Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
robbenmessi1010

Is Chess Haram?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Some people tell me it's halal, and others tell me it's haram. I haven't found hadiths from the prophet(saw) and imams(as) which speak of this. If any of you can give me as many hadiths on this subject I'd appreciate it. And please don't give me different fatwas from the maraji', that's not what I'm looking for  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

  (salam)

 

I have heard that it is Haram because Yazeed used to play it. But that is the only argument I have heard for it being wrong.

 

Otherwise, It is not Haram in my personal opinion. It is a strategy and thinking game. 

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamun alaykum

 

Some issues are depend to the time. For example the issue of instrument of gambling depend how people use that in your time so you cannot deduce the edict directly by ahādith and you will need a marja to distinguish between halal and haram.

 

Related fatwas:
 

Q1109: Playing chess has become commonplace in most schools. Do you sanction it and organizing courses to teach it?
A: From the mukallaf’s perspective, should it not now be considered among the instruments of gambling, there is no objection to playing it provided that no betting is involved.

Q1110: What is the ruling on playing for amusement, such as with a deck of cards, especially when there is no betting involved?
A: Playing with that which is considered by common view among the instruments of gambling is absolutely ḥarām, even if it is just for amusement and without placing a bet.

Q1111: What is the ruling on chess in the following situations?
1. The manufacture, sale, and purchase of chess instruments [chessboard/chessmen].
2. Playing chess with/without a bet.
3. Establishing centers at public places where it could be played, taught, or promoted.

A: Should the mukallaf be of the opinion that chess is not considered now among gambling instruments, there is no objection to their being manufactured, sold, bought, and played with — but without betting. The same rule is applied to its teaching.

Q1112: Can the mukallaf deem the approval of the physical education department to hold chess competitions as an indication that chess is not among the instruments of gambling? And is it permissible for the mukallaf to depend on such a thing?
A: The yardstick in specifying the instance of rulings is the determination of the mukallaf himself or his having a shar‘ī proof to that effect. 

Q1113: What is the ruling on playing chess and billiard, for example, with non-Muslims in foreign countries? And what is the ruling on money spent in this avenue, although not in betting?
A: We have already dealt with the subject of playing with chess and gambling instruments in the preceding questions. However, the ruling is universal insofar as engaging in such an activity, i.e., be it in Muslim or foreign countries. Playing with Muslims or non-Muslims is also immaterial. It is not permissible to sell or buy gambling instruments, or spend any money in such an avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mahdi Modarresi addressed this topic in one of his lectures in a way that escaped the halal/haram framework. He said that after Imam Hussain, may God's peace and everlasting blessings be upon him, was beheaded by Shimr, his head was taken to Yazid where he would play chess with the Imam (as)'s head on the table. To me, after hearing this, the legality of playing chess becomes absolutely irrelevant. Even if the hadith/historical narration is weak (which I have no idea because I haven't looked into it), the very fact that it exists and has a chance to be true makes me never want to even look at a chess table again.

 

Imam Khomeini once said something along the lines that Islam is like a country, and that Sharia (halal/haram) is just the borders of that country. It sets the limits, but it's everything inside those borders that really matters, so one shouldn't base his life and conduct on just legal limitations. (If somebody knows the exact quote please list it as I can't remember the second part.)

Edited by YariAzQuran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying it is haram because of yazid is a mistake I think. It is haram because Quran says to avoid mayser scholars split into two groups on the definition 1: it means gambling instruments 2: gambling. Hadith indicate that the gambling instruments of chess and the others mentioned by ayatollah sistani. That they are haram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

  (salam)

 

I have heard that it is Haram because Yazeed used to play it. But that is the only argument I have heard for it being wrong.

 

Otherwise, It is not Haram in my personal opinion. It is a strategy and thinking game. 

 

(wasalam)

 

Yazid used to walk and eat too, is that haram as well?

 

It's simple, ask your marja......

Mahdi Modarresi addressed this topic in one of his lectures in a way that escaped the halal/haram framework. He said that after Imam Hussain, may God's peace and everlasting blessings be upon him, was beheaded by Shimr, his head was taken to Yazid where he would play chess with the Imam (as)'s head on the table. To me, after hearing this, the legality of playing chess becomes absolutely irrelevant. Even if the hadith/historical narration is weak (which I have no idea because I haven't looked into it), the very fact that it exists and has a chance to be true makes me never want to even look at a chess table again.

 

Imam Khomeini once said something along the lines that Islam is like a country, and that Sharia (halal/haram) is just the borders of that country. It sets the limits, but it's everything inside those borders that really matters, so one shouldn't base his life and conduct on just legal limitations. (If somebody knows the exact quote please list it as I can't remember the second part.)

 

Still sounds silly though, they might have eaten at the same table or laughed, does that make eating and laughing haram? Sounds illogical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying it is haram because of yazid is a mistake I think. It is haram because Quran says to avoid mayser scholars split into two groups on the definition 1: it means gambling instruments 2: gambling. Hadith indicate that the gambling instruments of chess and the others mentioned by ayatollah sistani. That they are haram.

 

Since this is the Islamic Legal Question page on the site, technically you're right. However I'd encourage all of us to move beyond the legal framework when discussing this topic (as well as some others) since not every action should be based on legality. For example, divorce is permitted but it's one of the worst acts and done as a last resort. If your father's head was God forbid severed by a tyrant in your time and his head was placed at a table where the tyrant played chess to make a show of it, how would you view chess for the rest of your life? I don't mean to sound self-righteous but personally I'd have trouble not puking or at the very least be disgusted if I ever saw it again. The same scenario applies to us but with the holy Imam (as): chess might or might not have been legal (pending on if it was used regularly or known for as an instrument of gambling) at the time of Rasulullah (saw), but following what happened after Karbala, the followers of Ahlulbayt should view chess with putridity until the blood of the Imam (as) is avenged.

Edited by YariAzQuran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard from someone that chess is Makruh because it's a big time-killer, provides no beneficial use, and uses your brain power towards something that provides no value to you. Like oversleeping, you're wasting your time indulging in a pointless time passer when you could be directing your energy and effort into something much more beneficial and productive, such as reading dua or Quran. Only those things which are harmful to you are haram, so I don't see how chess would fall into that category? 

Edited by hersheyskisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard from someone that chess is Makruh because it's a big time-killer, provides no beneficial use, and uses your brain power towards something that provides no value to you. Like oversleeping, you're wasting your time indulging in a pointless time passer when you could be directing your energy and effort into something much more beneficial and productive, such as reading dua or Quran. Only those things which are harmful to you are haram, so I don't see how chess would fall into that category? 

 

Eh, I'd disagree with you there. Strategy games tend to be very helpful in exercising one's brain in mathematics, problem solving and tactical organization, all of which are very useful actually.

 

Chess I think is distinct from other games in which bets can be made because it makes use of the intellect rather than simple chance or one's ability to bluff.

 

In regards to Yazid, I don't know much about this tradition of him being a chess player, but for me, if this is true, then I say this reflects Yazid's penchant for violence and his desire and will to dominate which he expressed through the competitive medium of chess and its imaginary battlefield as well as through the mobilization of real life troops, which for him was just his own chess pieces to do with what he wilt, not so much that the nature of chess reflects the character of Yazid and encourages those qualities in people. But like with any competitive sport or game, people must not become wrapped up in that competitive nature that the desire for victory and the glory, status or power victory brings to the victor get to their head.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I'd disagree with you there. Strategy games tend to be very helpful in exercising one's brain in mathematics, problem solving and tactical organization, all of which are very useful actually.

 

 

I didn't say that I believe in what I wrote; I said someone told me those things, but I definitely agree with what you're saying. 

Edited by hersheyskisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salams,

there are over 8,000 posts on this topic. There are so many hadith forbidding it. Why are we still asking about it? And why are people making up Islam i their own imaginations (Imam Ali a.s. told us not to) and giving our own opinions when Ahlu Bayt a.s. and Allah have already told us what to do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salams,

there are over 8,000 posts on this topic. There are so many hadith forbidding it. Why are we still asking about it? And why are people making up Islam i their own imaginations (Imam Ali a.s. told us not to) and giving our own opinions when Ahlu Bayt a.s. and Allah have already told us what to do!

 

Because the maraji don't all agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the maraji don't all agree.

not true some scholars just say if it's purpose has changed. Which I doubt it really has in the west. Edited by Rohani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not true some just say if it's purpose has changed. Which I doubt it really has in the west. 

 

Very few people bet with chess today in the west. Chess is mostly something you do for fun or for trophies at elementary schools and public libraries or it's something old people do in public parks and retirement homes. In fact, if you called it a "gambling instrument" in the West, a lot of people would probably laugh at you because the thought of chess as "gambling" is for many players and admirers of the game rather absurd. Some purists might even say chess for money is an insult to the game itself. Certainly there are championships for grants and scholarships, but this is not really gambling in any sense of the word since those who are awarded these things are given them on the basis of their skill at the game that involves strategy and thinking and such awards are used towards productive social purposes such as charity or education.

 

Regardless of how people may have used it at one time in one place, there's nothing about chess that really requires the betting of any money or property. And this seems like it'd be more of an activity of the onlookers watching the chess match and betting on winners among themselves like a horse race, rather than the competitors who may wager nothing at all and even if they did wager something, it could probably be reasonably argued that this is an actual earning through use of individual talent and therefore is not the product of gambling, which is just playing with fate as you bet away your earnings. And the same argument could be posed concerning sporting events like Soccer and the like which Muslims love so much. These are things people can bet on, have bet on and still do (even against the law), but this does not mean sporting events are haram just because of a potential abuse.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact that some still do bet means its has not lost it original definition yet.

 

That's some pretty bad logic. For starters, you are essentially saying anything and everything which can potentially be betted on is therefore a form of gambling which is not permitted. By that logic, any and everything which some misguided people so happen to bet on must be banned, including any and all sports and sporting event. Say goodbye to soccer, football, baseball, races and everything else. This is all haram, is that what you are implying?

 

Or are you implying that chess was originally meant for gambling and was created to serve chiefly as a gambling instrument? If so, then this is pure conjecture and can't be proven. The game itself more than likely emerged as a means of mapping and testing out battle strategies in ancient India, after which it became a game used in the education of nobles.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am saying something that holds the definition as a gambling instrument is haram and I myself believe chess is always haram as it is mentioned in hadith. But was trying to shead some lights on it from the other view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am saying something that holds the definition as a gambling instrument is haram

 

And I'm saying that most people don't consider chess to be gambling instrument at all.

 

 

and I myself believe chess is always haram as it is mentioned in hadith. 

 

I don't believe something just because it is mentioned in hadith because many hadith are either fabricated or require close examination of their language and context in order to understand what they're trying to say. It's not enough for me to bring forth random hadith which may, for all I know, just be inserting into Ahlul Bayt's mouths what some people wanted them to say in response to something they saw happening in their own time. Did Yazid really play chess? Or did people who believe chess was haram project this back in time in order to make Yazid much more evil? Did the Imams really forbid chess, or did they just forbid gambling instruments and people who believed gambling instruments included chess because that's what they saw in their particular environment so felt that the Imams were referring directly to chess? Or did people dislike chess for various reasons they felt were valid at the time, but having no means of convincing people they were right, put words into the Imams' mouth or twisted those already there in order to give their own opinions and feelings a sense of religious legitimacy to make people stop doing what they wanted them to stop doing? These are valid inquiries that we, especially on this site, often ignore whenever a hadith happens to say something we already so happened to think was right. But of course, when it comes to the Sunnis' hadith, we're all over that stuff.  :rolleyes:

 

Personally, I believe chess is okay as long as it is for mental exercise, with no betting thus no physical thing won or lost by either side. And there are plenty of maraji who would agree with this view. I don't know how they'd perceive charity events and competitions, I'd have to ask those I usually consult in these kinds of matters, but if they reached a conclusion that for me seemed perfectly logical before even consulting their opinion or the Islamic viewpoint, and they did so after having studied in hawza and mulled over various hadith in their original languages and of varying degrees of perceived authenticity, I'm willing to accept their argument as the Imams were the embodiment of right reasoning and that argument seems the most reasonable. 

 

But if you feel otherwise, I'm not going to condemn you for doing or not doing what you feel to need to do or not do according to your marja or your own sense of judgement. I may think chess is beneficial, but I don't believe it's wajib.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and I said some do as you affirmed and that means it still is clinging to its old purpose in the west at least. As for the hadith there are many many hadiths it is more than the one about yazid and about many things related to chess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and I said some do as you affirmed and that means it still is clinging to its old purpose in the west at least.

 

Except it really isn't. And again, you're using these terms "old purpose" or "original definition" as if to imply that the nature of the game was meant for gambling and the historical evidence indicates that since the game's development in India, that it never was really used as a gambling instrument at all, but much more originally as an educational instrument. Even when it came to the west, it's purpose was much more for recreation and education than it ever was gambling. So your using these terms as if to imply it was developed and spread with gambling chiefly in mind just makes you look ignorant, brother.

 

 

As for the hadith there are many many hadiths it is more than the one about yazid and about many things related to chess.

 

This doesn't really mean anything since many, many hadith are false and there are many hadith which say many many things and many more of them can be interpreted in several ways.  The mere number of hadith attesting to a so-called fact does not indeed, make it fact. And obviously these many many hadith of which you speak are not enough convince all maraji of the same conclusion. So your point right now is pretty moot at the moment.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salams,

there are over 8,000 posts on this topic. There are so many hadith forbidding it. Why are we still asking about it? And why are people making up Islam i their own imaginations (Imam Ali a.s. told us not to) and giving our own opinions when Ahlu Bayt a.s. and Allah have already told us what to do!

 

Because its not as simple and black and white as you think the issue is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Salamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatu Allahee (s.w.t) wa Barakatuhu

--------------*

Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a.s.) said:

"The sale of chess is forbidden, [acquiring] its price is unlawful, playing with it is idolatry, to greet one who entertains with it is a grave sin and a serious atrocity, and he who immerses his hand into it (i.e. by touching) is like one who immerses his hands into pig meat; his prayer is not accepted until he washes it just as he would wash it after touching pig meat, and one who looks at it is like who looks at his mother's genitals, greeting a person who is playing with it at the time of playing receives the same punishment as the one playing it, and he who sits in a ]chess playing] session has, indeed, reserved his seat in hell, and his time spent will be regretful.

(I don't know the reference of this narration, but I'm sure it is somewhere)

----------------***

Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a.s) warns:

"Playing chess is polytheism, holding a chess pawn is like touching pork, looking at it is as hateful and forbidden as looking at the private parts of one's mother!"

(This particular narration is found in the source below)

Reference - Wasa'il al-Shia (The book on trading)

--------------*

Fi'Aman i'llah (s.w.t)

Edited by DaBeast313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The language of these narrations sounds a little too vulgar to be from Imam Sadiq's mouth and just seem filled with as many buzzwords as a person can muster to make chess sound like the most evil thing in the world. I call shenanigans.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The language of these narrations sounds a little too vulgar to be from Imam Sadiq's mouth and just seem filled with as many buzzwords as a person can muster to make chess sound like the most evil thing in the world. I call shenanigans.

 

I don't think its fair we cast doubt upon a set of ahadīth simply because we don't like the way the translation is phrased. 

 

Sin was the worst thing in the world for the Imam's [a] since they were Representatives of God. So yeah, the language used doesn't surprise me at all. You should see what they [as] had to say about the Ghulat if you think these narration's are 'vulgar' and filled with 'buzzwords'. 

Edited by Ali Musaaa :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vulgar?

 

(1)ـ أبي الرّبيع الشّامي قال: سئل الإمام أبو عبيد الله (عليه السَّلام) عن الشطرنج والنَّرْد؟ فقال (عليه السَّلام): لا تقربوهما. [وسائل الشيعة:ج12 باب تحريم اللعب بالشطرنج].

Abi Rabi'e AlShami said: Abu Abdillah was asked about chess and dice so he answered :Don't be close to them.(avoid them)

 

(2)ـ وفي موثقة عببد الله بن سنان عن عبد الواحد بن المختار قال: سألتُ الإمام أبا عبد الله (عليه السَّلام) عن اللعب بالشطرنج؟ فقال (عليه السَّلام): "إنّ المؤمنَ لمشغولٌ عن اللّعب". [وسائل الشيعة:ج12/239ح11].

In a trustworthy narration from Abdullah bin Sinan from Abdulwahid bin Almukhtar: I asked Imam Abu Abdillah about playing chess so he answered : Verily  believer is more preoccupied  than to play 

 (3)ـ وفي صحيحة زرارة عن الإمام الصّادق (عليه السَّلام) أنّه سُئِلَ عن الشّطرنج وعن لعبة شبيب التي يقال لها لعبة الأمير وعن لعبة الثلث، فقال (عليه السَّلام): "أرأيتكَ إذا مَيَّزَ اللهُ الحقَّ والباطلَ مع أيّهما تكون؟" قال: مع الباطل، قال (عليه السَّلام): "فلا خير فيه". [وسائل الشيعة:ج12/باب تحريم اللعب بالشطرنج.

In Sahih Narration from Zurarah from Imam Sadiq after he was asked about chess, Shabib game aka prince game and about One Third game, Imam answered: No good in this.

(4)ـ وفي خبر الحسين بن يزيد عن الإمام أبي عبد الله (عليه السَّلام) قال: "يغفر الله في شهر رمضان إلاّ لثلاثة: صاحب مُسْكِرٍ أو صاحبب شاهين أو مشاحن". [وسائل الشيعة:12/نفس الباب ح6].

In the narration of Alhusain bin Yazid from Abi Abdillah that he said " In Month of Ramadhan, Allah forgives for except three: Alcoholic,Chess player and quarreler.

 

    وصاحب شاهين هو الشطرنج لما ورد في خبر آخر عن الإمام أبي عبد الله (عليه السَّلام) قال: "إنّ لله عزَّ وجلَّ في كلّ ليلة من شهر رمضان عتقاء من النار إلاّ من أفطر على مسكر أو مشاحن أو صاحب شاهين"، قلت: وأي شيء صاحب شاهين؟ قال: "الشّطرنج".
    (5)ـ وعن موسى بن القاسم بإسناده عن مولانا الإمام الرِّضا (عليه السَّلام) قال: جاء رجلٌ إلى الإمام أبي جعفر (عليه السَّلام) فقال: يا أبا جعفر ما تقول في الشطرنج التي يلعب بها؟ فقال (عليه السَّلام): "أخبرني أبيي عليّ بن الحسين بن عليّ عن أمير المؤمنين (عليه السَّلام) قال: قال رسول الله (صلّى الله عليه وآله): من كان ناطقاً فكان منطقه بغير ذكر الله كان لاغياً، ومَن كان صامتاً فكان صمته لغير ذكر الله كان ساهياً".. ثمّ سكت. فقام الرّجل وانصرف..From Musa bin Qasim from Imam Ridha that he said : A man came to Imam Abi Ja'far and asked :What do you say regarding the Chess game that people play? So Imam answered : Whoever spoke and his speech was devoid from Allah's mention then he is  لاغي laghi (talkative in negative way, brings more sins than rewards), Whoever went silent but his silence was not to listen to Allah's mention then his sielnce is sahwo (absent minded )

 

Top eloquence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The language of these narrations sounds a little too vulgar to be from Imam Sadiq's mouth and just seem filled with as many buzzwords as a person can muster to make chess sound like the most evil thing in the world. I call shenanigans.

That's not a way to judge narrations.

I don't think its fair we cast doubt upon a set of ahadīth simply because we don't like the way the translation is phrased. 

 

Sin was the worst thing in the world for the Imam's [a] since they were Representatives of God. So yeah, the language used doesn't surprise me at all. You should see what they [as] had to say about the Ghulat if you think these narration's are 'vulgar' and filled with 'buzzwords'.

Or against the Sufis'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

 

 

To those throwing out random aḥādīth, they should know something which is very elementary in uṣūl ul fiqh and which, of course, you are all ignoring:

 

the ruling (ḥukm) is a function (tābiʿ) of the subject (mawḍūʿ) and not a function (tābiʿ) of the word (lafẓ).

 

Hence, mere citation of those aḥādīth relating to 'chess' does not prove that what we call 'chess' today has the same ruling of what was called 'chess' over a millennium ago.

Those who say playing chess is no longer ḥarām would accuse you, with reason, of equivocating.

 

This sort of ḥadīth-spouting reasoning is no different from that shown by the cruder Akhbārīs who think citing aḥādīth that say 'ijtihād' is ḥarām is sufficient to prove that ijtihād is ḥarām, and therefore all the Uṣuliyyīn - including all the marājiʿ today and for the last two centuries - are committing what is ḥarām.

The logical absurdity of that style of reasoning should be apparent, should one give it adequate reflection.

 

 

I invite any individual who is interested to understand better to PM me if they so wish.

 

 

(wasalam)

Most Maraji' say it is haram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it really isn't. And again, you're using these terms "old purpose" or "original definition" as if to imply that the nature of the game was meant for gambling and the historical evidence indicates that since the game's development in India, that it never was really used as a gambling instrument at all, but much more originally as an educational instrument. Even when it came to the west, it's purpose was much more for recreation and education than it ever was gambling. So your using these terms as if to imply it was developed and spread with gambling chiefly in mind just makes you look ignorant, brother.

This doesn't really mean anything since many, many hadith are false and there are many hadith which say many many things and many more of them can be interpreted in several ways. The mere number of hadith attesting to a so-called fact does not indeed, make it fact. And obviously these many many hadith of which you speak are not enough convince all maraji of the same conclusion. So your point right now is pretty moot at the moment.

I don't think anyone says they are false in fact they are probably reliable and sahih in many cases. Creating doubt is in no way sufficient against proof from the religious resources. If your certain they are weak bring them all and disprove their isnad. The fact that ayatollah sistani says chess and a couple other games by name are haram indicates authentic proof for that.

Except it really isn't. And again, you're using these terms "old purpose" or "original definition" as if to imply that the nature of the game was meant for gambling and the historical evidence indicates that since the game's development in India, that it never was really used as a gambling instrument at all, but much more originally as an educational instrument. Even when it came to the west, it's purpose was much more for recreation and education than it ever was gambling. So your using these terms as if to imply it was developed and spread with gambling chiefly in mind just makes you look ignorant, brother.

This doesn't really mean anything since many, many hadith are false and there are many hadith which say many many things and many more of them can be interpreted in several ways. The mere number of hadith attesting to a so-called fact does not indeed, make it fact. And obviously these many many hadith of which you speak are not enough convince all maraji of the same conclusion. So your point right now is pretty moot at the moment.

I meant the definition in 'urf the game took by its usage for gambling. Edited by Rohani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All here: chill a bit.

The two sides are not talking about the same thing:
-opponent's opinion: Chess is haram, because it is the same thing that the Imams were talking about 1000 years and it has not changed its essence(same figures, black-wite, game for deciding destiny of others/kingdom), even without betting

-pro's opinion: it is not same chess of 1000 and more years ago; the Imams forbid it because they saw it as a betting tool, etc.

 

So talking about two different things?!

We have bigger problems today than chess being halal and haram, in those times the biggest problems were the kings from inside, today's challenge is that Muslim's are in the defence from outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

 

 

To those throwing out random aḥādīth, they should know something which is very elementary in uṣūl ul fiqh and which, of course, you are all ignoring:

 

the ruling (ḥukm) is a function (tābiʿ) of the subject (mawḍūʿ) and not a function (tābiʿ) of the word (lafẓ).

 

Hence, mere citation of those aḥādīth relating to 'chess' does not prove that what we call 'chess' today has the same ruling of what was called 'chess' over a millennium ago.

Those who say playing chess is no longer ḥarām would accuse you, with reason, of equivocating.

 

This sort of ḥadīth-spouting reasoning is no different from that shown by the cruder Akhbārīs who think citing aḥādīth that say 'ijtihād' is ḥarām is sufficient to prove that ijtihād is ḥarām, and therefore all the Uṣuliyyīn - including all the marājiʿ today and for the last two centuries - are committing what is ḥarām.

The logical absurdity of that style of reasoning should be apparent, should one give it adequate reflection.

 

 

I invite any individual who is interested to understand better to PM me if they so wish.

 

 

(wasalam)

 

Akbarism seems all the rage these days.

 

Also, hadith are tricky business and have a history of being pulled out of thin air quite conveniently when someone needs something to justify a ruling or doctrine, that's why there's so many of them and so many more which contradict each other. Not that I don't believe in having recourse to all the different sources of hadith, but when it comes to these more general collections of sayings compiled by scholars with the intention of promoting a particular legal view, it's really not enough to prove your point by pulling narrations found in books from the 17th century which happen to say what you want them to say. Like I said, there are many hadith which say many things and many more which can be interpreted in several different ways. That's why we must also have recourse to and examine as many of the different present or historical jurist positions and the reasoning behind their arguments (if they have given them) as we can.

 

I honestly take anything coming out of Bihar al-Anwar or other such books with a certain grain of salt and am mindful of scholarly biases in quoting anything from them. I think a lot of hadith, even those many would consider sahih, don't stand under the objective standards of modern historical scholarship.

 

I don't think its fair we cast doubt upon a set of ahadīth simply because we don't like the way the translation is phrased. 

 

Sin was the worst thing in the world for the Imam's [a] since they were Representatives of God. So yeah, the language used doesn't surprise me at all. You should see what they [as] had to say about the Ghulat if you think these narration's are 'vulgar' and filled with 'buzzwords'. 

 

 Language is very important since people have a consistency in the way they talk and the way they write. There are entire fields of scientific study devoted to these things, you know, where people's job is to identify people, places, time periods, etc. by their speech patterns, vocabulary or writing style, and can even pinpoint differences that exist and only last in a particular ten year time span.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...