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

Mujtahid Fatwas Vs. Imam Hadiths: Chess

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Nice, you found 3 people who have done this. Now try to find if the following maraaja' have contradicted any reliable ahaadeeth' from Ahlulbaayt -

Sayyed Alee' al-Seestani (h.a)

Shaykh Waheed al-Khoraasaanee' (h.a)

Sayyed Saadiq al-Sheerazi (h.a)

Sayyed Saadiq al-Rouhanee' (h.a)

Shaykh Basheer al-Najafee' (h.a)

Sayyid Sa'eed al-Hakeem (h.a)

Shaykh Is'haaq al-Fayadh (h.a)

 

 

 

 

به گزارش پايگاه اطلاع رساني ايت الله وحيد خراساني در استفتاء امده است : ايا بازي شطرنج جايز است ؟ پاسخ معظم له به شرح زير است : 

در صورتي که برد و باخت مالي باشد حرام است . و در صورتي که برد و باخت مالي نباشد بنا بر احتياط واجب اکيد حرام است ، و زماني برد و با خت نيست که قرار نباشد چيزي به برنده بدهند و فقط بازي کردن باشد

 

Learn farsi or get someone to translate that for you. Ayatollah Wahid Khorasani does not say its haram when there is no gambling involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Those fuqaha who consider it halal to play chess today (seems like its the majority of them) say that in the ahadith while chess has been mentioned, it is the mawdhoo of it that has been prohibited (gambling, it being a tool of gambling etc.) Meaning, the lafz was doing dalalah on a specific mawdhoo at that time. Since today the mawdhoo has been changed (chess is no longer seen as a gambling tool), thus there is no longer any reason why it would be considered haraam.

 

The halal of Muhammad (pbuh) is halal and the haram is haram till the Day of Judgement. That is, gambling was haram and will remain haram till the day of judgement. The mawdhoo at that time was haram and will remain haram till the Day of Judgement.

 

For those who can read and understand Farsi, this is a very decent read: مبانی فقهی بازی با شطرنج از نگاه آیه اللّه سید احمد خوانساری

 

It discusses the views and reasoning of Ayatullah Ahmed Khonsari - one of the first individuals (if not the first) to give a ruling on chess being permissible in relevant amount of detail. He casted doubt even over the notion that it is impermissible to play with a tool that is considered a gambling tool, but without gambling.

 

Instead of just mentioning narrations in an attempted refutation, a better way to go about refuting rulings and fatwas would be to determine the reasoning and istidlaal that has been used by the fuqaha to arrive at a ruling and then refute those instead and use these ahadith as supplementary ammunition. Most people are smart enough to not just take narrations on face-value in order to derive a conclusion, especially those that have to do with jurisprudence.

 

Wassalam

So basically, they used personal opinion to say that the mawdhoo' of the hadiths is the fact that it was a gambling tool back then. Is there even one hadith that mentions gambling as the reason for it being haram? In the narrations, chess is haram. (Very prohibited in fact, not any small sin). If there was an exception to that ruling, then why did the other maraji' such as Sayed Sistani and Sayed Shirazi not give the exception. It becomes clear that there is one side taking their ijtihad and opinion over the clear orders of our prophet(saw) and the imams(as). 

 

 

From Zararah Bin Aieen who said: Abu Ja'far said to me: 'O Zararah! Beware of the people of analogy in religion, for they have avoided the knowledge of what was assigned to them and entered into hair-splitting of matters, They interpreted the Akhbaar (Hadeeth) as they like and assigned lies to Allah(azwj)....

WASAAIL AL SHIA - 33193

 

NAHJ UL BALAGAH – SAYING NO. 182

Imam Ali(as) said: "If two opposite theories are propagated, one will be wrong."

 

So, brother, you are saying that their argument is that the mawdhoo' of the narrations is gambling being the reason of its prohibition. This is an opinion and a false interpretation of the akhbar. Two different claims, or theories, are being propagated, one is false. And we all know the hadith "It would be an evil for you to say something you have not heard from us". If they(as) never gave an exception, and our ahadith are all very criticizing of chess, and all of them prohibit chess, then it's only an opinion to say it is halal. Imam Ja'afar al-Sadiq(as) said: "Whatsoever that does not come out from this Household is void". 

Edited by robbenmessi1010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe you missed the fact that Muhammad(saw)'s halal is halal until judgement day, and his haram is haram till judgement day. +Everything we need has been mentioned in Quran and Sunnah. Chess is mentioned clearly, and it's prohibition is not only about it being related to gambling. Our top classical scholars all said it was forbidden, but today we are seeing a new form of ijtihad emerge which can give a twist to even the clearest of ahadith. 

 

Maybe you missed the fact things are halal and haram within certain set boundaries. If you change the boundaries then you have changed teh circumstances. This is why you go to qualified people to ascertain the issue. You obviously do not understand that language evolves over time.

 

What was considered 'chess' 1400 years ago might not be 'chess' as we understand it today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol this ridiculous ijtihad has no boundaries, does it?

 

Its not Ijtehad. Its language. Thats why you need historians and language experts to understand what is being said and in what context.

 

Just to give you an example that might help you undertand. Think about the word 'Maula' and the volumes written in debate about this word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

Br.robbenmessi,aql and opinion are different things.I think u misunderstood the conception of ijtihad, like I mentioned before.

According to u, we don't need 'ulama, so why do u mention Sayyed Sistani h and S.Shirazi?Because their ijtihad suits your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Akhbarism to Shia faith is like Salafism to Sunni faith. When the hadiths are analysed, the time, the conditions of the people etc. should be studied together. The reasons of hadiths, the adressees of the hadiths, and all that. If you don't do it while applying hadiths, you might end up returning to the cultures of the past. The reason we are called usulis and not akhbaris is that we get the essence, the reasons of the Hadiths and we apply it in a new context. This is called interpretation. But the supposition on the interpretation being out of desire is false. It is interpretation out of reasoning-logic.

 

And the matters of music and chess is like that. Without focusing on the conditions of the people that time, (e.g. music always being played in haram gatherings, chess being played with bets, and etc.) one might equate himself with the adressees of the hadith that time, thus he might make mistake. I remember, not long ago, I was talking to a salafi online, he explained me why "images are banned" through sunni hadiths. And I said, even if the hadiths are true, he is equating himself with the ex-idolworshippers of that time. Of course an ex-idolworhipper would be suggested to not have images of any kind, either with the fear of him returning to the old tradition or with the fear of him remembering sad memories all the time. But, we can't ban everyone images. It would be wrong especially when in Quran, Prophet Soleiman is mentioned to order jinnkind to paint and sculpture for him. So, as you see, one needs to study the time and conditions of people when analysing hadiths. Why and to whom the Prophet and Imams said such things. Otherwise, we would be moving and adapting ourselves to the conditions of the past, not the vice-versa.

 

I hope I make sense. ma salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Akhbarism to Shia faith is like Salafism to Sunni faith. When the hadiths are analysed, the time, the conditions of the people etc. should be studied together. The reasons of hadiths, the adressees of the hadiths, and all that. If you don't do it while applying hadiths, you might end up returning to the cultures of the past. The reason we are called usulis and not akhbaris is that we get the essence, the reasons of the Hadiths and we apply it in a new context. This is called interpretation. But the supposition on the interpretation being out of desire is false. It is interpretation out of reasoning-logic.

 

And the matters of music and chess is like that. Without focusing on the conditions of the people that time, (e.g. music always being played in haram gatherings, chess being played with bets, and etc.) one might equate himself with the adressees of the hadith that time, thus he might make mistake. I remember, not long ago, I was talking to a salafi online, he explained me why "images are banned" through sunni hadiths. And I said, even if the hadiths are true, he is equating himself with the ex-idolworshippers of that time. Of course an ex-idolworhipper would be suggested to not have images of any kind, either with the fear of him returning to the old tradition or with the fear of him remembering sad memories all the time. But, we can't ban everyone images. It would be wrong especially when in Quran, Prophet Soleiman is mentioned to order jinnkind to paint and sculpture for him. So, as you see, one needs to study the time and conditions of people when analysing hadiths. Why and to whom the Prophet and Imams said such things. Otherwise, we would be moving and adapting ourselves to the conditions of the past, not the vice-versa.

 

I hope I make sense. ma salam

 

It will never make sense to those with the agenda of trying to prove that Marje play fast and loose with concepts of halal and haram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I remember, not long ago, I was talking to a salafi online, he explained me why "images are banned" through sunni hadiths. And I said, even if the hadiths are true, he is equating himself with the ex-idolworshippers of that time. Of course an ex-idolworhipper would be suggested to not have images of any kind, either with the fear of him returning to the old tradition or with the fear of him remembering sad memories all the time. But, we can't ban everyone images. It would be wrong especially when in Quran, Prophet Soleiman is mentioned to order jinnkind to paint and sculpture for him. 

These hadiths are also in our books also, just so you know. It's about drawing bodies of animals or humans. Prophet Suleiman(as) did not draw living things:

 

محمد بن يعقوب ، عن محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن علي بن الحكم ، عن أبان بن عثمان ، عن أبي العباس ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) في قول الله عزّوجلّ : ( يعملون له ما يشاء من محاريب وتماثيل ) فقال : والله ما هي تماثيل الرجال والنساء ، ولكنها الشجر وشبهه .

Muhammad bin Yakoub, from Muhammad bin Yahya, from Ahmed bin Muhammad, from Ali bin al-Hakam, from Aban bin Uthman, from Abi Abbas, from Abi Abdillah(as) in Allah's words "Fashioning whatsoever he would of worship places and images", he said "By Allah it was not images of men and women, bit it was of tress and their like". 

 

Let's not interpret the verses from opinions. 

According to u, we don't need 'ulama, so why do u mention Sayyed Sistani h and S.Shirazi?

I mentioned them because their fatwas are in conflict to the other maraji' who say it is halal, just to show that there is no real exception given from the imams(as), but that some maraji' gave these fatwas from opinions. Otherwise, most maraji' would have all added that exception. 

 

Because their ijtihad suits your opinion?

Funny how you're calling tens of hadiths an "opinion". 

 

And the matters of music and chess is like that. Without focusing on the conditions of the people that time, (e.g. music always being played in haram gatherings, chess being played with bets, and etc.) one might equate himself with the adressees of the hadith that time, thus he might make mistake. I remember, not long ago, I was talking to a salafi online, he explained me why "images are banned" through sunni hadiths. And I said, even if the hadiths are true, he is equating himself with the ex-idolworshippers of that time. Of course an ex-idolworhipper would be suggested to not have images of any kind, either with the fear of him returning to the old tradition or with the fear of him remembering sad memories all the time. But, we can't ban everyone images. It would be wrong especially when in Quran, Prophet Soleiman is mentioned to order jinnkind to paint and sculpture for him. So, as you see, one needs to study the time and conditions of people when analysing hadiths. Why and to whom the Prophet and Imams said such things. Otherwise, we would be moving and adapting ourselves to the conditions of the past, not the vice-versa.

عن أمير المؤمنين عليه افضل الصلاة والسلام (وينتقم من اهل الفتوى في الدين لما لا يعلمون ، فتعساً لهم ولأتباعهم ، اكان الدين ناقصاً فتمموه ؟ أم كان به عوج فقوموه ؟ أم الناس هموا بالخلاف فأطاعوه ؟ ام أمرهم بالصواب فعصوه؟) عن بيان الائمة عليهم افضل الصلاة والسلام ج3 ص298

Prince of the believers(as) said: "And he shall avenge from the Fatwa issuers(scholars)in religion from what they don't know about, so Woe unto them and who followed them,was religion missing so that they can make it upright?Or was it bent so that they can straighten it? Or did the people ask for what opposes it and agreed to its opposition?Or did it force them to do righteousness so they sinned against it?"

Source: Bayan Al-A'ema A.S V.3 P.298

Edited by robbenmessi1010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@robbenmessi so as one of brothers raised point on pornography how does hadith solve it?

Your porn example is absurd. Are you even sure that there are no hadiths forbidding looking lustfully at images of women?  

 

I can not give an answer to everything. But looking at the picture of women could likely cause the haram act also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not give an answer to everything. But looking at the picture of women could likely cause the haram act also.

You can't give answers? Yes I know hence asked

But you'll sill feel some of your muhadith uncle can ?

I'll glad to hear your opinion since you've no body to ask but yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't give answers? Yes I know hence asked

But you'll sill feel some of your muhadith uncle can ?

Yes, my muhaddith uncle might be able to solve it through hadiths. Obviously I don't have an answer to everything.

 

وفي ) معاني الاخبار ( عن محمد بن الحسن ، عن الصفار ، عن إبنراهيم بن هاشم ، عن محمد [

بن أبي عمير ، عن حمزة بن حمران ، قال : قال أبو عبدالله ) عليه السلام( : إن من أجاب في كل ما يسأل عنه

فهو المجنون .

And in Ma'ani al-akhbar: From Muhammad bin al-hasan, from al-saffar, from Ibrahim bin Hashem, from Muhammad bin Abi Omair, from Hamzah bin Hamran, he said: Abi Abdillah(aS) said: "Whoever answer everything asked to him, he is insane! ". 

 

وقال ) عليه السلام ( : من ترك قول لا أدري اصيبت مقاتله

And he(as) said: "One who avoids saying "I don't know" will face difficulties". 

 

وقال ) عليه السلام ( : لا ورع كالوقوف عند الشبهة.

And he said(as): "Nothing is better than abstainment during confusion". 

 

 

I'll glad to hear your opinion since you've no body to ask but yourself.

That's not true. I do ask others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

So basically, they used personal opinion to say that the mawdhoo' of the hadiths is the fact that it was a gambling tool back then. Is there even one hadith that mentions gambling as the reason for it being haram? In the narrations, chess is haram. (Very prohibited in fact, not any small sin). If there was an exception to that ruling, then why did the other maraji' such as Sayed Sistani and Sayed Shirazi not give the exception. It becomes clear that there is one side taking their ijtihad and opinion over the clear orders of our prophet(saw) and the imams(as). 

 

 

No. Basically that is what they understood from those narrations when they read it.

 

Can you prove that your understanding is correct (you taking it literally) and their's is incorrect? Can you prove that the word chess is doing dalalah on anything and everything that is called chess today? If I start calling the game of soccer as chess today, will that also be haram? If the world starts calling the game of golf as chess today or a few centuries from now, will that also be haram? Even today chess itself has thousand of variants, all of them with different names and there are a few that aren't even called chess or have the word chess in them or even use the same board or rules (such as Weak, Balbo's Game, Troy, Apocalypse etc.) are these all haram? Why or why not? Be careful, don't use your aql too much.

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've no problem asking yourself to others.

But you've problem others asking others.

No. You have a misunderstanding. 

I am not saying do not ask others. We must refer to narrators of hadith and go by the hadith they narrate, and not to take a fatwa of a mujtahid over the words of the infallibles. Everyone must acquire religious knowledge. These are the orders of the imams(as). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. Basically that is what they understood from those narrations when they read it.

The orders of the masoomeen(as) are clear in the issue of chess. No ijtihad can change their(as) orders of staying away from chess no matter what. 

 

 

 

 

Can you prove that your understanding is correct (you taking it literally) and their's is incorrect? Can you prove that the word chess is doing dalalah on anything and everything that is called chess today? 

This depends on what you call proof. If the proof is the tens upon tens(or more?) of prohibition orders on the game of chess, then I could prove it quite easily. If they don't want to take their(as) orders in this issue literally, then that is their problem. The real question should be: Can they prove that their understanding is correct? Is there a single narration telling us that the reason for the prohibition of chess is that it is a gambling tool? Then why was so much emphasis made on this game specifically? The word 'chess' refers to the game chess we all know, that board game with the units and all. Their words are very clear, a real muwali will not twist their orders and give exceptions from no where. 

 

 

If I start calling the game of soccer as chess today, will that also be haram? If the world starts calling the game of golf as chess today or a few centuries from now, will that also be haram? 

Soccer is not chess. Chess is that board game which the imams spoke of that we all know. Giving it a different name changes nothing, if it is the exact same game. 

 

 Even today chess itself has thousand of variants, all of them with different names and there are a few that aren't even called chess or have the word chess in them or even use the same board or rules (such as Weak, Balbo's Game, Troy, Apocalypse etc.) are these all haram? Why or why not? Be careful, don't use your aql too much.

If these games aren't chess, then you can't give chess verdicts on those games, despite the similarity. That would be qiyas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mujtahid are also muhadith

That's a very large claim. I will say this for the third time now:

 

Al-Hassan ibn Muhammad has narrated from Ahmad ibn Ishaq from Su‘dan

ibnMuslim from Mu‘awiya ibn ‘Ammar who has said the following: “Once, I asked

(Imam) abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, ‘There is a man who

recounts your Hadith and spreads them among people and ties them to their hearts

and the hearts of your followers. Also there is a worshipper among your followers

who does not narrate your Hadith. Which of these two people is better?’ The Imam

replied, ‘The one who narrates our Hadith and ties them up to the hearts of our

followers is better than seventy thousand worshipers.’”

Al Kafi H 52, Ch. 2, h9

Question: Do the mujtahids recount their hadith and spread them among the people and tie them to their hearts and the hearts of their followers?

 

I think you know the answer to that: Obviously, no. Mujtahids do not bring the Shias towards ahadith, and they do not tie the ahadith to their hearts, at all. Quite the contrary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've personally problem answering one question I've asked and you expect mujtahid to personally serve you and tie hadith to your heart?

Do you have any idea how many questions they might be getting?

As for tie hadith to heart I've seen ulema read from hadith everything right from masail to masaib. Where did you get an idea they don't?

I've seen them run schools and universities where they teach back what they've learnt? What more tie to heart you expect? Do you expect them to personally come home like pizza delivery? And get tie to heart feedback forms filled?

Exaggeration in any form is bad.

What your expecting is ideal not practical.

I'm sure we've no differences except what isn't clear.

You seem like people who have stopped going to school because after revaluation of an answer sheet you got more marks, hence teachers are wrong, hence school is wrong, hence study not.

You've for minimal of doubts disowned the larger benefits a system provides. Use aql here. Find from ulema if they are tying hadith to hearts or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ so the methods Of those who don't allow chess are not sound in knowledge or maybe they changed sharia?

This hanafi style ijtehad can pretty much change any rule and it will still okay because both right and wrong are right.

Imam Ali a.s said: among Two opposing either one is right or both are wrong.

Bravo brother

Edited by siraatoaliyinhaqqun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very large claim. I will say this for the third time now:

 

Al-Hassan ibn Muhammad has narrated from Ahmad ibn Ishaq from Su‘dan

ibnMuslim from Mu‘awiya ibn ‘Ammar who has said the following: “Once, I asked

(Imam) abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, ‘There is a man who

recounts your Hadith and spreads them among people and ties them to their hearts

and the hearts of your followers. Also there is a worshipper among your followers

who does not narrate your Hadith. Which of these two people is better?’ The Imam

replied, ‘The one who narrates our Hadith and ties them up to the hearts of our

followers is better than seventy thousand worshipers.’”

Al Kafi H 52, Ch. 2, h9

Question: Do the mujtahids recount their hadith and spread them among the people and tie them to their hearts and the hearts of their followers?

 

I think you know the answer to that: Obviously, no. Mujtahids do not bring the Shias towards ahadith, and they do not tie the ahadith to their hearts, at all. Quite the contrary. 

 

if you go through other ahadith likewise, from the moment I foretell what would happen.

translating a hadith and understanding it depends on some factors, for instance you need to know the situation when the hadith is revealed. you can not stick with the words and claim others are wrong and they're heading a wrong path. even great mujtahids who has studied prophet and his household's words for more than two decades, didn't have the same claim.

brother mujtahids do recount their hadith and spread them among the people.

just to let you know a historic event: for the first time it was Sheikh Toosi who omitted Ahadith from his book Al-nehayah(النهایه فی مجرد الفقه و الفتوی) .  He didn't turn against them and their words but he tried to spread the meaning of the words. for sure ahlul-bayt are happy and satisfied with his act. and there is no way to complain about it as we see other mujtahids has followed this path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

^ so the methods Of those who don't allow chess are not sound in knowledge or maybe they changed sharia?

 

It isn't a competition for us to determine whose method is more sound or not or who is correct and incorrect. I am a muqallid of Syed Sistani and he considers it haram mutlaqan. The point of my post was for the OP to realize that there are two conclusions derived by the fuqaha and he is in absolutely no position to determine which is more correct. Furthermore I was trying to point out how deviated his methodology is as I clearly showed him that the word Shatranj didn't even mean the exact same thing as it does today. Yes, a faqeeh on the other hand very well has the right to inform his colleagues who are also faqeeh (alive or dead) that they are or were wrong and their istidlaal was incorrect - and that is exactly what they do in Dars ul-Kharij.

 

Can you on the other hand even name me some fuqaha - preferably maraajai - who became well known in the last decade or so (therefore they were most probably born 1950 onward) that do not allow chess mutlaqan (without even an ihtiyaat)?

 

Some other rulings I found:

 

  • Sayyid Surkhi Hasani:
 اذا كان ذلك لتنميه الفكر والعقل فلا اشكال فيها, والله العالم
 
  • Hashemi Shahroudi:
لا يجوز ان كان من آلات القمار او كان اللعب مع الرهن
هر وسيله قمار اگر از عنوان وسيله قمار بودن خارج شود بازى با آن بدون برد و باخت جايز مى شود. وظاهراً امروزه شطرنج چنين است
 
  • Hoseini Nasab:
Game of chess without any gambling is permissible
 
  • Muhammad Neikunaam:
بازى با آلاتى كه مخصوص قمار است؛ هرچند برد و باخت نداشته باشد، حرام است و در غير آن مورد نيز با شرط برد و باخت، حرام مى‏شود. البته، ممكن است چيزى در زمانى آلت قمار باشد و در زمانى نباشد؛ مانند: شطرنج كه امروزه آلت قمار به شمار نمى‏آيد و پاسور نيز اگر تنها حالت بازى داشته باشد، مانند حالت مرسوم ميان كودكان، اشكال ندارد؛ هرچند بازى قماربازها با پاسور، قمار مى‏باشد و حرام است
 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Did any of our top classical scholars have such views?

 

You are unbelievable. In case you didn't realize, we are in the 21st century - I feel your question is pointless at this point of the discussion and why do you care about what view the scholars had. But in any case, they (the classical scholars) had other views which you probably would be against regardless. So using them as a measuring stick for anything - particularly ahkaam - doesn't do you any good.

 

I am sorry to say, but I sincerely believe you are clearly not fit to have this discussion. I rest my case after my previous 2 posts.

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are unbelievable. In case you didn't realize, we are in the 21st century - I feel your question is pointless at this point of the discussion and why do you care about what view the scholars had. But in any case, they (the classical scholars) had other views which you probably would be against regardless. So using them as a measuring stick for anything - particularly ahkaam - doesn't do you any good.

I was asking what our top classical scholars said about this issue considering the equation that the halal and haram remains that until judgement day. "We are in the 21st century" shows you don't believe in that very strongly, but that the shari'i rules clearly said by the imams(as) can evolve and can somehow change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asking what our top classical scholars said about this issue considering the equation that the halal and haram remains that until judgement day. "We are in the 21st century" shows you don't believe in that very strongly, but that the shari'i rules clearly said by the imams(as) can evolve and can somehow change. 

 

I think you are confused. Brother Ibn Al Husain has written very beautifully about it, you would best to read what he has said again, as he has already answered these points.

 

Just a question to you, we have many ahadith about avoiding what harms us, so things that were not labelled as haram, now are with the advent of knowledge are labelled as haram, like smoking. What do you think about that? do you think smoking is halal? 

Edited by iraqi_shia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. You have a misunderstanding. 

I am not saying do not ask others. We must refer to narrators of hadith and go by the hadith they narrate, and not to take a fatwa of a mujtahid over the words of the infallibles. Everyone must acquire religious knowledge. These are the orders of the imams(as). 

 

 

Yes, everyone must acquire knowledge to the degree that they can. But not the level of finding hadith, chain of narrators, authenticity etc etc. That is just a silly thing to ask of people. Mujtahids go to school for 30-40 years and still have difficulty deriving certain fatwas, then you expect my 70 year old grandma to acquire knowledge? or a man that works 17 hours a day to feed for his family, to spend the remaining 7 hours studying Al-Kafi? Or those that are illiterate and have no option to learn?

 

Your scenario is ideal, but not realistic. Everyone should know medicine too, that way we wouldn't have to go to the doctor, but in a real world where Islam was sent to, it won't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mujtahids go to school for 30-40 years and still have difficulty deriving certain fatwas

Mujtahids go to school and study stuff, most of which has not been taught by the imams(as). Mantiq, Usul al-Fiqh, 'Ilm al-Rijal, Falsafa, 'Irfan. None of these have been taught by the imams(as). 

 

H , Ch. 101, h 1

Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus from ibn

Muskan from Muhammad ibn Muslim who has said the following. "I heard abu Ja‘far (a.s.)

say, ‘No one of the people has anything true with him, or correct nor does anyone of the

people judge with truth except by means of what is made available from Ahl al-Bayt

(members of the family of Prophet Muhammad). When the affairs grow branches and scatter

chaotically the mistake would be from them and the correct solution from Ali (a.s.)."

H , Ch. 101, h 3

A number of our people has narrated Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Washsha’ from

Tha‘laba ibn Maymun from ibn abu Mayam who has said the following. "Abu Ja‘far (a.s.)

said to Salma ibn Kuhayl and al-Hakam ibn ‘Utayba, ‘Easternize or westernize you two will

find not find correct knowledge except that which has come to light through Ahl al-Bayt

(members of the family of Prophet Muhammad)."

H , Ch. 101, h 4

Muhammad ibn Yahya from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from al-Nadr

ibn Suwayd from Yahya al-Halabi from Mu‘alla ibn ‘Uthman who has said the following. "

Abu Basir said to me, ‘Al-Hakam ibn ‘Utayba is of those people about whom Allah has said,

"Some people say, "We believe in God and the Day of Judgment," but they are not true

believers." (2:8) Al-Hakam may easternize or westernize, he, by Allah, will not find the true

knowledge in no other source except from Ahl al-Bayt to whom Jibril came (with

knowledge)."

H , Ch. 101, h 6

....Whatever knowledge would come from them is true and correct and whatever comes from other sources are not genuine."

 

So, they are being taught topics that are not true religious knowledge and non-genuine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

What do u think the Prophet saas taught Imam Ali as and he to his sons and so forth.What is the duty of Imam Ja'far as and the other Imams as?Teaching Islam and its rulings.

The Imams as also didn't teach someone how to drive a car, so is this also not "what the Imams told us"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

What do u think the Prophet saas taught Imam Ali as and he to his sons and so forth.What is the duty of Imam Ja'far as and the other Imams as?Teaching Islam and its rulings.

The Imams as also didn't teach someone how to drive a car, so is this also not "what the Imams told us"?

Driving a car is not religion. We are speaking of teaching things to mujtahids, which themselves are not religious topics and have been condemned by the imams(as), like falsafa, 'irfan, ilm rijal..etc. 

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...