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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

 Ayatullah Jamil Hamud al Amili's website


Third Question: The Prophet said: "I leave behind among you 'al Thaqalayn' (the two weighty/important things), the book of Allah and the ahlulbayt, so that if you hold onto both then you will never be misguided after me.". Which is the 'thaql al akbar' (greater of the two weighty/important things), Qur'an or the ahlulbayt (as)?
 

Answer: No Shia source contains the words "one of them is greater than the other". This addition is only found in mukhalif (non-Shia) sources. In non-Shia sources it is reported from Zayb . Arqam that the Prophet (pbuh) said: "I leave behind among you that which if you hold onto then you will never be misguided after me. One of them is greater than the other: The book of Allah, the outstretched rope from the Earth to the Heaven; and my ahlulbayt. So be careful of how you treat them after me, for they will not separate from each other until they return to the fountain (of Paradise, on judgement day)."
 
This hadith is reported by Shaikh Sadooq, in Kamaluddin Page 234, but from aami (non-Shia) sources as follows: Told us Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. ahmad b. Yunus, who said: Told us Al Abbas b. al Fadal, who reported from Abi Zar'a, who reported from Kathir b. Yahya abi Malik, who reported from Abi  Awanah, who reported from al 'Amash, who reported from Habib b. abi Thabit, who reported from Aaamir b. Wathilah, who reported from Zayd b. Arqm that he said: "When the Prophet (pbuh) returned from his last Hajj, he came upon Ghadir khum. He ordered stoppage by the large trees, so camps were setup thereunder. He then said: Please understand that Allah has called for me and I have accepted the call (i.e. my time of death is very close). I leave behind among you the thaqalayn, one of them is greater than the other: The book of Allah, and my ahlulbayt. So be careful of how you treat them after me, for they will not separate from each other until they return to the fountain (of Paradise, on judgement day)."
 
Shaikh Sadooq also reported this hadith in "Uyun Akhbar ar Reda" without sanad, and it seems that it is also from aami (non-Shia) sources as it was the habit of Shaikh Sadooq to often quote from non-Shia books. He also reported this hadith in another section of his book Kamaluddin, from the following chain: Isa b. Yunus al Waqifi from Zakariya b. abi Zaida, from Atiyah al Ufi, from Abi Saeed al Khudri. Zakariya and Atiya of this chain are aami (non-Shia) narrators.
 
Regardless of all of this, even if we were to accept these ahadith which indicate that "one of them is greater than the other", there would still remain the question as to which of them is actually greater than the other (as the aforementioned aami ahadith do not pinpoint which is greater of the two), is it the Qur'an or the ahlulbayt? What becomes apparent, by additional evidences (from rest of the ahadith) is that it is the ahlulbayt, as they are the only ones who interpret the Qur'an as per its actual reality with regards to the complexities found therein; in terms of verses which may be brief, ambiguous, abrogating (of other verses), abrogated (by other verses), general, specific, unconditional and conditional, for none of these can be correctly understood without referring to them. As is reported from Imam Ali (as): "The Qur'an is the silent book, whereas I am the speaking (living and talking) book of Allah. The silent book does not provide benefit without being accompanied by the speaking book.". It is also narrated that Imam Ali (as) said: "I am the speaking (living and talking) speech of Allah".
 

Some people have interpreted the 'thaql al asghar' (the lesser of the two weighty things) to be the ahlulbayt and the 'thaql al akbar' to be the Qur'an, and have claimed that this is due to the consensus of the ahadith towards this meaning. But this is contrary to the reality, since no such hadith is found in our sources via a shia tariq (intermediaries/chain of transmission), they are only found in our sources via mukhalif (non-Shia) turuq (chains of transmission).

 

http://realtashayyu.blogspot.be/2014/07/quran-vs-ahadith.html#comment-form

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Bhooka is still around? I personally don't have a problem with him, his actions are sincere even though it makes others angry. His posts are very informative also.

(wasalam)

Edited by Abe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(Salam)

(Bismillah)

I believe Jawadi Amuli missed the Hadith that is found in al-Mufīd's al-Amālī, Majlis # 16, Hadith #3, which calls the Ahl al-Bayt the lesser weighty thing. The primary narrator is Ma`rūf al-Kharrabooz, one of the Ashāb al-Ijmā of the Shias according to al-Kashī

(Salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Rationally, it would not make any sense what so ever if one was greater than the other. The quran cannot be above the ahlulbayt. For the quran can be interpreted in any way, and it is not a literal book. Also, without the ahlulbayt, the quran is meaningless, for their is no living example of following such a book and how Al-Islam is applied in our lives. Allah could have just given us a book if it was all that was needed, or Allah could have given us just the ahlulbayt, but He brought the two together. On what basis is one more or less important than the other? Also how would one explain its mutawatir in wording of "holding on to them simultaneously"?

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

(salam)
(bismillah)

I believe Jawadi Amuli missed the Hadith that is found in al-Mufīd's al-Amālī, Majlis # 16, Hadith #3, which calls the Ahl al-Bayt the lesser weighty thing. The primary narrator is Ma`rūf al-Kharrabooz, one of the Ashāb al-Ijmā of the Shias according to al-Kashī

(salam)

 

For a second I thought it was a response by Jawadi Amuli as well, but it isn't. It's a response by some Sheikh Muhammad Jameel Hamud al-Amuli (don't know who that is). I actually just came across this on Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli's website yesterday:

 

امّا خود عترت گرچه در حديثِ قَطْعيِ ثقلين، به عنوان ثَقَل اصغر ياد شده‏اند، ليكن همان‏طوري كه در رسالهٴ جداگانه مبسوطاً بحث شد،[58] در نشئهٴ وحدت، هرگز حقيقت انسانِ كاملِ معصوم، از حقيقت قرآن مجيد جدا نيست و به هيچ‏وجه نمي‏توان اثبات نمود كه قرآن يعني كلام خدا بر حقيقت خليفهٴ تامّ الهي كه آن هم كلمهٴ علياي خداستْ، بالاتر است؛ چنان‏كه فقيه نامور اماميه، كاشف الغطاء(رحمه‏الله) به گوشه‏اي از اين مبحث اشاره نمود[59]؛ نه به اوج آن؛ چون تحرير چنان مطلب سميك، رفيع، عريق، انيق، عميق در دسترس چنين فقيهي هم نيست: «لو كان لبان». به هر تقدير، بحث كنوني پيرامون بررسي قرآن و عترت نيست؛ بلكه دربارهٴ قرآن و سنّت مي‏باشد.

 

Source: تفسير قرآن به قرآن و بررسي اعتبار سنّت در تفسير

 

Basically he is saying that the Etrat has been remembered as the Thaql al-Asghar in hadith al-Thaqalayn. However he then slightly explains in philosophical terms that in reality both of them are at the same level. Footnote 58 is saying that he has discussed this in greater detail in علي بن موسي الرضا والقرآن الحكيم.

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

^Interesting, any source we can refer to? I believe that footnote 58 is referring to this book of Ayt Jawadi Amuli: قرآن حکیم از منظر امام رضا (The link is just a synopsis of it, not the actual book and it seems that it may be available in Arabic). It mentions a few lines about this topic and says that this has been discussed in the book:

 
يكى از بهترين زمينه هايى كه مى توان به اين هماهنگى و وحدت ثقل اكبر، يعنى قرآن و ثقل اكبر*، يعنى عترت كه اين تفاوت هم به لحاظ اظهار و اثبات است و در باطن و ثبوت هر دو امر يك ترازند و با تساوى دو كفه قرآن و ولايت ميزان بودن هر دو آشكار مى شود كه تحقيق اين مطلب نيز در اين كتاب آمده ، راه يافت ، اين است كه قرآن را از زبان عترت و عترت را از زبان قرآن بيابيم ، گر چه هر يك براى معرفى خود منبع مستقلى هستند

 

*I believe that is a typo, it should say Asghar.

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)
(bismillah)

(salam)

 

^Interesting, any source we can refer to? 

Here is Kamaal al-Haydari's lengthy discussion on Hadith al-Thaqalayn, he starts talking about the al-Akbar and al-Asghar, he quotes from Shee`ah books. Click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfhpT9VGEY0#t=923

 

(salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Quran is the word of Allah, ahlulbayt are its gaurdains and example in a human form.

Yea but the Ahlulbayt are the walking talking qurans. What they say and how they act are for the will of Allah. Without them there Quran is essentially useless. How does that make the Quran more weightier or the Ahlulbayt less?

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

You seem very inconsistent when it comes to studying religion. The infallibles explained things in that way, what gives you the right to question what they said? 

 

Religion is not always in agreement with the rationality of a fallible guy on ShiaChat. May things in Islam can seem irrational, can you reject it all outright? Of course not. (Unless you would take it to that level, then that isn't Shi`a Islam, it's PureEthics' innovated sugarcoated portrayal of "God's perfect system" which was infused into your brain via the 1000s of Rajabali lectures). 

 

(wasalam)

 

 How am I inconsistent? You dont make any sense. What gives me the right? Allah. He gave me an aql and I can question what ever I want. I do not accept what ever is thrown at me, and I surely believe the deen of Allah is a rational deen, in which everything has a reason and understanding (Up to how much we can actually understand). It isnt the deen that is reasonless, it is our limited and ignorant minds that are weak of understanding the plan of Allah. If Islam was a religion where you foolishly accept anything, there wouldnt have been the need of 124000 prophets, nor their miracles, nor scriptures, nor sunnah. Heck, even Allah Himself doesnt expect us to just believe in Him because He just says so. Why is the quran full of his attributes and descriptions?  Your detestable comments and Ad Hominem remarks just prove how low your level of intellect and understanding is. And we question why other religions believe in what they believe (especially sunnis)... Instead of trying to insult me, answer my question. Oh and lets not jump into foolish conclusions buddy. I never said I dont accept it, nor have I ever stated I dont accept something I dont understand.

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Yea but the Ahlulbayt are the walking talking qurans. What they say and how they act are for the will of Allah. Without them there Quran is essentially useless. How does that make the Quran more weightier or the Ahlulbayt less?

They are the walking talking Quran, thus they are from Quran. And Quran is independent from them. Quran is the word of Allah. If someone can't interpret it doesn't mean its useless. Its still the word of Allah with gazillions of secrets in it.

Are the gaurdains or the guarded weighter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

They are the walking talking Quran, thus they are from Quran. And Quran is independent from them. Quran is the word of Allah. If someone can't interpret it doesn't mean its useless. Its still the word of Allah with gazillions of secrets in it.

Are the gaurdains or the guarded weighter?

 

Considering extremists kill innocent people because they claim the quran says so, then quran alone can be deadly. For example quranists. They are having a ball game ey? Opening a gay mosque and all cause the quran allows gays supposedly. So who teaches us and interprets the quran for us is very important. Which is why I dont get how one is more weightier than the other.

 

One can argue, there would be no quran if it wasnt for Muhammad A.S in the first place. For Allah brought the quran through him.

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I won't answer anything because if that is how you think, there's no purpose for me to continue on this matter. But just to get some basics covered, answer this: Is it allowed to reject a Sahih Hadith that is odd and hard to swallow? And based on what criteria can you and can you not reject it? I'm waiting for an explanation. 

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I won't answer anything because if that is how you think, there's no purpose for me to continue on this matter. But just to get some basics covered, answer this: Is it allowed to reject a Sahih Hadith that is odd and hard to swallow? And based on what criteria can you and can you not reject it? I'm waiting for an explanation. 

(wasalam)

 

Doesnt matter what it is, from the limited knowledge of rijal that I have, sahih hadiths can be rejected through contradicting other hadith, and contradicting quran, if neither and it is shared with the sunnis, you take the hadith that is furthest from the sunni interpretation, taqiyya, historical chain analysis...

 

 

Because the Prophet of God said so himself. Shouldn't this be enough? 

 

To an extent. Is it against Islam to question and say why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Islam means submission, and being a Muslim essentially means to absolutely submit to the creator and follow his orders without questioning them. This is the essence of Islam. Also such submission should not to be confused with blind faith that the prophet(pbuh) and Imams(AS) condemned. Submitting to Allah(swt) and his divinely appointed representatives means after we have discovered the truth in them, they become a hujjah(proof) for us to follow and submit too. Blind faith on the other hand is done without being convinced that Allah(swt), the prophet(pbuh) and the Imams(AS) possess the absolute truth, and hence absolute submission to them with sincerity and true Iman does not apply in this case.

Moreover, If we truly beleive in Allah(swt), the prophet(PBUH) and the Imams(AS) then we are obliged to follow their orders and commandments even if our limited intellects might perceive some of their judgments to be "irrational" or "illogical" for our 'Aql to accept. Our limited intellect is to weak to understand and comprehend the wisdom behind some of their judgments just as a 6 year old child that is obliged to attend school by their parents is unable to understand the wisdom in going to school to become educated in the future, and similarly from their judgments, that is; Allah's, the prophet's and the Imam's what we might perceive from our limited dimentional lenses to be as "irrational" is not neccesarly the case in reality.

With that being said, when we are informed that the prophet(pbuh) and Imams(as) stated that the Noble Quran is the Thaql Al-Akbar and weighter than themselves, then we are obliged to accept that even if we don't understand why.

Edited by Al-Najashi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ with that logic every faith can justify their own selves as the truth. Sunnis follow what ever Hadith is given simply because Muhammad A.S and his companions said so and they have faith in it. Christians believe Jesus can be god and their books are his word, so they submit to what ever is in it. Get it? Without questioning your beliefs, there is no purpose and no certainty. I find it ironic if I was a non Muslim looking to find the truth or even a Sunni and I asked why I am certain most of you would have complied with an answer. But because I'm a shia, "shhh your going to hell don't question them haraaam just accept it and move along"

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

sahih hadiths can be rejected through contradicting other hadith

What if those other hadiths are not Sahih?

 

and contradicting quran

Which Tafsir book do you use to determine what contradicts the Qur'an? As we all know, it isn't up for anyone to explain from his mind. From what I've seen on other threads, you interpret from the literal translation meaning a lot, not going back to the prophet's or the imam's explanation for it. So....

 

if neither and it is shared with the sunnis, you take the hadith that is furthest from the sunni interpretation

So when you come to a hadith, that doesn't contradict the Qur'an or any other narration, you base it's authenticity on how different it is from Sunni interpretation of it? The Mukhalif view might be backed by the Sunnah, it can't all be wrong. One way to authenticate a tradition from the imams [a.s] is to compare it to the Qur'an and Sunnah of the prophet [s.a.w], if it is in harmony with it, you take, if it is not in harmony with it, you don't take it. 

 

 taqiyya, historical chain analysis...

Since you said that you have limited knowledge of Rijal, I suppose you need to get Hadith gradings from scholars to confirm it's Sihhat. Taqiyyah and study of the narrators is best left for them. Do you refer to the gradings, or do you just pick any hadith you like?

 

(wasalam) Akhi. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I definitely don't conform my beliefs to SC E-Scholars standards, at least accepting any Hadith right away.

Ok, I get that. But do you refer to al-Majlisi and al-Bahbudi's (or others') gradings when deciding to accept or reject hadiths? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Ok, I get that. But do you refer to al-Majlisi and al-Bahbudi's (or others') gradings when deciding to accept or reject hadiths?

I don't examine hadiths. I am not a scholar who has reached the level of ijtihad. I refer to our modern ulemas opinion. I wanna add, some of you on this site are too damn arrogant. While some like Brother Qa'im and Darul Islam, who are the very few that did not leave, are humble and always ready to answer questions you have, not forceful and condescending. If only they posted more... Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Without them there Quran is essentially useless.

1, Is Allah incapable of sending a Quran that is "useless" unless it needs an official interpretation?

2, Why send such a text?

3, "because they claim the quran says so,". They are very very careless. Their claims can be easily refuted by the Quran itself. There is no justification for their actions in the Quran.

If the ahlulbayt say that the Quran is supposed to authenticate their sayings, then how can that be done without attempting to take guidance from the Quran? Your position would be circular and self-refuting. Maybe this is why the Quran is the greater - because it is the authenticator and doesn't need authentication, unlike the ahadith. So perhaps the Quran might not be existentially greater than the Ahlulbayt (i.e. greater in terms of its perfection, and Allah knows better) but it is in terms of guidance. Hadith al-Thaqalayn is speaking in terms of guidance and maybe we should understand the stated greatness within that context.

 

Read this: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/general-al-tawhid/zawahir-al-quran-authority-books-literal-meanings

 

This thread is a reminder that we should not just believe unreliable people.

Edited by Muhammed Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

If you don't examine hadiths, then how can you reject or even question them? That is what I call inconsistency. 

(wasalam)

 

There is no inconsistency if I never rejected them. To question something does not imply to reject it. Technically, my examination, is using the context of the hadith and testing (by questioning it) it to see if everything in the context makes sense. So in that sense I do examine hadiths from that standpoint, I just dont do it by rijal standards, for I am not trying to weaken or reject the hadith.

 

 

1, Is Allah incapable of sending a Quran that is "useless" unless it needs an official interpretation?

 

(salam) brother. I sincerely appreciate your efforts of trying to help make me understand this :)

 

Did you mean to say is Allah capable? I dont quite get the question. I am saying, the significance of the quran lies in the fact that it is brought and explained through the ahlulbayt. Otherwise, why the emphasis on Hadith Taqalyn? If one is more weightier than the other because one can alone be used without the other, then there is an inconsistency with the Hadith Taqalyn, for it implies without the two together you wont stay on the straight path. If the question is, can Allah not send a useless text unless it needs an interpretation? Again, He can, but it woudnt be "guidance" would it? Because the test factor lies with there being a true interpretation, where as in this scenario, there is no need for one and all is therefore lost.

 

 

 

2, Why send such a text?

 

I believe this question depends on the first question which I did not understand properly, maybe.  I may have answered it above.

 

 

 

3, "because they claim the quran says so,". They are very very careless. Their claims can be easily refuted by the Quran itself. There is no justification for their actions in the Quran.

 

But then, you just have two sides interpreting the quran without a true interpretation.We can only go so far with the decisive verses. Their justification comes from the "kill the disbelievers" verse. Our understanding in refuting their claims comes from the basis that we have traditions/context supporting such an argument. In this scenario, they dont believe in context, nor according to the argument at hand, there would be no need for the ahlulbayt if the quran was weightier. This is just one example, of many others, in which some if not all, can not be justified using just the quran. This is all without even getting into deriving principles found within the school of thoughts.

 

 

If the ahlulbayt say that the Quran is supposed to authenticate their sayings, then how can that be done without attempting to take guidance from the Quran? Maybe this is why the Quran is the greater - because it is the authenticator and doesn't need authentication, unlike the ahadith.

 

See, we are not taking about validating sunnah here. Hadith Taqalyn is specifically speaking of the ahlulbayt themselves, not how their sayings come to us. Otherwise, we wouldnt be rejecting Quran and "sunnah" according to some sunnis. So, the ahlulbayt themselves, are exemplars of the quran itself. Their essence is quranic per-say. They never go against the quran.

 

 

 

This thread is a reminder that we should not just believe unreliable people.

 

True, but a non-reliable person can be telling the truth, can they not? They may not always be telling the truth, but it doesnt mean they always are lying.

 

(wasalam) brother! May Allah bless you for this. inshAllah I understand this with your help. Oh and thanks for the link. Al-Islam was down yesterday for some reason o_O

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

PureEthics, even the logic you are attempting to use here doesn't work, because it is based on a faulty premise. There is no 'walking, talking' Qur'an in front of you. All that is left is the actual Qur'an and reports about the words and actions of its infallible interpreters. Now, those reports are not all reliable, obviously, so you need a way of determining what is likely to be reliable and what isn't. One of those ways is the Qur'an, which calls itself the Furqan. If all you want to go by are the reports, without the guidance give by the Qur'an, then the book itself becomes for all intents and purposes useless, and you will stray into misguidance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

PureEthics, even the logic you are attempting to use here doesn't work, because it is based on a faulty premise. There is no 'walking, talking' Qur'an in front of you. All that is left is the actual Qur'an and reports about the words and actions of its infallible interpreters. Now, those reports are not all reliable, obviously, so you need a way of determining what is likely to be reliable and what isn't. One of those ways is the Qur'an, which calls itself the Furqan. If all you want to go by are the reports, without the guidance give by the Qur'an, then the book itself becomes for all intents and purposes useless, and you will stray into misguidance.

See, the problem with your post is that I am not even basing my logic on this faulty premise. I dont know how many times I have made it clear, that we are talking about the context of the hadith itself, which is not talking about hadiths but the actual ahlulbayt themselves. The hadith was narrated at times when the imams were present up to now, of which the last is in occulation, therefore to subject the ahlulbayt mentioned in this hadith to "narrations by them" wouldnt make sense. I also stated that, one of the reasons why is the fact that we do not accept "Quran and Sunnah". See, I thought about what you are saying and it makes sense to an extent, but we are not talking about the narrators of the imams. The imams themselves would still be the "walking talking Quran" even if we were to sift through narrations, because thats what their narrations exactly are. They are all part of the quran and by the quran. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

See, the problem with your post is that I am not even basing my logic on this faulty premise. I dont know how many times I have made it clear, that we are talking about the context of the hadith itself, which is not talking about hadiths but the actual ahlulbayt themselves. The hadith was narrated at times when the imams were present up to now, of which the last is in occulation, therefore to subject the ahlulbayt mentioned in this hadith to "narrations by them" wouldnt make sense. I also stated that, one of the reasons why is the fact that we do not accept "Quran and Sunnah". See, I thought about what you are saying and it makes sense to an extent, but we are not talking about the narrators of the imams. The imams themselves would still be the "walking talking Quran" even if we were to sift through narrations, because thats what their narrations exactly are. They are all part of the quran and by the quran. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

What makes you think the Prophet's message was only meant for his immediate context? It could very well have been meant for people after the time of the Imams (as) as well. However, what I am saying would still apply during the time of the Imams (as) as well, since most people never had the chance to meet their Imam, and had to rely on reports just like we do.

By the way, who says we don't accept the "Qur'an and Sunnah"? It is a true statement.

Anyway, if more importance was put on the Qur'an itself, then perhaps this hadith would be more understandable to some, but unfortunately the Qur'an seems to have become more or less completely neglected other than for ibadah (and for polemical purposes when debating Sunnis). Although the Qur'an says over and over to reflect on it, I'm not so sure that still happens much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

What makes you think the Prophet's message was only meant for his immediate context? It could very well have been meant for people after the time of the Imams (as) as well. However, what I am saying would still apply during the time of the Imams (as) as well, since most people never had the chance to meet their Imam, and had to rely on reports just like we do.

By the way, who says we don't accept the "Qur'an and Sunnah"? It is a true statement.

Anyway, if more importance was put on the Qur'an itself, then perhaps this hadith would be more understandable to some, but unfortunately the Qur'an seems to have become more or less completely neglected other than for ibadah (and for polemical purposes when debating Sunnis). Although the Qur'an says over and over to reflect on it, I'm not so sure that still happens much.

 

So tell me, why was ahlulbayt used and not sunnah? Or tradition? in this specific hadith. Clearly in the context of hadiths on taqalyn we do not accept "quran and sunnah" hadith in sunni books. I appreciate the comment in the end, but are you telling me this or you have statistics to prove the quran has become neglected, or is it just because of shiachat?

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So tell me, why was ahlulbayt used and not sunnah? Or tradition? in this specific hadith. Clearly in the context of hadiths on taqalyn we do not accept such a hadith in sunni books. I appreciate the comment in the end, but are you telling me this or you have statistics to prove the quran has become neglected, or is it just because of shiachat?

Because not every "Sunnah" is valid to follow and the only one that is valid is the Sunnah of the Ahlulbayt(as), hence Ahlulbayt was used explicitly in Hadith Al-Thaqalyn instead of "Sunnah" to emphasize in following the Ahlulbayt only on religious affairs and no one else.

For example Sunnis say they follow the Quran and the Sunnah of the Al-Salaf Al-Saleh(rightious predecessors), that is, the Sahaba and the Tabi'in. However, from a Shi'a standpoint, following such Sunnah is not valid.

In other words is, what I'm trying to say is, no matter how much you play with words and say that you follow "Quran and Ahlulbayt" or "Quran and the Sunnah of Ahlulbayt" is irelavent, since both mean the same thing at the end.

Wa'alaykom Al-Salam and 'Eid Al-Futr Mubarak

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

So the context of this hadith in terms of "Ahlulbayt" implies follow Quran and [narrations by the Ahlulbayt]? So we dont need to follow the Imam's A.S themselves that include what they say, but just traditions narrated by them. So when this hadith was narrated, their companions were urged to follow what they say, rather than their selves ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...