions out of hand.

 

Our argument was not a simplistic "he's weak!", but something much deeper. Namely: the comparison between the Qa'im and Yusuf (as) was traced reliably to Yazid al-Kunasi, Sadeer al-Sayrafi, Muhammad b. Muslim, and even Abu Baseer, with mutun that lacked the "imprisonment" dimension. The argument that the correct parallel to Yusuf was ghayba + confusion has more sihha and tawatur than a very convenient narration going through the founder of Waqifism. Most of the narrations of `Ali b. Abi Hamza in our books are ones that can be supported by other tawatur, which means that his narrations were (mostly) filtered for content that matches the Imami `aqeeda. The imprisonment hadith does not mention `Ali b. Abi Hamza in the chain, but through Fii Nusrat al-Waqifa we can establish with some certainty that he is the missing transmitter.

More articles soon, inshaAllah.

Edited by Qa'im
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Bro Abdul Qaim,

What I have said was the founder of *neo*-Waqifi (a.k.a. MacIsaac) believed in tahrif in some extent while I don't know what the belief of the (dormant) Waqifi sect itself on tahrif since the information on them was scarce.

Yes, Mac has mentioned that Banu Nawbakht believed in tahrif (in the extent that something was added or reduced from al-Qur'an). Even if this is true, it doesn't automatically mean that the *Waqifi* (not *neo-Waqifi*) believed the tahrif at this extent too since the lack of information on them & there are actually different levels of tahrif. For example, I believe in some extent of tahrif (tahrif in tafsir, in the order of surah, in qiraah), but not other extent (order of ayat in a surah, added or deleted words, ayah, or surah).

So, in terms of tahrif, the question to be asked is not whether the Shi'i believed it or not since some extent of tahrif definitely happened (i.e. in tafsir, order of surah), but at what extent a Shi'i believes it happened. For example, Shaykh Saduq didn't believe in tahrif in the extent of something was added or deleted from al-Quran, but we don't know his view about tahrif in qiraah. Probably he would have no problem to accept it since we have the ahadith saying Imam Mahdi (as) will bring the true qiraah at his zuhur.

Bro Qa'im,

While I (and some members) also expect your contribution in the Facebook group, I can understand your concern and thank you that you (and also bro Dar'ul_Islam) are willing to spend your time to create these series here in ShiaChat. I (and I believe also almost all of ShiaChat members) surely hope you continue your great work.

However, to ward off unconstructive posts or insults, I think the proper forum for this would be the Thinker's Discourse since it's moderated so at least there will be some kind of assurance that the posts are the relevant ones to the topic. Who knows, if the series are moved to the Thinker's Discourse, perhaps the neo-Waqifi are more willing to join since they would feel safer.

Btw, you closed your FB account? Why bro?

Edited by rotten_coconut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@ Qa'im: I'll contact you soon, in sha Allah ...


@ Rotten Coconut: Sorry, I misunderstood. I still stand by what I said, however. Whilst it can't be conclusively proven either way, I personally believe that tahreef of the Qur'aan was the commonly accept by the Imamiyyah in the pre-Ghaybah (al-kubra) period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

'Ali b. Abi Hamza is a known liar according to you, yet the bulk of his ahadeeth are still accepted, with the excuse that those riwayaat narrated from him prior to his apostasy are still valid. It's sort of like wanting to have your cake and eat it too, though understandable given the problematic nature of someone of 'Ali b. Abi Hamza's status - one of the ashaab al-'ijma - being the chief da'ee for the Waqifah. Given your position, it is not entirely difficult to dismiss his waqf traditions out of hand.

 

 

Akhi, Ali bin Abi Hamza is not part of the Ashab al-Ijma!

 

Secondly, the Allamah, Shahid II, Shaykh al-Hasan, Shaykh Muhammad, al-Khoei, al-Muhsini, al-Radhy line of Rijalism (which is a dominant trend) would reject Ali bin Abi Hamza outright, without differentiating.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Akhi, Ali bin Abi Hamza is not part of the Ashab al-Ijma!

 

Secondly, the Allamah, Shahid II, Shaykh al-Hasan, Shaykh Muhammad, al-Khoei, al-Muhsini, al-Radhy line of Rijalism (which is a dominant trend) would reject Ali bin Abi Hamza outright, without differentiating.

 

Sorry -  I got him mixed up with Zurara b. A'yan . I've been reading a thesis that examines an alleged dispute of his with as-Sadiq (as) and I have him on the brain. That said, he was arguably al-Kazhim's (as) chief wakeel, and that in itself is not insignificant .

 

I know that the strict rijaalists would reject ibn Abi Hamza, akhee, it's just that, rightly or wrongly, I still don't consider them to necessarily represent mainstream rijaalism (yes, I'm sure you will argue with me).

Edited by Abdul Qaim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Aslamalaykum,

 

Brilliant work brother, keep posting on shia chat so everyone can benefit inshaaAllah.
 

 

If the brother were concerned with the imaan of his fellow Shi`a, then he would not have uploaded his articles to tashayyu. Since they have, do I have much of a choice?

 

 

Couldn't have said it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sorry -  I got him mixed up with Zurara b. A'yan . I've been reading a thesis that examines an alleged dispute of his with as-Sadiq (as) and I have him on the brain. That said, he was arguably al-Kazhim's (as) chief wakeel, and that in itself is not insignificant .

 

I know that the strict rijaalists would reject ibn Abi Hamza, akhee, it's just that, rightly or wrongly, I still don't consider them to necessarily represent mainstream rijaalism (yes, I'm sure you will argue with me).

Ali b Isma'il b Ja'far was close to Iman kadhim, Imam was trusting him that some of the books(letters) that Imam sent to his Shia were written by the hand writing of Ali. This same person was the man who snitched on Imam kadhim and what for? Money! He snitched on his own uncle.

 

Albata'ini was wakil for Imam Ja'afar and Musa (not sure about chief) , he was the guide of Abu Basir the blind and he wrote a number of books depending on hadiths he learnt from Abu Basir.

 

How would the case of Ali b Ismail and Abu Hamzah Albata'ini differ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Ali b Isma'il b Ja'far was close to Iman kadhim, Imam was trusting him that some of the books(letters) that Imam sent to his Shia were written by the hand writing of Ali. This same person was the man who snitched on Imam kadhim and what for? Money! He snitched on his own uncle.

 

Albata'ini was wakil for Imam Ja'afar and Musa (not sure about chief) , he was the guide of Abu Basir the blind and he wrote a number of books depending on hadiths he learnt from Abu Basir.

 

How would the case of Ali b Ismail and Abu Hamzah Albata'ini differ?

 

 

There is at least one hadeeth that I have read that alleges that it was Muhammad b. Isma'il, and not his brother, 'Ali, who informed on his uncle, Musa (as). That would make some sense as it would have removed the primary Husaynid claimant for the Imamate which was coveted by Isma'il's progeny.

Edited by Abdul Qaim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

There is at least one hadeeth that I have read that alleges that it was Muhammad b. Isma'il, and not his brother, 'Ali, who informed on his uncle, Musa (as). That would make some sense as it would have removed the primary Husaynid claimant for the Imamate which was coveted by Isma'il's progeny.

The narrations differs on the name of the informer. There are three names suggested : Muhamad b Ja'afar , Ali b Isma'il or his brother Muhamad b Ismail.

Either of them, the treachery is scandalous. The hadiths suggested that the informer was close to Imam Musa or at least was up to date with his movements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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...