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

Wiping/Washing of the feet

Rate this topic


Talut

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
18 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

No, if the Prophet said, follow the Quran and do you know how to follow the Quran, by following the Ahl al Bayt, you would have a valid point. But that is not what is said, he says to follow the Quran and the Ahl al Bayt.

 

To follow the Quran you need the right interpretation which was given by Muhammad s.a.w. and passed over to his Ahl al-Bayt a.s. 

Unless you are able to interpret the Quran on your own but I doubt that.

This does not contradicts or whatsoever but only completes the command. 

The only case of contradiction is when their words are opposed to that of the Quran.

 

 

18 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

So first, are the two statements regarding washing and wiping contradicting each other under all circumstances and are the two statements about obeying contradicting each other under all circumstances?

To follow Quran means to obey Allah, the Messenger s.a.w. and those in authority.

But to wipe means to?

Wash?

You follow the Quran which is a book and a book is a book because it has a content. The content is about a set of rules, commands, explanations etcetera. 

That's what I meant when I called your approach simplistic i.e. that to follow Quran only excludes to obey Allah, the Messenger and those in authority.


 

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, ServantOfTheOne said:

This thread is becoming too silly.

Quran supercedes Hadith.

If the Quran says wipe and Hadith says wash, you wipe.

If the Quran says wipe and Hadith says wipe 3 times, then it is arguable that you should wipe 3 times unless the Quran has any other verses which dispute it.

Quran is the most sahih hadith. It comes from Allah and is verified by the Prophet (sawa), Imams and Sahabas. Hadith is disputed greatly.

I don't even know what people are arguing about anymore.

The question isn't anymore what supersedes what or what is more truthful. For all I care, all those narrations are complete fabrications from beginning to end. What matters here more is whether such an instruction by the Prophet would contradict the Qur'an.

4 hours ago, Talut said:

To follow Quran means to obey Allah, the Messenger s.a.w. and those in authority.

But to wipe means to?

Wash?

You follow the Quran which is a book and a book is a book because it has a content. The content is about a set of rules, commands, explanations etcetera. 

That's what I meant when I called your approach simplistic i.e. that to follow Quran only excludes to obey Allah, the Messenger and those in authority.

You keep coming back to what words mean, but as I said I don't challenge that in any way. It's almost a strawman fallacy now, I don't care about the meaning.

Forget about about what was revealed, forget about what was narrated, forget about everything. This matter has in principle nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Can you explain to me how washing your feet automatically results in neglecting to wipe your feet? This has to be settled first. Up until now, I haven't heard a single valid reason. You keep asking, why would Allah ask you to wipe if it's not sufficient? Forget about that for a moment, we will get to that. How does it result in neglecting to wipe your feet?

Or taken from a different angle, if you have two verses, one that says wipe and one that says wash, does it automatically mean to you that one is abrogating the other? There is no possible way that this isn't a case of abrogation?

18 hours ago, skamran110 said:

The sources of Islam are very clear. 

The verses of Quran, the hadith of the prophet and the narrations from Ahl Albayat ie the pure progeny of the prophet. 

Wassalam

Wa alaykum salam,

I meant more regarding your beliefs of whether or not there were revealed verses that are not present in the Qur'an anymore and what your sources for that specific belief are?

And what is the punishment for adultery?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
23 minutes ago, Talut said:

No that's not the right order. The Quran says to wipe. You should explain why you should wash and not wipe.

It's not a relgious matter, it's a very simple matter. First you have to tell me how washing results in a neglect of wiping. I still owe you an explanation, but if don't agree on this simple matter, forget about the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

To wipe and to wash are two diffirent actions.

The only argument you can make is that according to you to wash is as sufficient as to wipe if not even more as it cleans the feet more thoroughly but where does the Quran says that that is the underlying reason of the commandment to wipe?

In case of tayyamum our private parts are still dirty and the purification is in following the commands. Not in our physical state of hygiene.

We do not know why Allah wants us to wipe and not to wash the feet. We should not draw our own conclusions to change it to something else or make it fit.

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Talut said:

To wipe and to wash are two diffirent actions.

The only argument you can make is that according to you to wash is as sufficient as to wipe if not even more as it cleans the feet more thoroughly but where does the Quran says that that is the underlying reason of the commandment to wipe?

In case of tayyamum we're still dirty and the pruficication is in following the commands. Not in our physical state of hygiene.

We do not know why Allah wants us to wipe and not to wash the feet. We should not draw our own conclusions to change it to something else.

You are going back to religious matters again. Step by step please. The bolded part is non-religious and relevant, it's not according to you, only to me? The following but is not relevant yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Look 274 posts already and still the distinction between to wipe and to wash isn't clear. 

I gave several reasons why I cannot accept the narration:

1) Because a hadith cannot supersede the Quran

2) Because we don't know the reason why Allah commands us to wipe so your argument that washing includes wiping as well, so it has the same effect, if not a stronger effect when it comes to cleaning the feet has no foundation

3) Because it's a diffirent action and therefore it excludes the possibility of being a Sunnah

I'm actually done with this as this ain't an educating discussion anymore but a yes-no game with fruitles result and where all means are used to make straight what is bend while the proof is manifest and clear.

As-Salamu alaykum

 

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, Talut said:

Look 274 posts already and still the distinction between to wipe and to wash isn't clear. 

I gave several reasons why I cannot accept the narration:

1) Because a hadith cannot supersede the Quran

2) Because we don't know the reason why Allah commands us to wipe

3) Because it's a diffirent action and therefore it excludes the possibility of being a Sunnah

I'm actually done with this as this ain't an educating discussion anymore but a yes-no game with fruitles result and where all means are used to make straight what is bend. 

 

Again with the distinction, it really is becoming a strawman fallacy now, the distinction is crystal clear, that is not the point at all.

As I said, it's not about religion anymore, I haven't heard any reason yet.

You still maybe right religiously but your focus on it is not fair. It's not a yes-no game, I am asking for clarification but it's ignored every time.

Wa alaykum salam

Edited by GreatChineseFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, there is someone here who is unable to distinguish between "wipe" and "wash." He thinks they mean the same thing. Rather, he pretends to be stupid enough to think that.

He is not a sincere guy. Leave him to his folly.

This is not surprising at all, though. This was the same guy who claimed that his eyes could see a being with no shape, form, image or body. He did that to defend the Sunni doctrine that Allah can be seen with the naked eyes - which necessarily results in tajsim. He was desperate then. And here again, he is desperate.

Our guy cannot stick to a single reasonable point for long. He jumps from point to point, and changes his positions at will. He contradicts himself quickly and frequently. He does all that, simply to save his illogical sect. He has now destroyed this thread again. He destroyed others too, with his unprincipled methodology:

On 3/27/2016 at 10:35 PM, GreatChineseFall said:

The command of Allah is to wipe your feet, the Sunnah is to wash them. There is no command to either wash or wipe your mouth, your ears, but it is a Sunnah. Do people wash or wipe their mouth?

Also if you wash your feet, you wipe them, it might be more problematic if it was the other way around.

On 3/27/2016 at 11:05 PM, GreatChineseFall said:

Prove that you have to wipe them without washing them. So your wudu is invalidated if you was your head?

On 3/27/2016 at 11:28 PM, GreatChineseFall said:

If the Qur'an doesn't explicitly tells us to not wash them, then there is no contradiction.

On 3/27/2016 at 1:31 AM, GreatChineseFall said:

I concede every point and accept the shia point of view. To wipe means to wipe and doesn't mean cleaning.

On 3/27/2016 at 2:09 AM, GreatChineseFall said:

Because the Prophet gave us the instruction to wash our feet (according to those narrations) and that is an obligation that is not specifically stated in the Qur'an. And it's not instead, you still wipe them if you wash them.

On 3/28/2016 at 0:47 PM, GreatChineseFall said:

If you wash your head, it is invalidated? What is the proof for that?

On 3/28/2016 at 1:56 PM, GreatChineseFall said:

"As far as meaning" of the word masah goes I dont challenge it, what the Prophet instructed us to do is a different matter.

On 3/28/2016 at 2:08 PM, GreatChineseFall said:

Not challenging the position, doesnt mean accepting the position. You should know by now I dont take positions unless I have thoroughly investigated it.

2 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

You keep coming back to what words mean, but as I said I don't challenge that in any way. It's almost a strawman fallacy now, I don't care about the meaning.

1 hour ago, GreatChineseFall said:

First you have to tell me how washing results in a neglect of wiping.

He simply can't make up his mind on any single point.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

This is not surprising at all, though. This was the same guy who claimed that his eyes could see a being with no shape, form, image or body. He did that to defend the Sunni doctrine that Allah can be seen with the naked eyes - which necessarily results in tajsim. He was desperate then. And here again, he is desperate.

I'm not 100% of sure of his stance on such a matter, because it seems like it is just an confusion, but if I understood his reply to one my statement, he said that He might (This itself add more confusion, because it seems that he is not sure) very well agree that Allah [swt] is defined in such a way that  the definition itself does not include anything else. 

So basically, when we observe or manifest event of "Seeing Allah", it is itself an definition. But such a definition is not Allah [swt] itself, because every observable event is different from Allah [swt]. So are we seeing Allah itself?

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

I'm not 100% of sure of his stance on such a matter, because it seems like it is just an confusion, but if I understood his reply to one my statement, he said that He might (This itself add more confusion, because it seems that he is not sure) very well agree that Allah [swt] is defined in such a way that  the definition itself does not include anything else. 

So basically, when we observe or manifest event of "Seeing Allah", it is itself an definition. But such a definition is not Allah [swt] itself, because every observable event is different from Allah [swt]. So are we seeing Allah itself?

Sunnis believe that they will see Allah Himself, with their naked eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
7 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Sunnis believe that they will see Allah Himself, with their naked eyes.

Is there an logical arguments in favor of seeing Allah [swt] with naked eyes among the Sunni Philosophers?

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 3/29/2016 at 0:26 AM, Talut said:

I think it's already manifest in the equivelant name of the Quran which is Furqan i.e. the Criterion.

If the Quran is the Criterion then what more do I have to add?

I actually am not sure if I understand you or not.

What I'm saying is that the Quran is a bookk that the Prophet left us with, is a dominant book that according to the famous hadith, should be used as a criterion to judge other hadiths. 

If there exists hadiths that go against the clear text of the Quran, then those hadiths would be problematic. Because the Prophet would never utter something that goes against the text of the Quran. 

Using the same example of this thread i.e. wipe and wash. The Quran mentions wipe, and the hadith mention wash. Using the rule of comparing hadiths with the quran, those hadiths should be viewed as problematic. Because if we don't, then what benefit does the hadith (that says to compare other hadiths with Quran) have? It would have been futile of the Prophet to mention that. If we were to say that the Quran says X and the hadith says Y, and both of these interpretations are correct, then we are not in a position to compare Y with X. We are literally opening doors to thousands of interpretations and innovations. At least this is my understanding of it.

So far in this discussion, it seems that the Quran does mention wiping of the feet, so I'm not sure as to why sunnis wash. And I'm unable to understand what brother GCF is trying to say - that wiping is washing. How can that be? Wipe is wipe; and wash is wash. Those are two differnt terms altogether with different meanings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
15 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

Wa alaykum salam,

I meant more regarding your beliefs of whether or not there were revealed verses that are not present in the Qur'an anymore and what your sources for that specific belief are?

And what is the punishment for adultery?

How this  question is related to  the wiping of feet for prayer?

Wassalam

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
13 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Apparently, there is someone here who is unable to distinguish between "wipe" and "wash." He thinks they mean the same thing. Rather, he pretends to be stupid enough to think that.

He is not a sincere guy. Leave him to his folly.

This is not surprising at all, though. This was the same guy who claimed that his eyes could see a being with no shape, form, image or body. He did that to defend the Sunni doctrine that Allah can be seen with the naked eyes - which necessarily results in tajsim. He was desperate then. And here again, he is desperate.

Our guy cannot stick to a single reasonable point for long. He jumps from point to point, and changes his positions at will. He contradicts himself quickly and frequently. He does all that, simply to save his illogical sect. He has now destroyed this thread again. He destroyed others too, with his unprincipled methodology:

He simply can't make up his mind on any single point.

This is the simple conclusion. I admire it very much

Edited by skamran110
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
23 minutes ago, Sunnibro said:

So far in this discussion, it seems that the Quran does mention wiping of the feet, so I'm not sure as to why sunnis wash. And I'm unable to understand what brother GCF is trying to say - that wiping is washing. How can that be? Wipe is wipe; and wash is wash. Those are two differnt terms altogether with different meanings. 

May Allah swt Bless you for mentioning  the truth.

Wassalam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
23 minutes ago, Sunnibro said:

What I'm saying is that the Quran is a bookk that the Prophet left us with, is a dominant book that according to the famous hadith, should be used as a criterion to judge other hadiths. 

If there exists hadiths that go against the clear text of the Quran, then those hadiths would be problematic. Because the Prophet would never utter something that goes against the text of the Quran. 

Using the same example of this thread i.e. wipe and wash. The Quran mentions wipe, and the hadith mention wash. Using the rule of comparing hadiths with the quran, those hadiths should be viewed as problematic. Because if we don't, then what benefit does the hadith (that says to compare other hadiths with Quran) have? It would have been futile of the Prophet to mention that. If we were to say that the Quran says X and the hadith says Y, and both of these interpretations are correct, then we are not in a position to compare Y with X. We are literally opening doors to thousands of interpretations and innovations. At least this is my understanding of it.

So far in this discussion, it seems that the Quran does mention wiping of the feet, so I'm not sure as to why sunnis wash. And I'm unable to understand what brother GCF is trying to say - that wiping is washing. How can that be? Wipe is wipe; and wash is wash. Those are two differnt terms altogether with different meanings. 

The prophet pbuh left us with the Quran and his Ahlulbayt (as), isn't it logical to follow what the prophet pbuh wanted us to follow? Afaik when I was reading the forums here I stumbled on a hadith that an Imam (as) was asked how one should do wudhoo, on the feet part the imam (as) didn't say wipe nor wash since the asker was going to pray in a place where he would be in danger if he was seen wiping which indicates that his a Shi'ite. I'm pretty sure that it's more logical to follow what a descendant, knowledgeable, and offers no contradiction person would say rather than follow the people whom are contradicting the Quran and were pretty corrupt (the umayyads/abbasids). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sunnibro said:

Using the same example of this thread i.e. wipe and wash. The Quran mentions wipe, and the hadith mention wash. Using the rule of comparing hadiths with the quran, those hadiths should be viewed as problematic.

Brother, Sunni hadiths mentioning that the feet must be wiped have been narrated by several Sahabah also. Let me show you a few examples.

This is the report of Imam 'Ali (1) from Musnad al-Humaydi:

حدثنا الحميدى حدثنا سفيان حدثنى أبو السوداء : عمرو النهدى عن ابن عبد خير عن أبيه قال : رأيت على بن أبى طالب يمسح ظهور قدميه ويقول : لولا أنى رأيت رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- مسح على ظهورهما لظننت أن بطونهما أحق.

This is the report of 'Uthman b. 'Affan (2) from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah:

حدثنا محمد بن بشر قال حدثنا سعيد بن أبي عروبة عن قتادة عن مسلم بن يسار عن حمران قال دعا عثمان بماء فتوضأ ثم ضحك فقال ألا تسألوني مما أضحك قالوا يا أمير المؤمنين ما اضحكك قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم توضأ كما توضأت فمضمض واستنشق وغسل وجهه ثلاثا ويديه ثلاثا ومسح برأسه وظهر قدميه

This is the report of Ibn 'Umar (3) from Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar of Imam al-Tahawi:

حدثنا ابن أبي داود قال: ثنا أحمد بن الحسين اللهبي قال : ثنا ابن أبي فديك ، عن ابن أبي ذئب ، عن نافع عن ابن عمر، أنه كان إذا توضأ ونعلاه في قدميه، مسح ظهور قدميه بيديه ، ويقول : كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يصنع هكذا

This is the report of Ibn 'Abbas (4) from Musannaf 'Abd al-Razzaq:

عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن قتادة عن جابر بن يزيد أو عكرمة عن بن عباس قال افترض الله غسلتين ومسحتين ألا ترى أنه ذكر التيمم فجعل مكان الغسلتين مسحتين وترك المسحتين وقال رجل لمطر الوراق من كان يقول المسح على الرجلين فقال فقهاء كثير

This is the report of Anas b. Malik (5) from Tafsir al-Tabari:

حدثنا ابن بشار قال حدثنا ابن أبي عدي عن حميد عن موسى بن أنس قال : خطب الحجاج فقال : اغسلوا وجوهكم وأيديكم وأرجلكم ظهورهما وبطونهما وعراقيبهما فإن ذلك أدنى إلى أخبثيكم قال أنس : صدق الله وكذب الحجاج قال الله : { وامسحوا برؤوسكم وأرجلكم إلى الكعبين }

This is the report of Abu Malik al-Ash'ari (6) from Musnad Ahmad:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا محمد بن جعفر ثنا سعيد عن قتادة عن شهر بن حوشب عن عبد الرحمن بن غنم عن أبي مالك الأشعري انه قال لقومه : اجتمعوا أصلي بكم صلاة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فلما اجتمعوا قال هل فيكم أحد من غيركم قالوا لا الا بن أخت لنا قال بن أخت القوم منهم فدعا بجفنة فيها ماء فتوضأ ومضمض واستنشق وغسل وجهه ثلاثا وذراعيه ثلاثا ثلاثا ومسح برأسه وظهر قدميه ثم صلى بهم فكبر بهم ثنتين وعشرين تكبيرة يكبر إذا سجد وإذا رفع رأسه من السجود وقرأ في الركعتين بفاتحة الكتاب واسمع من يليه

This is the report of Rifa'ah b. Rafi' (7) from Sunan Ibn Majah:

حدثنا محمد بن يحيى . حدثنا حجاج . حدثنا همام . حدثنا إسحاق بن عبد الله بن أبي طلحة . حدثني علي بن يحيى بن خلاد عن أبيه عن عمه رفاعة بن رافع : - أنه كان جالسا عند النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فقال  أنها لا تتم صلاة لأحد حتى يسبغ الوضوء كما أمره الله تعالى . يغسل وجهه ويديه إلى المرفقين ويمسح برأسه ورجليه إلى الكعبين 

This is the report of Tamim b. Zayd al-Ansari (8) from Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar of Imam al-Tahawi:

حدثنا روح بن الفرج قال ثنا عمرو بن خالد قال ثنا بن لهيعة عن أبي الأسود عن عباد بن تميم عن عمه : أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم توضأ ومسح على القدمين

This is the report of 'Abd Allah b. Zayd al-Ansari (9) from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah:

حدثنا ابن عيية عن عمرو بن يحيى عن أبيه عن عبد الله بن زيد أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم توضأ فغسل وجهه ثلاثا ويديه مرتين ومسح برأسه ورجليه مرتين.

This is the report of Aws b. Abi Aws (10) from Tafsir al-Tabari:

الحارث قال، حدثنا القاسم بن سلام قال، حدثنا هشيم قال، حدثنا يعلى بن عطاء، عن أبيه، عن أوس بن أبي أوس قال :رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أتى سُبَاطة قوم، فتوضأ ومسح على قدميه

These are TEN Sahabah. There are others too. But, these are sufficient for tawattur. All of them are about wiping the feet. Sunnis ignore them and pick the other ones about washing. On what basis have they done that? They cherry-pick their own ahadith, and pretend as though reports in favour of wiping do not exist, or do not have authenticity or tawattur too.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Do reports about washing the feet, mutawatir in Sunni books? If so, how does one reconcile between the two?

Also, I'm reading soem shia reports about wudhu, can you please check these?:

1) Ali [ra] said: …. I sat for Wudhu (ablution) in front of Prophet [saww]…. and (when) I washed my feet, Prophet [saww] said to me: O Ali! do khalaal (i.e. wash inside) within the fingers, so that the fire (i.e. hell-fire) could not do khalaal. 
Ref: Al Istibsar, 1/66 
 Tahdhib-ul-Ahkaam, 1/93

2) Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi reported in his book “Malathil akhyar” (1/376-377,  Sayyyed Mahdi ar-Raji) from Imam Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam), that he was teaching his companions proper way of ablution, and he said:

If (during the minor ablution) you forgot to wipe your head till you have (already) washed your legs, then in this case, wipe your head, and then wash your legs. 

It seems this report no. 2 is reliable according to al-majlisi.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sunnibro said:

Do reports about washing the feet, mutawatir in Sunni books? If so, how does one reconcile between the two?

Both groups of reports are mutawatir. In the Shi'i manhaj, if a situation like this occurs, we look at that group which contradicts the Qur'an, and we throw them to the dogs. This is based upon the teachings of our Imams (peace be upon them). Sunnis have no solution to this problem.

Quote

Also, I'm reading soem shia reports about wudhu, can you please check these?:

1) Ali [ra] said: …. I sat for Wudhu (ablution) in front of Prophet [saww]…. and (when) I washed my feet, Prophet [saww] said to me: O Ali! do khalaal (i.e. wash inside) within the fingers, so that the fire (i.e. hell-fire) could not do khalaal. 
Ref: Al Istibsar, 1/66 
 Tahdhib-ul-Ahkaam, 1/93

2) Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi reported in his book “Malathil akhyar” (1/376-377,  Sayyyed Mahdi ar-Raji) from Imam Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam), that he was teaching his companions proper way of ablution, and he said:

If (during the minor ablution) you forgot to wipe your head till you have (already) washed your legs, then in this case, wipe your head, and then wash your legs. 

It seems this report no. 2 is reliable according to al-majlisi.

The ahadith about wiping in the Shi'i books are mutawatir, and are backed by the Qur'an. Any report that contradicts them is a "decorated lie" according to Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (peace be upon him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 3/31/2016 at 2:36 PM, Sunnibro said:

So far in this discussion, it seems that the Quran does mention wiping of the feet, so I'm not sure as to why sunnis wash. And I'm unable to understand what brother GCF is trying to say - that wiping is washing. How can that be? Wipe is wipe; and wash is wash. Those are two differnt terms altogether with different meanings.

I wasn't not explaining the two words to mean the same. I wasn't even interested in the reigious aspect per se, this can be very easily be discussed from another angle. People go on how narrations can't abrogate the Qur'an, but this is only relevant when there is a contradiction to begin with. There does not have to be superseding, replacing or any of that if it is not confirmed that there is a contradiction. Unfortunately OP left, but I will explain again to you if necessary. There are a few points to take into consideration:

First, what was revealed was long after the fact that the Prophet already instructed them how to perform wudu, there was no way that this was explained as giving them new information, it was only a confirmation of what they already knew.

Second, narrations about washing the feet are numerous and narrating that the Prophet washed his feet has no (political) benefit or any other benefit for anyone in any way. There is simply no reason why people would narrate this, nor is it reasonable to assume that all these narrations are weak.

Third, narrations about wiping are mostly not so relevant because it's already established that when in a state of purity you should wipe your feet.

The question now is, how is it rational that it's ok for the Prophet to put extra conditions when you break your wudu by going to the bathroom, but it's not ok to put extra conditions when breaking wind for example? The inconsistency is perplexing and if people truly wanted to stay true to their words regarding this, then the only exceptions made are when you don't find water or when you are in a state of janabah. Which means that if those two conditions do not apply, that is all you do, meaning that people have to perform the ablution every time they want to perform prayers and they do exactly as is stated, nothing more and nothing less, including the times you combine prayers you have to perform ablution again. You must understand how ridiculous this is, last time I checked, it's the Prophet who explains the Quran and not the people. The hypocrisy of some people is amazing, considering they only apply certain principles when it's in favor of their preconceptions and attacking another group. I will open a thread soon about stoning inshallah and you will see how suddenly all these principles mean nothing or how they use exactly the same arguments as I have in this thread.

On 4/1/2016 at 7:33 PM, Sunnibro said:

Do reports about washing the feet, mutawatir in Sunni books? If so, how does one reconcile between the two?

Yes they are and how to reconcile is easy. It could be seen as the verse is stating what is sufficient when you are already in a state of purity. If not, the Prophet explains the extra conditions.

Second of all, I haven't discussed the meaning of the word here or what refers to what, but several sunni scholars have explained this from that angle too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@GreatChineseFall I kind of see what you're saying. You have no problem with wiping the feet as part of the ablution process as long as the feet are in a state of purity. This state simply means the feet do not have anything najis on them. All Shias agree with this.

The following is where I have a problem. When the feet are in a state of purity, the sunnis will STILL wash and not wipe; therefore it is directly in violation of the verse.

Now onto Hadith and the prophet's explanations. As a rule of thumb for me, any hadith that contradicts the Quran is rejected (no matter how mutawatir). The Quran says to give charity, pray, do good, help the poor, help the orphan, keep our thoughts with Allah, keep ourselves clean, keep ourselves pure, it also says to wipe our feet as a mandatory command in the ablution process. Therefore, if the feet are not najis, we wipe, not wash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, ServantOfTheOne said:

I kind of see what you're saying. You have no problem with wiping the feet as part of the ablution process as long as the feet are in a state of purity. This state simply means the feet do not have anything najis on them. All Shias agree with this.

The following is where I have a problem. When the feet are in a state of purity, the sunnis will STILL wash and not wipe; therefore it is directly in violation of the verse.

That is not true, they do wipe them, it's just that the conditions for wiping is more strict than what you believe. But I am not even so much interested in the sunni interpretation. I simply object against people who claim that a narration must be rejected because it supposedly contradicts the Quran.
If you reject a narration, due to the weakness of the narrators, I might disagree but that's fine.
If you reject a narration, due to the presence of other narrations, I might disagree but that's fine.

The problem I have is suggesting that this necessarily contradicts the Qur'an, because it does not. An apparent contradiction does not have to be a contradiction, because the apparent meaning is that the command is unconditional, but if the Prophet explains that it is not, then it is not. That's why I said that the Prophet explains the Quran not the people.
 

7 hours ago, ServantOfTheOne said:

Now onto Hadith and the prophet's explanations. As a rule of thumb for me, any hadith that contradicts the Quran is rejected (no matter how mutawatir).

This I agree with but the whole point was that there was no contradiction. It must be proven that there is a contradiction to begin with. If for example, the Quran states that if you want to read the Quran you should wash your hands twice, but the Prophet says you should wash your hands 5 times if you are impure, is he contradicting the Quran? The answer for me is definitely no and you can simply ask if washing your hands 5 times neglects washing your hands two times. You can say "well, it doesn't but Allah would never specify a number if it wasn't a limit" and then the discussion can at least advance. But this didn't happen and that's why we kept repeating ourselves.

You can't claim that narrations that are mutawatir and strong must all be rejected if it is only contradicting an apparent meaning. If you apply this consistently then you will definitely run into major problems, I can guarantee you that. One good example would be:

4:11
Sahih International
Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate. And if there is only one, for her is half. And for one's parents, to each one of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children. But if he had no children and the parents [alone] inherit from him, then for his mother is one third. And if he had brothers [or sisters], for his mother is a sixth, after any bequest he [may have] made or debt. Your parents or your children - you know not which of them are nearest to you in benefit. [These shares are] an obligation [imposed] by Allah . Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

 
4:12
Sahih International

And for you is half of what your wives leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, for you is one fourth of what they leave, after any bequest they [may have] made or debt. And for the wives is one fourth if you leave no child. But if you leave a child, then for them is an eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you [may have] made or debt. And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants but has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is a sixth. But if they are more than two, they share a third, after any bequest which was made or debt, as long as there is no detriment [caused]. [This is] an ordinance from Allah , and Allah is Knowing and Forbearing.

4:176
Sahih International
They request from you a [legal] ruling. Say, " Allah gives you a ruling concerning one having neither descendants nor ascendants [as heirs]." If a man dies, leaving no child but [only] a sister, she will have half of what he left. And he inherits from her if she [dies and] has no child. But if there are two sisters [or more], they will have two-thirds of what he left. If there are both brothers and sisters, the male will have the share of two females. Allah makes clear to you [His law], lest you go astray. And Allah is Knowing of all things.

There is a problem here if you take the apparent meaning where the command is unconditional and try to apply this correctly for all circumstances. For shia's, it is even worse because the punishment of adultery is stoning but the apparent meaning of the verse prescribing the punishment is clearly not that. Not to mention ayat at-Tatheer. If you are not consistent, then you just expose your bias. And you do not even have to look at other verses. This verse simply can't be taken unconditionally. Do you perform ablution every time you want to prayer? Because that is what the apparent meaning of the verse explains.

8 hours ago, ServantOfTheOne said:

The Quran says to give charity, pray, do good, help the poor, help the orphan, keep our thoughts with Allah, keep ourselves clean, keep ourselves pure, it also says to wipe our feet as a mandatory command in the ablution process.

How do you derive from the Quran that it's a mandatory command. If the Prophet explained that it's preferred, then from a logical point of view that would be totally fine as well. The reason why we know it is a command is because the Prophet explained it as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The semantic gymnastics are still ongoing. Let us see the next absurdity. We have already "learned" that:

1. To wipe means to wash.

2. If you are commanded to wipe, you can still wash anyway.

What new absurdity is coming this time? That "wipe" in the verse is not "a mandatory command"?!

One wonders why some folks are finding it terribly difficult to comprehend or accept the simple word: "wipe."

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
21 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

That is not true, they do wipe them, it's just that the conditions for wiping is more strict than what you believe.

Yes, like making sure you wipe over the socks etc.......come on bro give us a break please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/04/2016 at 3:49 PM, GreatChineseFall said:

You must understand how ridiculous this is, last time I checked, it's the Prophet who explains the Quran and not the people. The hypocrisy of some people is amazing, considering they only apply certain principles when it's in favor of their preconceptions and attacking another group. I will open a thread soon about stoning inshallah and you will see how suddenly all these principles mean nothing or how they use exactly the same arguments as I have in this thread.

 

The problem with this approach is that there can be fabrications in ahadith and "ilmel Rijaal" is not God's decisions of who is trustworthy or reliable or not, but rather it's people. And if it's objective or not, is not a guarantee simply because some people claim they wanted to sincerely know the Sunnah.

Another problem is that Quran is suppose to be a light in itself, it may require details to be filled out, but it should be a light in itself.

So Quran has to have higher ground. And I do agree with you regarding stoning there is double standards. The Quran is clear that the punishment is not stoning in Quran.  There is also double standards in talking about context of ghadeer declaration and being obtuse, and the Shia interpretation of Khums.

But I am thinking most Muslims, Sunnis and Shias included care more to follow their scholars then to follow what is revealed by God.  This has been my experience. It doesn't matter how what Quran says and no matter how clear it is, this "Imams interpret Quran", and hence "we will follow what our scholars say", is the retarded excuse of abandoning clear light from Quran.

Hadiths are important, I'm not saying they are not. Ilmel Rijaal had potential of providing us only accurate hadiths but it didn't.

If you were living during time in which fabrications of revelations existed along with truth attributed to Prophets, how would you be required to act?

I think the Quran explains this in various ways, but, we see people talk about how human nature and it's human conscience has no role in the Shariah.

Yet the this was the Hujja upon people not to follow fabrications attributed to God that went against Fitra.

As there is no harm in following what we intend to follow God, but this shouldn't contradict Quran or Fitra.

In this case, the Quran is clear it's to wipe, and there is mutuwattir hadiths of wiping in both Sunni and Shia sources.

But people hearts are hard towards Quran. It talks about age of marriage, but let's make "nikah" something else entirely from it's apparent meaning. It talks about clearly how to deal with apostates who don't fight people and offer them peace, as well, as an entire theme of Quran is how Prophets preached if the people don't believe, let God judge between them at the end, but let freedom of expression of religion happen in society. 

If the argument of Quran comes down to the only reason why it was wrong for polytheists and people fo the book to fight Muslims and the Prophet was because they were upon truth, but otherwise, Christians and Jews if they were right in that Mohammad was a false Prophet had right to assassinate him or fight him, then it's not much of an argument to make. You don't condemn a people by telling them it's simply because we are on the right religion that your actions are wrong. It goes against the whole theme and is being obtuse to one of it's most emphasized themes.

 

 

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@GreatChineseFall

Again, excellent points. It is difficult to navigate all the verses and for me to pick and choose which ones I should take as absolutely literal and which ones need to be interpreted further.

The Quran itself says that it has verses which are apparent and verses which are not apparent. The problem here between the sects is which ones they choose to provide a different explanation for and which ones they choose to leave as literal. From an outside looking in, It will all be seen as a game between 2 or more sects.

 

You mentioned "if the Prophet explains that it is not, then it is not. That's why I said that the Prophet explains the Quran not the people". That's a fair point. But Hadith is always an uncertain matter. Words and sentences in Hadith can never be proven to be more authentic than words in the Quran. Therefore, here is my amended statement which should be fairer:

 

"For verses which do not require a great deal of interpretation, i.e. they are apparent verses (the existence of which is identified by the Quran), it is of no consequence for me to reject Hadith which clearly contradicts said verses. Clearly, the words of the Quran are far more iron-clad than the words of Hadith because the entire Quran has been verified and accepted by Imam Ali (as) whereas Hadith is subject to fabrications and scrutiny from all angles of human intent."

 

I hope my statement above made sense. Do you see a fault in it?

Edited by ServantOfTheOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

On 4/7/2016 at 1:12 PM, ServantOfTheOne said:

Again, excellent points. It is difficult to navigate all the verses and for me to pick and choose which ones I should take as absolutely literal and which ones need to be interpreted further.

True, but I would say that the presence or absence of clarifying information should tell you that.

On 4/7/2016 at 1:12 PM, ServantOfTheOne said:

You mentioned "if the Prophet explains that it is not, then it is not. That's why I said that the Prophet explains the Quran not the people". That's a fair point. But Hadith is always an uncertain matter. Words and sentences in Hadith can never be proven to be more authentic than words in the Quran.

It is an uncertain matter, but so is the understanding of people. As for the authenticity, two points.

First, it is still more authentic than the people's understanding of the Qur'an. You may object that the understanding can almost not be wrong if the verse is that apparent, but I would say that what is apparent is, again, due to the absence or presence of clarifying information. If the Prophet said something like "All the people of Quraish abandoned me", this has a clear apparent meaning if there is no further clarification. If the Prophet said in another instance "Ali did not abandon me", I do not consider this irreconcilable and you must view them in a context. It maybe considered odd, but narrations are not to be rejected due to oddness.

The verses about inheritance for example, on their own,  are very clear in their apparent meaning. It is only due to the presence of other verses, that you must consider a context. You can again object that "But these are verses vs verses", I would say that from a logical point of view, it doesn't matter. Two statements are two statements and they either contradict or don't regardless of whether they are verses, Prophetic narrations or said by poets for that matter. The only difference with the Qur'an is that you can say that one is abrogating the other, which obviously a Prophetic narration can't, but that is not the case with this example of inheritance.

Second, checking the authenticity of narrations should be done independent of each other, otherwise you risk making errors in your rejection or acceptance of said narrations by being biased. Like in science, you never reject data if it doesn't fit your model. If the data can be reproduced over and over again, you can not simply reject it. Rejection should only follow if it absolutely contradicts the Qur'an.

And as a final side note, people can create rules as much as they want, if they are not consistent, it doesn't mean much. I mean, there are people here when asked about a verse that clearly suggest that peophet Musa asked to see Allah, boldly claims without evidence, without any authentic narration whatsoever that other people practically forced Musa to do this and Prophet Musa only did this to show them. A slightly similar example is the punishment by stoning and then these people complain about an understanding that is massively transmitted, has no real theological consequences, has no political benefit for anyone as if this is the unreasonable stance to take. Come on, who are we kidding here?

On 4/7/2016 at 1:12 PM, ServantOfTheOne said:

"For verses which do not require a great deal of interpretation, i.e. they are apparent verses (the existence of which is identified by the Quran), it is of no consequence for me to reject Hadith which clearly contradicts said verses. Clearly, the words of the Quran are far more iron-clad than the words of Hadith because the entire Quran has been verified and accepted by Imam Ali (as) whereas Hadith is subject to fabrications and scrutiny from all angles of human intent."

There is no difference of opinion here, the difference of opinion is that the instructions of the Prophet do not "abrogate" or suspend the Qur'anic rule

Another very simple hypothetical example is the verse about zakat and the obligation to pay 1/40 clearly mentioned in the Qur'an. The Prophet cannot change this rule to make it more or less, but if the Prophet explained the verse and said:
"If one of your parents is not alive anymore for you to take care of, you pay more.
If you do not have children yet to take care of, you pay more.
If you are not married yet, you pay more.
If you are unable to work or sick or poor, you pay less."

Partly in response to Haideriam, even if this meant that 99% of the population would never pay the 1/40th prescribed apparently by the Qur'an that is not problematic to me at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 4/6/2016 at 10:37 PM, StrugglingForTheLight said:

The problem with this approach is that there can be fabrications in ahadith and "ilmel Rijaal" is not God's decisions of who is trustworthy or reliable or not, but rather it's people. And if it's objective or not, is not a guarantee simply because some people claim they wanted to sincerely know the Sunnah.

Another problem is that Quran is suppose to be a light in itself, it may require details to be filled out, but it should be a light in itself.

So Quran has to have higher ground. And I do agree with you regarding stoning there is double standards. The Quran is clear that the punishment is not stoning in Quran.  There is also double standards in talking about context of ghadeer declaration and being obtuse, and the Shia interpretation of Khums.

But I am thinking most Muslims, Sunnis and Shias included care more to follow their scholars then to follow what is revealed by God.  This has been my experience. It doesn't matter how what Quran says and no matter how clear it is, this "Imams interpret Quran", and hence "we will follow what our scholars say", is the retarded excuse of abandoning clear light from Quran.

Hadiths are important, I'm not saying they are not. Ilmel Rijaal had potential of providing us only accurate hadiths but it didn't.

If you were living during time in which fabrications of revelations existed along with truth attributed to Prophets, how would you be required to act?

I think the Quran explains this in various ways, but, we see people talk about how human nature and it's human conscience has no role in the Shariah.

Yet the this was the Hujja upon people not to follow fabrications attributed to God that went against Fitra.

As there is no harm in following what we intend to follow God, but this shouldn't contradict Quran or Fitra.

In this case, the Quran is clear it's to wipe, and there is mutuwattir hadiths of wiping in both Sunni and Shia sources.

But people hearts are hard towards Quran. It talks about age of marriage, but let's make "nikah" something else entirely from it's apparent meaning. It talks about clearly how to deal with apostates who don't fight people and offer them peace, as well, as an entire theme of Quran is how Prophets preached if the people don't believe, let God judge between them at the end, but let freedom of expression of religion happen in society. 

If the argument of Quran comes down to the only reason why it was wrong for polytheists and people fo the book to fight Muslims and the Prophet was because they were upon truth, but otherwise, Christians and Jews if they were right in that Mohammad was a false Prophet had right to assassinate him or fight him, then it's not much of an argument to make. You don't condemn a people by telling them it's simply because we are on the right religion that your actions are wrong. It goes against the whole theme and is being obtuse to one of it's most emphasized themes.

First what if it is almost undeniable that this rule of stoning existed in the Prophet's time?

Unfortunately everyone has a bias, I remember a discussion about a verse where according to me it very clearly states that among the people who were chosen to inherit the Qur'an are those who wrong themselves and you tried to give it another meaning that is less apparent. No one is saved from his bias. The best you can do is to remain consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salaams @GreatChineseFall

 

 

A lot of what you say is reasonable. In this day and age, words are all we have. Analysis of words without emotional or material bias is the requirement to sincere faith. I do not speak out of bias. I speak based on the merit of my understanding of Arabic. Furthermore, although a lot of exegesis exist today by hundreds of scholars, one's thinking and logical resolution is not easily changed.

 

When I read a particular verse, I find it difficult to accept arguments which go against my personal logic unless damning evidence is presented. With due respect to all scholars who spend their entire lives on the study of this faith, Allah has endowed us with the same mental faculties to make decisions based on logic and reason.

 

The verse we are discussing plainly states the order and act of ablution. Other hadiths have emerged which state otherwise in a blatant fashion. The exegesis of this verse in regards to said hadith is quite far-fetched. I do not understand why people accept washing instead of wiping when the verse is stated clearly and without ambiguity.

 

As a final seal for my logical understanding on this, if the verse says we should wash our feet instead of wipe, then I fail to see a reason why god's words are not as such. Ablution is a simple operational ritual that does not require an otherworldly and roundabout method in detailing the process.

 

Unless there is another verse in the Quran which clearly abrogates this verse, I highly doubt I will change my view on it based on how straightforward it reads and how implausible it is that Allah presents us words in a particular order where another order was intended.

 

Respectfully, Salaams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, ServantOfTheOne said:

Salaams @GreatChineseFall

 

 

A lot of what you say is reasonable. In this day and age, words are all we have. Analysis of words without emotional or material bias is the requirement to sincere faith. I do not speak out of bias. I speak based on the merit of my understanding of Arabic. Furthermore, although a lot of exegesis exist today by hundreds of scholars, one's thinking and logical resolution is not easily changed.

 

When I read a particular verse, I find it difficult to accept arguments which go against my personal logic unless damning evidence is presented. With due respect to all scholars who spend their entire lives on the study of this faith, Allah has endowed us with the same mental faculties to make decisions based on logic and reason.

 

The verse we are discussing plainly states the order and act of ablution. Other hadiths have emerged which state otherwise in a blatant fashion. The exegesis of this verse in regards to said hadith is quite far-fetched. I do not understand why people accept washing instead of wiping when the verse is stated clearly and without ambiguity.

 

As a final seal for my logical understanding on this, if the verse says we should wash our feet instead of wipe, then I fail to see a reason why god's words are not as such. Ablution is a simple operational ritual that does not require an otherworldly and roundabout method in detailing the process.

 

Unless there is another verse in the Quran which clearly abrogates this verse, I highly doubt I will change my view on it based on how straightforward it reads and how implausible it is that Allah presents us words in a particular order where another order was intended.

 

Respectfully, Salaams.

Wa aleikum salam,

I understand your objection, but what would be damning evidence in this day and age? I guess you are saying that if the Prophet instructed you to your face to wash you would not object, but we can't confirm now what the Prophet actually said. This would show to me that there is nor real irreconcilable contradiction. I feel then that the process of authentication of a narration and the process of checking if there is a contradiction with the Qur'an are mixed too much.

And again, it's not about abrogation. The choice of words could also simply be stating what is minimally required if one wants to perform ablution.

And the most important thing is to remain consistent. If the clear apparent meaning of wives of the Prophet being purified is denied unless the claim is made that the ordering is wrong, if the clear and apparent meaning of lashing adulterers is denied unless the claim is made that there is naskh at-ta'wil, if the clear and apparent meaning of Prophet Musa asking to see Allah is denied, if the clear and apparent meaning of the wali being Allah and the Messenger and those(plural!) who have believed by establishing prayer, paying zakat and bowing in worship are denied, then the principles upon which you base your understanding of the Qur'an are simply wrong.

I am not saying this to divert from the topic, it exposes the bias of some people here. And we don't have to look at other verses. This verse apparently instructs to perform ablution every time you stand up to perform prayer but this is not followed, so the clear apparent meaning is denied anyway. Why, because the Prophet explained it as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam @GreatChineseFall

Don't worry, I do not see your argument as a diversion. Your points are relevant to the topic at hand. I do not claim to be an expert exegesis and neither do I have a large "verse vocabulary" (inshallah one day).

If I compress all that you have said into 1 pill and swallow it, the reasonable rebuttal to your statement would be to counter the hadith references with opposing hadith references. And the only way to reconcile the issue of which hadith is more authentic is to study the men who transmitted them.

For me, the damning evidence is when the following conditions are met:

1 - Hadiths being reviewed are Sahih or Hasan

2 - Hadith agrees with the Quranic statements

3 - Hadith exists in both Sunni and Shia books

The Hadiths that agree about wiping the feet which are Sahih/Hasan do exist in both Sunni and Shia books. And since those Hadiths agree with the logical order of the verse, I then arrive at my conclusion.

I have watched videos where references of this were presented as proof from the Sunni books. And it is a no-brainer that Sahih versions of the hadith exist in Shia books. If you really want proofs, I will try to find the videos or textual references. I just never tend to debate much online and therefore do not tend to write down many references.

 

Salaam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Correction: naskh at-tilawat of course.

2 hours ago, ServantOfTheOne said:

Don't worry, I do not see your argument as a diversion. Your points are relevant to the topic at hand. I do not claim to be an expert exegesis and neither do I have a large "verse vocabulary" (inshallah one day).

Inshallah, you will. Just some food for thought for you to think about for potential future discussions:

33:32
Sahih International
O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah , then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech.

 
33:33
Sahih International
And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.

 
33:34
Sahih International

And remember what is recited in your houses of the verses of Allah and wisdom. Indeed, Allah is ever Subtle and Acquainted [with all things].

7:143
Sahih International
And when Moses arrived at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said, "My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You." [ Allah ] said, "You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it should remain in place, then you will see Me." But when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He rendered it level, and Moses fell unconscious. And when he awoke, he said, "Exalted are You! I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers."

 

5:55
Sahih International
Your ally is none but Allah and [therefore] His Messenger and those who have believed - those who establish prayer and give zakah, and they bow [in worship].
2 hours ago, ServantOfTheOne said:

1 - Hadiths being reviewed are Sahih or Hasan

2 - Hadith agrees with the Quranic statements

3 - Hadith exists in both Sunni and Shia books

I agree with the first. I agree also with the second, but it's quite abused sometimes. Basically, if you have the guts to hypothetically say to the Prophet directly that what he is explaining can not be correct due to the presence of a Quranic verse, then the second condition applies, otherwise it is only odd or weird and is not to be rejected just because of that.

The third I don't agree with, there is no reason why that should be the case. What about the Khawarij and the Mu'tazila? Besides, Zaidi shia's wash their feet, do they count as shia's or sunni's in this case.

2 hours ago, ServantOfTheOne said:

The Hadiths that agree about wiping the feet which are Sahih/Hasan do exist in both Sunni and Shia books. And since those Hadiths agree with the logical order of the verse, I then arrive at my conclusion.

You can share them, some that mention wiping are given in a context of people who are in a state of purity. Basically, assuming that you should always wipe the authentic narrations that are given and mention washing can not be explained. Assuming you wash/wipe depending on the circumstances you can explain both.

2 hours ago, ServantOfTheOne said:

I have watched videos where references of this were presented as proof from the Sunni books. And it is a no-brainer that Sahih versions of the hadith exist in Shia books. If you really want proofs, I will try to find the videos or textual references. I just never tend to debate much online and therefore do not tend to write down many references.

Ok, I see I will look for these narrations myself if I have time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

First what if it is almost undeniable that this rule of stoning existed in the Prophet's time?

Unfortunately everyone has a bias, I remember a discussion about a verse where according to me it very clearly states that among the people who were chosen to inherit the Qur'an are those who wrong themselves and you tried to give it another meaning that is less apparent. No one is saved from his bias. The best you can do is to remain consistent.

To me the more apparent meaning is the chosen ones are exalted above everyone. The reason people assume the other meaning in my view is due to the Jibt and Seher on the hearts from Sayateen. It makes them not even see the possibility of the emphasis on servants and don't even think about the verse before emphasizing on servants with God being aware and seeing of them. This is despite how Surahs are similar to one another often, and there is a theme going on with the "chosen ones" through out. That is the Quran is all together showing what "chosen ones" are. It's a disease that Satan inspires that no matter how clear a hadith or verse is regarding the family of Mohammad, that some people are conditioned to deny it and make it into an unclear indication of them.

The one verse I would say does first give an impression that it's not about the chosen family, is verse 33:33. But with some thought, about how much Quran has emphasized on chosen family through out, that surely there exists a chosen family of Mohammad and it doesn't make sense for such people to be addressed all together with non-chosen people. That and the emphasis and talk doesn't apply to them. That and the fact God wants to do more then simply purify the wives with those commands, both in this world and the next. So verse 33:33 has an impression I give you that, but with some reflection, we can see the state of Mohammad and his family is indicated as such that God only desires to keep the uncleanness away from them and nothing else and desires to only purify them a complete thorough purification and no one else from this nation with that level of purification. 

Just like the wives are emphasized to have Taqwa of Allah right before the verse commanding believers to bless the Prophet and emphasizing his status with God, similarly there it can be seen as saying the real reason why they been emphasized so much is because they are married to a person who is completely pure, one who God absolute desires to keep perfectly pure at all times, and who he blesses with all blessings in creation keeping nothing away from him except the uncleanness.

So there is a flow, and it's also teaching humanity through that, that we ought to emphasize on our wives,  to not choose and desire the temporary enjoyment of dunya or else we too should not want anything with them as it leads to the fire. Rather, we should also make an agreement with our spouses, to choose the next world, and God and his Messenger.

But why single them out of everyone, why are they not like just any other women? It's because who they are married to. 

So it has a flow. But this status of the Messenger is shared by Ahlul-Kisa. 

 

 

 

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight
Link to comment
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...