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  
kadhim

Eating Frog (Legs)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Asalaamu alaikum,

 

Wondering out of curiosity if anyone knows with certainty whether eating frog legs is halal. 

Odd question, I know, and I recognize the instinctive response of most would be, "that's gross," but I wanted to know if anyone had anything solid in terms of a fatwa or such beyond that gut reaction.

 

Saw them on sale at the grocery store, pointing them out to gross out my kids, but realized I didn't actually know whether the religion had anything to say about it.

 

Again, please refrain from cluttering up with just answers from your own impressions. I don't want to wade through 3 pages of "OMG that's gross," etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

When I searched for لحم الضفدع (frog meat) on yasoob.com, I got two results of the same hadith--one from Bihar al-Anwar and one from the Masa`il of `Ali ibn Ja`far:

 

[ 119 ] وسألته عن اللحم الذي يكون في أصداف (5) البحر (6) والفرات (7)، أيؤكل؟ قال: " ذلك لحم الضفدع 

 

In it `Ali ibn Ja`far asked his brother Imam Musa al-Kadhim (ع) about the meat in oysters and the Imam replied that it is like the meat of frogs so you shouldn't eat it.

Edited by Recoup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea food in the Shariah

 

17/04/2013 A.D 07/06/1434 H

 

Many might wonder about the religious ruling regarding eating certain kinds of fish, sea food in general, or river fish. Actually, all jurisprudents touched upon this issue, and each had his own opinion regarding the matter. Considering the significance of this subject, since it relates to one of the people’s everyday life indispensable aspects, food, it is important to shed light on it and know the religious ruling regarding it.

At first, talking about this issue, His Eminence, the late Religious Authority, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (ra) says: “It is permissible to eat all what lives in the seas or rivers, be they fish or not, and whether they have scales on them or not, as long as they are not harmful and they die outside the water after fishing them.”

He continues to say: “As for the fish or any other marine organisms that cause significant harm to man, they are forbidden due to the harm they cause. Moreover, it must be noted that some sea animals, such as lobsters, are placed alive in boiled water to kill them, which renders the permissibility of eating them problematic; therefore, a new way for killing such animals should be devised to ensure that they die after fishing them without placing them into water once again.”

He also points: “As for the amphibian animals, such as crabs, frogs, alligators and the like: if they live on the land more than they do in water, as in the case of the frogs and alligators, then eating them is forbidden, whereas those that live more in the water in the sense that they are marine animals that are not harmed by staying for a short while on the land, then eating them is allowed.”

Following is a detailed explanation by His Eminence: “In this respect, the Holy Quran gives a general rule mentioned in the Ayahs that talk about the permissibility of eating what is in the sea, for Allah says: ‘Lawful to you is the game of the sea and its food, a provision for you and for the travelers, and the game of the land is forbidden to you so long as you are on pilgrimage, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, to Whom you shall be gathered,’ (05: 96). As for the traditions (Hadiths), in this respect, they are contradictory between the ruling of the permissibility of whatever is in the seas even if it does not have scales on it, if it is fish, and the ruling of the forbiddance. Some Shiite jurisprudents tried to solve this contradiction in several ways, one of which was referring the permissibility Hadiths to the Imams considering that they gave this ruling out of fear for their followers (Taqiyya), meaning that it does not convey the actual ruling, while forbiddance Hadiths actually does. Others refer the forbiddance to the abomination of this act or saying that the forbiddance is the ruling after taking into consideration all relevant traditions…”

He adds: “On our part, we adopt the narrations that conform to the Holy Book and reflect permissibility, for adopting what conforms to the Book comes in first before referring the permissibility ruling to Taqiyya. If the traditions continue to be contradictory and there was no way to reach a consensus in any way, one should refer to the general rulings in the Book, which, in this case, talk about the permissibility.”

He also confirms that “some of our Shiite jurisprudents, such as the Second Martyr, considered that the abomination stands out before anything else, and so are the opinions of Al-Muhaqqiq Al-Hilli, Al-Muhaqqiq As-Sibzawari and Al-Muqaddas Al-Ardabili, which is actually narrated on the authority of Al-Qadi, the student of Sheikh At-Tousi. Therefore, the permissibility ruling includes all kinds of sea animals and seafood, even if they were not fish with scales.”

[The Fatwas of the late Sayyed (ra) and the juristic office of His Eminence, the Religious Authority, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (ra)]

Other jurisprudents consider that the sea animals that have scales on them are allowed, while those who do not are forbidden.

Imam Al-Khomeini (ra) in his book “Tahreer Al-Waseela” says that only the sea fish and birds in general are allowed to be eaten, while other kinds of sea animals are forbidden even those that land animals similar to them are allowed to be eaten..

There is a consensus among all Sunni jurisprudents, except the Hanafi school of thought, that it is allowed to eat any animal that lives in the seas, be it fish or not, alive or dead, even if it is found floating on the surface of the water, whether it has scales or not. They even deemed all other sea animals allowed, even those that are not of the species of fish, such as the seahorse, sea snake, sea dog, pig fish, crab and other similar animals, for the general rule says: It is permissible to eat all kinds of sea animals.

As for the Hanafi school of thought, they say that it is permissible to eat the species of fish only from among the sea animals unless it is floating dead on the water surface, whether they die naturally or by other means. Thus, it is permissible to eat all kinds of fish, whether they have scales on them or not, provided that they are fished alive for what is fished alive is absolutely allowed.

 

http://english.bayynat.org.lb/Editorials/Shariah_Seafood.htm

Edited by Martyrdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also points: “As for the amphibian animals, such as crabs, frogs, alligators and the like: if they live on the land more than they do in water, as in the case of the frogs and alligators, then eating them is forbidden, whereas those that live more in the water in the sense that they are marine animals that are not harmed by staying for a short while on the land, then eating them is allowed.”

How did he derive this conclusion exactly? What tradition did he use to create this unusual distinction between sea amphibians and land amphibians? What is it about the latter in particular which renders them unlawful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)
(bismillah)

 

16-  بَابُ تَحْرِيمِ أَكْلِ السُّلَحْفَاةِ وَ السَّرَطَانِ وَ الضَّفَادِعِ وَ الْخُنْفَسَاءِ وَ الْحَيَّاتِ 
Chapter 16 - Chapter on the prohibition of eating turtles, lobsters, frogs, beetles, and snakes
 
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنِ الْعَمْرَكِيِّ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ عَنْ أَخِيهِ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ الْأَوَّلِ ع قَالَ لَا يَحِلُّ أَكْلُ الْجِرِّيِّ وَ لَا السُّلَحْفَاةِ وَ لَا السَّرَطَانِ قَالَ وَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ اللَّحْمِ الَّذِي يَكُونُ فِي أَصْدَافِ الْبَحْرِ وَ الْفُرَاتِ أَ يُؤْكَلُ قَالَ ذَلِكَ لَحْمُ الضَّفَادِعِ لَا يَحِلُّ أَكْلُهُ 
From Ali b. Ja`far from his brother Abi al-Hasan al-Awwal (al-Kadhim) (as) said, 'It is not allowed to eat catfish, nor turtles, nor lobsters. He (Ali b. Ja`far) said, I asked him (as) about the meat which are in sea shells or the Furat (i.e. rivers), can I eat it? He (as) said: 'That is like the meat of the frogs, it is not allowed to eat it'
Source:
al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, vol. 6, pg. 221, hadith # 11
Grading:
al-Majlisi said this hadith is Sahih
--> Mir'at al-`Uqool, vol. 21, pg. 365
 
 
al-Sistani says:
 
السؤال: هل يجوز أكل لحم هذه الحيوانات (الغراب ،الفاختة ،الحمار ،البغل ،الحصان ، العصفور ،الأرنب ،الضفدع ، الصقر) ؟
الجواب: يحرم أكل الغراب والأرنب والضفدع والصقر ويحل الحمار والبغل والحصان على كراهة ويحل العصفور وأما الفاختة فتحرم إذا كانت من سباع الطير او كان صفيفه أكثر من دفيفه – ان يبسط جناحيه عند الطيران – .
Question: Is it permissible to eat the meat of these animals (Crow, pigeon, donkey, mule, horse, sparrow, rabbit, frog, falcon)?
Answer: It is haram to eat the crow, rabbit, frogs, falcoln, and it is allowed to eat donkey, mules and horse upon kiraahah (i.e. it is permissible to eat but makrooh). And it is allowed to to eat sparrows, and as for the pigeon, then it is haraam, if it is from the birds of prey or if it glides more than it flaps (its wings) - that it spreads its wings when it flies
 
 
(salam)
Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did he derive this conclusion exactly? What tradition did he use to create this unusual distinction between sea amphibians and land amphibians? What is it about the latter in particular which renders them unlawful?

I dont know. You can probably find out over here  http://english.bayynat.org.lb/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(salam)

(bismillah)

 

16-  بَابُ تَحْرِيمِ أَكْلِ السُّلَحْفَاةِ وَ السَّرَطَانِ وَ الضَّفَادِعِ وَ الْخُنْفَسَاءِ وَ الْحَيَّاتِ 
Chapter 16 - Chapter on the prohibition of eating turtles, lobsters, frogs, beetles, and snakes
 
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنِ الْعَمْرَكِيِّ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ عَنْ أَخِيهِ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ الْأَوَّلِ ع قَالَ لَا يَحِلُّ أَكْلُ الْجِرِّيِّ وَ لَا السُّلَحْفَاةِ وَ لَا السَّرَطَانِ قَالَ وَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ اللَّحْمِ الَّذِي يَكُونُ فِي أَصْدَافِ الْبَحْرِ وَ الْفُرَاتِ أَ يُؤْكَلُ قَالَ ذَلِكَ لَحْمُ الضَّفَادِعِ لَا يَحِلُّ أَكْلُهُ 
From Ali b. Ja`far from his brother Abi al-Hasan al-Awwal (al-Kadhim) (as) said, 'It is not allowed to eat catfish, nor turtles, nor lobsters. He (Ali b. Ja`far) said, I asked him (as) about the meat which are in sea shells or the Furat (i.e. rivers), can I eat it? He (as) said: 'That is like the meat of the frogs, it is not allowed to eat it'
Source:
al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, vol. 6, pg. 221, hadith # 11
Grading:
al-Majlisi said this hadith is Sahih
--> Mir'at al-`Uqool, vol. 21, pg. 365
 
 
al-Sistani says:
 
السؤال: هل يجوز أكل لحم هذه الحيوانات (الغراب ،الفاختة ،الحمار ،البغل ،الحصان ، العصفور ،الأرنب ،الضفدع ، الصقر) ؟
الجواب: يحرم أكل الغراب والأرنب والضفدع والصقر ويحل الحمار والبغل والحصان على كراهة ويحل العصفور وأما الفاختة فتحرم إذا كانت من سباع الطير او كان صفيفه أكثر من دفيفه – ان يبسط جناحيه عند الطيران – .
Question: Is it permissible to eat the meat of these animals (Crow, pigeon, donkey, mule, horse, sparrow, rabbit, frog, falcon)?
Answer: It is haram to eat the crow, rabbit, frogs, falcoln, and it is allowed to eat donkey, mules and horse upon kiraahah (i.e. it is permissible to eat but makrooh). And it is allowed to to eat sparrows, and as for the pigeon, then it is haraam, if it is from the birds of prey or if it glides more than it flaps (its wings) - that it spreads its wings when it flies
 
 
(salam)

 

 

Thanks.That was also useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

قل لا اجد في ما اوحي الي محرما على طاعم يطعمه الا ان يكون ميتة او دما مسفوحا او لحم خنزيرفانه رجس او فسقا اهل لغير الله به فمن اضطر غير باغ ولا عاد فان ربك غفور رحيم

  Say: I find not in that which is revealed unto me aught prohibited to an eater that he eat thereof, except it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or swineflesh - for that verily is foul - or the abomination which was immolated to the name of other than Allah. But whoso is compelled (thereto), neither craving nor transgressing, (for him) lo! thy Lord is Forgiving, Merciful. 6:145

 

Can someone explain to me why the Prophet is told to say this to us but then we believe what is attributed to the Imams (as) of sayings written hundreds of years after their demises based not on Tawatur but Aahaad, that there is another list of prohibited things to eat you need to follow?

Edited by reformist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW...thank God YOU came along.  We've been stumbling in darkness for all these centuries waiting for you to enlighten us. Thank God our deliverer has arrived.

 

All humor aside, this is referring specifically to products of farming, as should be clear from the context of the verses prior (see 6:136 for example - "tilth and cattle"), which talk about pagans making up their own rules about "this particular animal is for one group alone, and not for the people in general." 

The verse says, no, this is made up. The only restrictions among livestock are those mentioned. 

 

The rules for wild animals are detailed in sunnah and are more involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 3 other verses that speak of dietary restrictions and they start with the word "only". The Imams wrote nothing  about further restrictions in Islam. They followed and taught what God revealed in the Qur'an. Yes centuries after the demises of the Imams fallible men came along and made lists and lists of extra rules and attributed these rules to the Imams hence to God in solitary fashion. These things were clearly not things the Imams announced to the masses in public (tawatur) which they aught to have done if that was their job, to tell people more rules of God omitted in the Qur'an.

 

As far as I am concerned these things are man made additions to Islam added to Islam without the explicit authority of the Imams. It is a joke.

 

 

(1) سورة البقرة - سورة 2 - آية 173

e.gif               الميزان في تفسير القرآن              تقريب القرآن إلى الأذهان              نور الثقلين         

انما حرم عليكم الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير وما اهل به لغير الله فمن اضطر غير باغ ولا عاد فلا اثم عليه ان الله غفور رحيم

  He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

(2) سورة المائدة - سورة 5 - آية 3

e.gif               الميزان في تفسير القرآن              تقريب القرآن إلى الأذهان              نور الثقلين         

حرمت عليكم الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير وما اهل لغير الله به والمنخنقة والموقوذة والمتردية والنطيحة وما اكل السبع الا ما ذكيتم وما ذبح على النصب وان تستقسموا بالازلام ذلكم فسق اليوم يئس الذين كفروا من دينكم فلا تخشوهم واخشون اليوم اكملت لكم دينكم واتممت عليكم نعمتي ورضيت لكم الاسلام دينا فمن اضطر في مخمصة غير متجانف لاثم فان الله غفور رحيم

  Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swineflesh, and that which hath been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which hath been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which ye make lawful (by the death-stroke), and that which hath been immolated unto idols. And (forbidden is it) that ye swear by the divining arrows. This is an abomination. This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin: (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

(3) سورة الأنعام - سورة 6 - آية 145

e.gif               الميزان في تفسير القرآن              تقريب القرآن إلى الأذهان              نور الثقلين         

قل لا اجد في ما اوحي الي محرما على طاعم يطعمه الا ان يكون ميتة او دما مسفوحا او لحم خنزيرفانه رجس او فسقا اهل لغير الله به فمن اضطر غير باغ ولا عاد فان ربك غفور رحيم

  Say: I find not in that which is revealed unto me aught prohibited to an eater that he eat thereof, except it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or swineflesh - for that verily is foul - or the abomination which was immolated to the name of other than Allah. But whoso is compelled (thereto), neither craving nor transgressing, (for him) lo! thy Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

(4) سورة النحل - سورة 16 - آية 115

e.gif               الميزان في تفسير القرآن         

انما حرم عليكم الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير وما اهل لغير الله به فمن اضطر غير باغ ولا عاد فان الله غفور رحيم

  He hath forbidden for you only carrion and blood and swineflesh and that which hath been immolated in the name of any other than Allah; but he who is driven thereto, neither craving nor transgressing, lo! then Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Says the person whose username is "reform"ist ... You do realize your form of reason is contradictory. You say the quran uses the word only, but the verse right after that adds more prohibitions. Saying hadiths are fabricated is mere conjecture with no valid evidence, logical fallacy. The hadiths do not contradict the holy quran. There is a specific context to such verses of when and how it was revealed. You see groups of people were making foods unlawful without the authority from Allah. For example: The Jews had forbidden some foods to themselves without any authority (Ali Imran: 93). In verse 147 of al An-am prohibitions, exclusively imposed upon the Jews due to their rebellion, have been mentioned. Also refer to al Ma-idah: 3, and al Nahl: 115. Or 6:119 and 6:138.

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to do any systematic analysis or anything, but presumably again, it's a matter of specific context.

I'm honestly a little confused as to why you think people should abandon their normal sources of guidance and listen to you when you can't figure out to check out the other nearby verses for context when trying to understand the Quran.

You're making the same basic mistake as those who want to justify wanton murder using verses from wartime.

And then you want to call real scholars a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)
(bismillah)

 

@Reformist

 

There is some elements of truth to what you say. Now, I will be honest, when I saw the chapter titled tahrim, I was expecting some extremely harsh language in the wording like mal`oon (Accursed), or The Prophet prohibited, instead I only saw the word "Laa" (No) in the context of "Do not eat" or in Masaa'il `Ali b. Ja`far it says "It is not correct to eat". These words in the `uloom of Fiqh is a weak form of negating something or prohibiting something. Based off of that wording, I would think that the scholars would have said it was makrooh, but they took the prohibition ruling. There are no hadith that contradict this, so that is probably the reason why this ruling of prohibition has come about, but I believe there are hadith that are contradictory to this.

 

We have authentic hadith that says "The only haraam (foods) are what Allah has prohibited in His book (i.e. Qur'an)", or "Allah has not prohibited (haraam) in the Qur'an from the daabah (land animals or walks on four) except the pigs". Most scholars just dismissed these narration and said they were done out of Taqiyyah, but I disagree with the reason of dismissal as there were not a consensus of prohibited and permissible foods in the Sunni world during the times of the A'immah. So when looking at this these hadith and then looking at the hadith of the A'immah on not eating the frogs, etc., you may be able to try to do jam` (harmonization of narrations) and say it is based on kiraahah

 

Now, I will admit we do have where it uses the word that "The Prophet prohibited" or "Imam Ali prohibited" the eating of such and such things (from the foods). That throws another wrench into the argument. Also, people will say, then you are saying that eating cats is not haraam it is makrooh or mubaah (allowed). I believe the issue of Food and our sources has to be re-examined in the light of the context of the time and the prohibition and permissible foods in the Muslim world. Wallaahu A`lim.

 

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We have authentic hadith that says "The only haraam (foods) are what Allah has prohibited in His book (i.e. Qur'an)", or "Allah has not prohibited (haraam) in the Qur'an from the daabah (land animals or walks on four) except the pigs". 

 

Salaams brother, Can you please quote these hadith with gradings? I'd really appreciate that. Can you tell me if the early Shi'ah jurists who rejected Aahaad as authoritative opined as you did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Salam)

(Bismillah)

I am not at home brother so I am not able to look up those Hadith, but I do know their Asaaneed are impeccable per Hadith science and those narration can be found in al-Tusi's Tahdheeb al-Ahkam. The classical scholars as well as contemporary rejected those Hadith and said they were based on taqiyyah.

I should also point out brother, that there is really no one who has rejected ALL Akhbār Ahād, not even the Mu'tazilah. They were those in the Mu'tazilah who accepted it as well, because they also realized that there is really no way for only accepting tawātur and Ijmā.

There is no way for you to expect for a Hadith that talks about eating frogs reach the level of tawātur. So expecting those type of small Fiqhi issues to reach the level of tawātur is rather impossible. On top of that, Shiah or Sunni scholar has reached a consensus on what number of narrators in each Tabaqah it should it considered tawātur.

(Salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But didn't 'Allamah al-Hilli in his Sara'ir make a compelling argument against accepting Aahaad? What was his view on eating frogs?

What was the view of Ibn Abi al-'Aqeel? From my limited readings, it says that the majority of shi'a jurists before Tusi's development of hadith gradation

rejected aahaad unless there were strong qarain. Isn't this true?

I have briefly read Tusi's tahdheeb and I also felt that his excuse of Taqiyyah to reconcile contradictory hadith was excessive and unbelievable at times, take for example the contradictory ahadith on the issue of dhabaih ahl al-kitaab. I am sure I don't have to quote them as you are most probably familiar with them.

 

The whole idea of the Imams lying about God's laws out of fear for their lives (taqiyyah) I feel is an insult to the Imams. These holy Imams were willing to die to uphold God's laws. They would not lie about God's laws on a meger issue of edible foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The whole idea of the Imams lying about God's laws out of fear for their lives (taqiyyah) I feel is an insult to the Imams. These holy Imams were willing to die to uphold God's laws. They would not lie about God's laws on a meger issue of edible foods.

 

Taqiyya was not done only for their lives but for the sake of their family and companions mainly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)
(bismillah)

But didn't 'Allamah al-Hilli in his Sara'ir make a compelling argument against accepting Aahaad? What was his view on eating frogs?

I am guessing you meant to say Ibn Idris as he was the author of al-Saraa'ir, while al-Hilli was one of the biggest proponents of using Khabar al-Waahid. The two biggest proponents of following Khabar al-Mutawaatir were al-Murtada and al-Hilli.

 

I have read Ibn Idris' arguments, didn't find them convincing at all, what was so convincing about his arguments? Maybe you can start a thread in the Thinkers Corner, and bring out your understanding of Ibn Idris' claims for not using Akhbar Ahaad? And why you found it compelling?

 

If the continual reject of Hadith persists, I think I may need to author a Risaalah for the Hujiyyah of the Khabar al-Waahid, so this rejection of the Akhbar Ahaad in the English speaking Shia community can cease. 

 

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

I am guessing you meant to say Ibn Idris as he was the author of al-Saraa'ir, while al-Hilli was one of the biggest proponents of using Khabar al-Waahid. The two biggest proponents of following Khabar al-Mutawaatir were al-Murtada and al-Hilli.

 

I have read Ibn Idris' arguments, didn't find them convincing at all, what was so convincing about his arguments? Maybe you can start a thread in the Thinkers Corner, and bring out your understanding of Ibn Idris' claims for not using Akhbar Ahaad? And why you found it compelling?

 

If the continual reject of Hadith persists, I think I may need to author a Risaalah for the Hujiyyah of the Khabar al-Waahid, so this rejection of the Akhbar Ahaad in the English speaking Shia community can cease. 

 

(salam)

 

 

(wasalam)

 

Just-out of the blue, What if, such a report (That is Ah'aad) contradicts a fundamental belief? While up against Many other narrations? In these circumstance, should we not go with the narrations that have a high frequency? if such reports are Authentic? I only take Ah'aad narrations if they are Authentic concerning a an in-depth issue that no other narrations speaks of. By the way, if your compiling a book on the science of narrations in English, I strongly support this, due to the fact that many of our narrations science books are not interpreted or presented in English. This would be a huge step for the English-Shia-Community. I strongly support this.

 

_____________

(wasalam)   

Edited by TheIslamHistory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Nader Zaveri

 

You seem to be the best person to ask this question to on this forum as I have asked it before and nobody answered yet.

 

 

طريقها الآحاد التي لا توجب علما و لا عملا, و الاولي الاعراض عنها 
 
Is not Tusi admitting that Aahaad are unauthoritative? What does the above quote translate into to you? How could it be that Tusi 
is considered the greatest supporter of relying on Aahaad yet he admits that Aahaad do not produce knowledge nor obligate action
and it is better to avoid them?
 
The real Islam is Tawatur based, be it Qur'an or Hadith or 'Ijma and any element attributed to Islam based on Aahaad is a fraud.
When Imam Mahdi (as) comes he will demolish this conjecture based Islam based on Aahaad and return to the original Islam which is free
of all this doubt, forgery, speculation and conjecture.
 
Why are people so stubborn to admit the truth? I didn't make this position up. There have been many Shia mujtahids in our history who repeatedly 
said the same thing.
 
Aahaad are full of poison and Tawatur is free of all poison 100%.
 
I'd rather follow little and be certain than follow a lot and be in doubt. How about you?
Edited by reformist

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...