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  
StrugglingForTheLight

The anecdotal case against Marjaas.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I am opened a thread arguments against Taqleed from reason, Quran and ahadith.

This thread is not about the idea of Taqleed. We aren't arguing hypothetically here what would be best model of society, what Quran and ahadith state regarding the issue and what reason dictates.

Instead I will be arguing particularly against some of what what over all Marjaas teach is part of Islam.

I again hope for a civil discussion regarding this issue.  As a reminder we are looking at particular issues that Marjaas teach, rather then the idea of Taqleed itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

I am opened a thread arguments against Taqleed from reason, Quran and ahadith.

This thread is not about the idea of Taqleed. We aren't arguing hypothetically here what would be best model of society, what Quran and ahadith state regarding the issue and what reason dictates.

Instead I will be arguing particularly against some of what what over all Marjaas teach is part of Islam.

I again hope for a civil discussion regarding this issue.  As a reminder we are looking at particular issues that Marjaas teach, rather then the idea of Taqleed itself.

My friend once you at least know what tawheed is, then you might have a chance criticizing maraj'i..

Edited by Althaqalayn12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll have to consider the thread title. The word anecdotal means that what will be written is likely to be personal accounts rather than anything reliable, which given the subject matter, would not be allowed.

But the OP says that he wants to focus on teachings, so perhaps there'll be emphasis on facts.

Still, just flagging up that this thread may be closed if it just becomes a mud-slinging match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2016 at 0:48 PM, StrugglingForTheLight said:

I am opened a thread arguments against Taqleed from reason, Quran and ahadith.

This thread is not about the idea of Taqleed. We aren't arguing hypothetically here what would be best model of society, what Quran and ahadith state regarding the issue and what reason dictates.

Instead I will be arguing particularly against some of what what over all Marjaas teach is part of Islam.

I again hope for a civil discussion regarding this issue.  As a reminder we are looking at particular issues that Marjaas teach, rather then the idea of Taqleed itself.

In order to proceed, should I assume that you are more qualified than the marja whose teachings you will try to discredit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2016 at 10:48 AM, StrugglingForTheLight said:

I am opened a thread arguments against Taqleed from reason, Quran and ahadith.

This thread is not about the idea of Taqleed. We aren't arguing hypothetically here what would be best model of society, what Quran and ahadith state regarding the issue and what reason dictates.

Instead I will be arguing particularly against some of what what over all Marjaas teach is part of Islam.

I again hope for a civil discussion regarding this issue.  As a reminder we are looking at particular issues that Marjaas teach, rather then the idea of Taqleed itself.

You are either a neo-con shia or following someone who is, hence why you attack wilayat alfaqeeh because neo-cons are israeli agents who want to destroy iran and they found that outside using wahabis and sunnis didn't work, so they try to do it from the inside attacking our maraj'i and scholars...go cry about it baby :( LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first issue I would like to look at is the issue of death for apostates:

Quote


http://www.sistani.org/arabic/qa/0279/

السؤال: ما هو تعريفكم للمرتد بالتفصيل ؟ الجواب: المرتد وهو من خرج عن الاِسلام واختار الكفر على قسمين: فطري وملّي، والفطري من ولد على اسلام احد ابويه أو كليها ثم كفر، وفي اعتبار اسلامه بعد التمييز قبل الكفر وجهان اقربهما الاعتبار. وحكم الفطري انه يقتل في الحال، وتبين منه زوجته بمجرد ارتداده وينفسخ نكاحها بغير طلاق، وتعتد عدة الوفاة ـ على ما تقدم ـ ثم تتزوج ان شاءت، وتُقسّم امواله التي كانت له حين ارتداده بين ورثته بعد اداء ديونه كالميت ولا ينتظر موته، ولا تفيد توبته ورجوعه الى الاسلام في سقوط الاحكام المذكورة مطلقاً على المشهور، ولكنه لا يخلو عن شوب اشكال، نعم لا اشكال في عدم وجوب استتابته. وأما بالنسبة الى ما عدا الاحكام الثلاثة المذكورات فالاقوى قبول توبته باطناً وظاهراً، فيطهر بدنه وتصح عباداته ويجوز تزويجه من المسلمة، بل له تجديد العقد على زوجته السابقة حتى قبل خروجها من العدة على القول ببينونتها عنه بمجرد الارتداد، والظاهر انه يملك الاموال الجديدة باسبابه الاختيارية كالنجارة والحيازة والقهرية كالارث ولو قبل توبته. واما المرتد الملّي ـ وهو من يقابل الفطري ـ فحكمه انه يستتاب، فان تاب وإلاّ قتل، وانفسخ نكاح زوجته إذا كان الارتداد قبل الدخول أو كانت يائسة أو صغيرة ولم تكن عليها عدة، وأما إذا كان الارتداد بعد الدخول وكانت المرأة في سن من تحيض وجب عليها ان تعتد عدة الطلاق من حين الارتداد، فان رجع عن ارتداده الى الاسلام قبل انقضاء العدة بقي الزواج على حاله على الاقرب وإلاّ انكشف انها قد بانت عنه عند الارتداد. ولا تقسم أموال المرتد الملي إلاّ بعد موته بالقتل أو غيره، وإذا تاب ثم ارتد ففي وجوب قتله من دون استتابة في الثالثة أو الرابعة اشكال. هذا إذا كان المرتد رجلاً، واما لو كان امرأة فلا تقتل ولا تنتقل اموالها عنها الى الورثة إلاّ بالموت، وينفسخ نكاحها بمجرد الارتداد بدون اعتداد مع عدم الدخول أو كونها صغيرة أو يائسة وإلاّ توقف الانفساخ على انقضاء العدة وهي بمقدار عدة الطلاق كما مر في المسألة (٥٦٣). وتحبس المرتدة ويضيّق عليها وتضرب على الصلاة حتى تتوب فان تابت قبلت توبتها، ولا فرق في ذلك بين أن تكون مرتدة عن ملة أو عن فطرة.

[Disclaimer: translation below was provided by an anonymous person on a different forum. Feel free to suggest corrections if any.]

Question: What is your detailed definition of apostasy?

Answer: The apostate is the one who has left islam and chosen disbelief, and their are two categories of apostastes: Fitri and Milli. A Fitri is the one who was born into islam, and either one or both of his parents are muslim, then he apostasized. This is under the assumption that he is any of level of religiosity, bar complete disbelief in islam. The ruling on the Fitri is death immediately. His marriage with his wife is instantly made void, without need for a divorce, and continues until his death. Afterwards, she may marry as she pleases. His money/finances that he owned during his time of apostasy are divided between his heirs, but only after his financial debts are payed. This is done whilst he is alive, as if he had died. His repentance and return to islam does not revoke the ruling against him in any case. However, he can repent. (a few lines underneath I couldn't really understand, sorry)

As for the Milli, His ruling is that he repents. He either repents, or is killed. His marriage to his wife is made void if he apostastized before consummation, or if she is upset with the marriage, or if she is small and Iddah doesnt apply to her (meaning virgin again)If he apostatized after consummation, or the wife has reached the age of menstruation then she must go through Iddah of divorce (3 month waiting period) and if he repents and returns to islam before the 3 months of Iddah are up, the marriage is resumed as normal, unless she wanted to be irrevocably divorced whilst he was still an apostate. The finances of the Milli apostate are not divided whilst he is still alive, only after his death (compared to the Fitri, where it is done whilst alive). If he apostatizes a second time, it is then obligatory to kill him, with his repentance unable to revoke the ruling. 

In the case, of the apostate being a woman, she is not to be killed, and her money not removed from her unless she dies. Her marriage is void just by the fact she apostatises, regardless if they had consummated or she is small, or she is upset/doesnt want husband. It may be resumed if she repents during the Iddah (3 month period). She is to be imprisoned in a narrow space, and hit, to make her pray, until she repents. Her repentance is accepted. There is not difference in this ruling whether she is a Milli or a Fitri.

6

 

This is what Marjaas generally teach as well.

However this contradicts Quran on many levels as well as reason. But before I get into how this contradicts Quran and reason, I will wait for people to show whether they support this teaching or not, or wait to see if people agree whether Marjaas in general teach this or not.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AlthaqaIayn12 said:

You are either a neo-con shia or following someone who is, hence why you attack wilayat alfaqeeh because neo-cons are israeli agents who want to destroy iran and they found that outside using wahabis and sunnis didn't work, so they try to do it from the inside attacking our maraj'i and scholars...go cry about it baby :( LOL!

You will note that every deviant that appears eg Yasir Habib, Ahmad Al Hassan, etc They all say the same things, scholars are bad, Iran is bad etc and follow me instead.

Im not saying scholars are above criticism, but to say that we must ignore advice from any scholars is dumb and dangerous and a clear sign of a fitnah generator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

The first issue I would like to look at is the issue of death for apostates:

This is what Marjaas generally teach as well.

However this contradicts Quran on many levels as well as reason. But before I get into how this contradicts Quran and reason, I will wait for people to show whether they support this teaching or not, or wait to see if people agree whether Marjaas in general teach this or not.

Before answering, can you please confirm if you consider yourself more knowledgeable than all marajaes or at least more than the average marja? Keeping in mind you have only been shia for 5 years or so.

Once I have your answer (I have this question several times), I will respond to the apostasy question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to think it was that the verses discussing this issue scholars have not thought about them that much. But now I've come to the view they are very well aware of it, but due to reasons, are looking to do away with what these verses are saying. To given an example:

Quote

 

Verse 4:136
What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has degenerated them because of what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has abandoned in error? And whomsoever Allah abandons in error, you shall by no means find for him a way (out of error). They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved so that you might be all alike, therefore do not take friends from among them until they (truly believe and) emigrate in the way of Allah.

But if they turn back (from belief and migration), then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from them any as a friend or a helper. (Seize and kill such people) except those (among them) who reach a tribe with whom you are joined in an alliance, or who come to you with hearts constricted from fighting you or fighting their own people...Therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and (instead) offer you peace, then (know that) Allah has not given you permission (to fight) against them. (4:89-90)

First of all, these verses are about the polytheists of Mecca in general--the kuffar as well as those who became murtad. They do not talk about individuals and their punishment.

Secondly, even if we concentrate on the Meccans who had come to Medina, accepted Islam as their faith, and then returned back to Mecca and became kafir--we see that this is the case of murtad milli. And the verses clearly state that if they return back to Islam, then you can take them as friends. But if they do not return to Islam, then "seize them and kill them wherever you find them".
 
Thirdly, later part of the passage talks about a situation where such groups or individuals form an alliance with tribes (or countries) with whom you also have a peace treaty, then that peace agreement would now cover them also; and, therefore, you should not do anything to them. This is seen in the views of the jurists who say that if a murtad flees from daru 'l-Islam, then it is not obligatory to pursue him and kill him.26

These are just some examples of how to study the Qur'anic verses: in their proper historical context and not just in isolation. Other similar verses can be understood in the same light.

 

These verses in fact show exactly what the judgement regarding this issue is. First of all, it talks about hypocrites who disbelieve and desire that believers disbelieve like them.  It talks about how in general if the turn back they should be killed. But the verses than clarify what is meant by that. It meant if they take side of disbelievers waging war against believers, and go back to their people to fight against them, then to kill them. However it made a clear case that if they are part of a people who they have a covenant with don't fight them or if their hearts shrink from fighting not to fight them. It surely is being obtuse to say it simply means returning to a non-Muslim land who you have a treaty with, and that is of course trying to do away with what the verses are stating.

If someone wanted to come to Quran and ask, does Quran say anything regarding people who turn away from the faith and renegade, these verses would surely be addressing the issue.

That said it clarifying that so and so people are not to be killed, it doesn't make sense to make all these conditions that it didn't state. If Quran addresses an issue, than what it says regarding that issue should be listened to and not ignored.

Instead of trying to make the Quran fit our preconceived notions, we ought to try to see what it truly says.

Here it's saying there is people among the Muslims who have become hypocrites, disbelieving in their hearts while outwardly professing faith. It further states that they desire believers to disbelieve, but what is to be done to these people? If they turn back, they are to be killed, but then it says the exception is, if they withdraw from you and offer you peace. That is turning back, but it's doing so in a peaceful manner. The exception is for those who turn on their back but go back to a people who there is a covenant or if their hearts shrink from fighting their own people and it's out that motive they don't want to fight, that even despite they belonging to a people who fight the believers and Nabi, they show words of peace that they have no will to fight Muslims, then they ought to not be killed.

It didn't say what the above scholar said in the quote, that if they don't flee from them, then it's obligatory to kill them. That was not one of the conditions initially stated. The two conditions were 1. They go back to a people who have a treaty with you (they might hate you but say we have a treaty, wont' fight you) or that is not the case but they offer peace none the less and their hearts shrink from fighting their own people. That is they don't want war with the Muslims.

This is a clear as it can get. It didn't say "but if they ask forgiveness and repent" as a condition, or "if they repent and then turn back, and repent, then their repentance is not accepted and they are to be killed" either...so what is this person seeing in these verses that are suggesting this at all?

People rather twist the Quran rather then submit to it and prefer submitting to their leaders rather then God and his clear words.

This is not something to be taken lightly, as the hidden motive,  for this, is most likely to be associating in the value we give to God by giving to others or even preferring their obedience to God's obedience and using God as a means to value our hidden idols in society and in ourselves.

And with God is the refuge to be sought from the Taghut so that we don't Worship it.

It is for this reasons Imams [as] said the Shirk in Suratal Nisaa verses specifically refers to obedience to Ali [as]. 

If we associate others with our motive to obey God through the Imams, we are valuing others on par with our value to God in reality.

 

 

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

I use to think it was that the verses discussing this issue scholars have not thought about them that much. But now I've come to the view they are very well aware of it, but due to reasons, are looking to do away with what these verses are saying. To given an example:

These verses in fact show exactly what the judgement regarding this issue is. First of all, it talks about hypocrites who disbelieve and desire that believers disbelieve like them.  It talks about how in general if the turn back they should be killed. But the verses than clarify what is meant by that. It meant if they take side of disbelievers waging war against believers, and go back to their people to fight against them, then to kill them. However it made a clear case that if they are part of a people who they have a covenant with don't fight them or if their hearts shrink from fighting not to fight them. It surely is being obtuse to say it simply means returning to a non-Muslim land who you have a treaty with, and that is of course trying to do away with what the verses are stating.

If someone wanted to come to Quran and ask, does Quran say anything regarding people who turn away from the faith and renegade, these verses would surely be addressing the issue.

That said it clarifying that so and so people are not to be killed, it doesn't make sense to make all these conditions that it didn't state. If Quran addresses an issue, than what it says regarding that issue should be listened to and not ignored.

Instead of trying to make the Quran fit our preconceived notions, we ought to try to see what it truly says.

Here it's saying there is people among the Muslims who have become hypocrites, disbelieving in their hearts while outwardly professing faith. It further states that they desire believers to disbelieve, but what is to be done to these people? If they turn back, they are to be killed, but then it says the exception is, if they withdraw from you and offer you peace. That is turning back, but it's doing so in a peaceful manner. The exception is for those who turn on their back but go back to a people who there is a covenant or if their hearts shrink from fighting their own people and it's out that motive they don't want to fight, that even despite they belonging to a people who fight the believers and Nabi, they show words of peace that they have no will to fight Muslims, then they ought to not be killed.

It didn't say what the above scholar said in the quote, that if they don't flee from them, then it's obligatory to kill them. That was not one of the conditions initially stated. The two conditions were 1. They go back to a people who have a treaty with you (they might hate you but say we have a treaty, wont' fight you) or that is not the case but they offer peace none the less and their hearts shrink from fighting their own people. That is they don't want war with the Muslims.

This is a clear as it can get. It didn't say "but if they ask forgiveness and repent" as a condition, or "if they repent and then turn back, and repent, then their repentance is not accepted and they are to be killed" either...so what is this person seeing in these verses that are suggesting this at all?

People rather twist the Quran rather then submit to it and prefer submitting to their leaders rather then God and his clear words.

This is not something to be taken lightly, as the hidden motive,  for this, is most likely to be associating in the value we give to God by giving to others or even preferring their obedience to God's obedience and using God as a means to value our hidden idols in society and in ourselves.

And with God is the refuge to be sought from the Taghut so that we don't Worship it.

It is for this reasons Imams [as] said the Shirk in Suratal Nisaa verses specifically refers to obedience to Ali [as]. 

If we associate others with our motive to obey God through the Imams, we are valuing others on par with our value to God in reality.

 

 

So the issue is not that you are more learned than the marajae but that they are corrupt and you are not, correct?

Brother - we can start discussing the issue at hand with regards to apostasy as soon as you answer this question which I have been asking for weeks now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all humans now know exactly how wrong it is to kill for leaving religion.  The fact this is not simply an issue of ignoring Quran, it's an issue of ignoring Fitra at the most fundamental level.   There is no doubt in my mind people who accept this rule are corrupt to some degree. This includes our past scholars all the way to the present who did so. I will stick by it, and will not abandon principles that Quran verifies and has entire themes on it which I will get into more detail later.

So far I have presented clear verses regarding it. This issue however is addressed through out Quran in many ways. That and no decent human being with ounce of down to earth logic will think it's right to kill a person for leaving his religion be it the truth or not.

 

 

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

Almost all humans now know exactly how wrong it is to kill for leaving religion.  The fact this is not simply an issue of ignoring Quran, it's an issue of ignoring Fitra at the most fundamental level.   There is no doubt in my mind people who accept this rule are corrupt to some degree. This includes our past scholars all the way to the present who did so. I will stick by it, and will not abandon principles that Quran verifies and has entire themes on it which I will get into more detail later.

So far I have presented clear verses regarding it. This issue however is addressed through out Quran in many ways. That and no decent human being with ounce of down to earth logic will think it's right to kill a person for leaving his religion be it the truth or not.

so to reiterate, all marajae of today and yester-years who state the punishment for apostasy is death are corrupt, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allah's religion he has chosen for humanity, and the true teachings of his revelation and the Messenger and those who have the Authority from this nation, are to be preferred over a fallible system of "science" of "men" which had potential to be over all true or over all false,  and are to be preferred to that of the words of regular non-chosen people.

We see some people so immersed in this, that they say things like their scholars have higher rank then that of the Prophets of Bani-Israel. For example Djibril said this before. Others have said this as well. This is while believers were commanded not to say "listen to us/obey us/follow us/let us lead you" (Raina).

It's even going beyond the step of attributing purity to people while it's only who God can attribute purity to who he pleases and manifests as pure who he pleases,  it goes to the step of even exalting them above some of God's Prophets. 

I now have no doubt that we are no different then those Jews and Christians who were lead into darkness by their scholars and by taking them as lords and worshipping the Taghut unknowingly.   When we don't even have inner light to the extent we can say "yes I know it's totally wrong for society to kill someone for leaving his religion be it true or not", I'm sure there is not much light in such people, no matter what zeal they have in religion. That is darkness, darkness the whole world practically sees in us but supposedly some people can't see, and the darkness while the Quran has given light to this issue and manifested justice regarding this issue. It has manifest clear guidance and light with many verses about this issue.

Quran says "those who listen to the best of word and follow the best of it" and said "those who when our signs/revelations are recited to them, don't fall deaf and blind regarding them".

How can Quran teach justice if when it teaches principles of justice it emphasized through out, it's ignored for the sake of following for those who claimed to be most learned in religion and most knowledgeable regarding it.

 

 

 

 

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

Allah's religion he has chosen for humanity, and the true teachings of his revelation and the Messenger and those who have the Authority from this nation, are to be preferred over a fallible system of "science" of "men" which had potential to be over all true or over all false,  and are to be preferred to that of the words of regular non-chosen people.

We see some people so immersed in this, that they say things like their scholars have higher rank then that of the Prophets of Bani-Israel. For example Djibril said this before. Others have said this as well. This is while believers were commanded not to say "listen to us/obey us/follow us/let us lead you" (Raina).

It's even going beyond the step of attributing purity to people while it's only who God can attribute purity to who he pleases and manifests as pure who he pleases,  it goes to the step of even exalting them above some of God's Prophets. 

I now have no doubt that we are no different then those Jews and Christians who were lead into darkness by their scholars and by taking them as lords and worshipping the Taghut unknowingly.   When we don't even have inner light to the extent we can say "yes I know it's totally wrong for society to kill someone for leaving his religion be it true or not", I'm sure there is not much light in such people, no matter what zeal they have in religion. That is darkness, darkness the whole world practically sees in us but supposedly some people can't see, and the darkness while the Quran has given light to this issue and manifested justice regarding this issue. It has manifest clear guidance and light with many verses about this issue.

Quran says "those who listen to the best of word and follow the best of it" and said "those who when our signs/revelations are recited to them, don't fall deaf and blind regarding them".

How can Quran teach justice if when it teaches principles of justice it emphasized through out, it's ignored for the sake of following for those who claimed to be most learned in religion and most knowledgeable regarding it.

So to recap, all marja are corrupt and the shias of today are no different and definitely no better than the Jews and Christians - is that an accurate summary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall a discussion on this coming up some time ago.

The thing is, Marja are people just like everyone else.  There are people who dedicate their entire lives to learning each religion.  There are people who dedicate their entire lives to understanding various sciences and arts.  In a general sense, it is safe to turn to them for advice on topics theyre well versed in.  However, they are still human. Theyre limited and flawed beings, just as we all are. They have biases, they have subjective opinions, their perspectives are unique to themselves etc. Thus is the nature of mankind.

So, it is good to seek guidance from experts, but every individual should still be responsible and should use their own judgement over an expert, in scenarios where the experts make mistakes. This is just common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, iCambrian said:

I recall a discussion on this coming up some time ago.

The thing is, Marja are people just like everyone else.  There are people who dedicate their entire lives to learning each religion.  There are people who dedicate their entire lives to understanding various sciences and arts.  In a general sense, it is safe to turn to them for advice on topics theyre well versed in.  However, they are still human. Theyre limited and flawed beings, just as we all are. They have biases, they have subjective opinions, their perspectives are unique to themselves etc. Thus is the nature of mankind.

So, it is good to seek guidance from experts, but every individual should still be responsible and should use their own judgement over an expert, in scenarios where the experts make mistakes. This is just common sense.

Who's more likely to make a "mistake"? You or them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StrugglingForTheLight

For this argument against the killing of apostates- are you a Qur'anist? Do you reject the Sunna or Ahadith?

Because I can see you trying to weasel out a case against the Shi'i Ulema with your self satisfying far-fetched explanations of Qur'anic verses- a highly pitiful case, but a case none the less. However, if you turn to Shi'i ahadith, as we Shi'a do when we find something ambiguous in the Qur'an, you have no case at all, which is why we have unanimity among the ulema regarding this issue. And not just in the present day- death for apostasy is mutawattir in our literature, and has been since the origin of Islam.

 

A teaser:

 ـ وبالإسناد عن ابن محبوب ، عن هشام بن سالم ، عن عمار الساباطي ، قال : سمعت أبا عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) يقول : كل مسلم بين مسلمين ارتد عن الإسلام وجحد محمدا ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) نبوته وكذبه فان دمه مباح لمن سمع ذلك منه ، وامرأته بائنة منه ( يوم ارتد ) فلا تقربه ، ويقسم ماله على ورثته ، وتعتد امرأته عدة المتوفى عنها زوجها ، وعلى الإمام أن يقتله ولا يستتيبه .

ورواه الصدوق بإسناده عن هشام بن سالم .

ورواه الشيخ بإسناده عن سهل بن زياد ، وأحمد بن محمد جميعا ، عن ابن محبوب .

By the isnad from Ibn Mahbub from Hisham b. Salim from `Ammar as-Sabati.  He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام saying: Every Muslim amongst the Muslims who apostates from Islam and denies the prophethood of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله and gives the lie to him, his blood is allowed for whoever hears that from him.  His wife is separated from him from the day he apostatized, so she is not to approach him.  His wealth is divided upon his heirs, and his wife observes the `idda of the one whose husband has died from her.  And it is upon the Imam to kill him and not seek his repentance.

And as-Saduq narrated it by his isnad from Hisham b. Salim.

And the Shaykh narrated it by his isnad from Sahl b. Ziyad and Ahmad b. Muhammad both from Ibn Mahbub.

Also recorded in al-Kafi, vol. 7, p. 257, Man la Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih, vol. 3, p.89, Tahdhibu 'l-Ahkaam, vol. 10, p. 136

 

Seriously man, what is your problem with scholars? Who do you think you are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

Almost all humans now know exactly how wrong it is to kill for leaving religion.  The fact this is not simply an issue of ignoring Quran, it's an issue of ignoring Fitra at the most fundamental level.   There is no doubt in my mind people who accept this rule are corrupt to some degree. This includes our past scholars all the way to the present who did so. I will stick by it, and will not abandon principles that Quran verifies and has entire themes on it which I will get into more detail later.

So far I have presented clear verses regarding it. This issue however is addressed through out Quran in many ways. That and no decent human being with ounce of down to earth logic will think it's right to kill a person for leaving his religion be it the truth or not.

Your ideas of what 'humans now consider wrong', what Fitra is, or what you consider a Quranic principle is not worth an ounce of a single saheeh hadith of  Abu `Abdillah Ja'far as-Sadiq عليه السلام .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, certainclarity said:

Apart from the topic at hand, apparently sense is not so common...if common wealth is just a notion, you can leave alone sense.

Proper sense is a very valuable commodity to be common : )

Unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, magma said:

Who's more likely to make a "mistake"? You or them?

This all depends on who the individual is and who the marja is and what each of their experiences are.

Scholars, or higher forms of scholars rather, typically do have the upper hand. However, we know that as humans, theyre prone to make mistakes just as everyone else. Every day people, need their own basic knowledge of Islam to be able to make decisions in times where a scholar comes up short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is deemed authentic or not by a system is not 100%. Obviously people will reject Quran and confirm hadiths to follow their scholars. This is one problem I have with scholars. They value the system of rijaal too much in that they abandon clear verses of Quran. What I've shown so far is clear from Quran and people rather abandon Quran because they in fact worship the taghut claiming to worship God alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the verse of Jews and Christians taking their scholars as lords, according to hadiths it's by allowing what God forbid and forbidding what God allowed, obviously, they weren't doing so saying people have to follow their opinions alone, they were rather attributing stuff to the Prophets. But people when they realize something contradicts what they know 100% of morality as well as contradicts other teachings attributed to the Prophets, they ought to seek refuge in God and not attach themselves to scholars to the extent they attribute to God what they know is wrong for the sake of following scholars.

Because if they don't, they would be valuing them on par with God and worshipping them whence they know not. 

There is nothing unclear about the verses I showed about this issue. It's an excuse to say we prefer hadith of Imams over your interpretation. But really if the scholars said this contradicted Quran, no one would defend these ahadith but would say, it's clear Quran says this, so scholars are just referring to Quran and seeing what contradicts it. 

Everyone would of defended the verses of Quran had the scholars defended them. And this is one reason the flaw of Taqleed. People can possible abandon Quran for the sake of following scholars. It's not just in theory, but it's a reality that this happens.

 

 

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, magma said:

Who's more likely to make a "mistake"? You or them?

The truth is they are more likely regarding a lot of things then if a person studied Islam objectively independently of khums and the system of scholars. The reason is because there is pressure there to accept what the scholars have all accepted and not to dispute with them.  For example, to come to the truth of the issue of Khums, you would not go to those who benefit primarily from it to know it's ruling and have become depend on a certain interpretation of it. That is putting you into a bias approach.

I think a child reading Quran has better understanding of some verses then scholars, because scholars are prone to make themselves leaders to Quran rather then Quran being their leader because the position they put themselves in.

While a child would honestly want to see what is in Quran and not lead people regarding what is in it.

 

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is verses in Quran about Prophets telling their people, that if a party disbelieves and another party believes, to wait for God to settle the dispute, rather then having a portion of people impose their beliefs on the other. This is saying, ok you disbelieve, but allow people freedom to chose.

It's obvious that God teaching this message but then forcing people not to become Bahais for example, would invalidate the logic. Because it's not saying accept this because it's the true religion but is saying, even if you disbelieve in the religion, then allow freedom of people to chose.

And this pressuring and oppressing others from picking a religion they desire and not allowing freedom of expression and people to express what they deem the truth, is implied by a theme of Quran, and it's obviously a criticism of the disbelievers of Quraysh who took the opposite stance. 

The verse "there is no force in religion" is also not to belittled into just simply stating an obvious fact, that people can't be forced to believe what they don't want to believe, but obvious must coming willingly, but as the ahadith about the situation of it's revelation, it had to do specifically with not forcing people to come to a religion. 

This doesn't make sense to apply to everyone except the 1 billion Muslims world wide, who are to be forced to keep their religion. 

Aside from that reason is manifest to everyone that society ought to allow people to follow different religions. That a religion that teaches others should convert to it and other religions should allow people to convert to it, but say, their adherents cannot change their religion, is that of hypocrisy and stupidity.

It doesn't make sense to preach that since you are the true religion, people can't leave this religion, because everyone believing in their faith naturally will claim they are the true religion.  Of course, forcing people not to express the religion they believe in is oppression, the same of the Mushrikeen in Mecca were doing, the same that other Prophets argued against their people, that people should be allowed to believe what they deem is the truth. That if they disbelieve and another believes, they ought to allow God to judge the dispute.

This theme is of the muhkam verses.

Another "mutuwatir" ahadith is that anyone insulting the Prophet or Imams is to be killed. This is while the Prophet was insulted during his time according to Quran but never did the Quran say to kill for that, but rather it taught be patient from what they say. Those mutuwattir ahadith even teach that you don't need permission from the Imam to kill a person who insults the Prophet, that you can take that matter in those hands.

Is this anything a rational down to earth person will believe? Or it's only zealous people to their scholars that would say such a thing? Does this not a contradict the forbearing patient attitude that Quran intitially called it's followers to and the Prophet to, but only taught to fight because they were being fought and oppressed later on and the Prophet had a community now to defend, a city to defend?

I have no doubt that God is Justice and Goodness in absolute way, and the he is the source of justice and goodness.

Reason and religion have to go together. Religion is suppose to help us see through reason and the light of God within the hearts, it's not suppose to make us extinguish it all for the sake of following fallible system and fallible leaders.

In all times, the revelations of God were corrupted. Were people required to follow evil teachings simply by being attributed to Prophets? 

Of course not. But in this case, we have Quran which gives clear guidance regarding this issue. It has both explicit and implicit verses regarding this issue.

We are lucky that we live in a time where we have a safeguarded revelation. Lucky in one sense, but in another sense, if we ignore it and follow what contradicts it for the sake of reasons that are anything but sincerity to God, but rather self-deception in form of ignorant zeal, then we are left with no excuse.

There is of course the verse that no one is to be killed except for killing another person or corruption in the earth. If fasad fel arth is interpreted as any type of sin, then it's highly problematic, it does nothing, as everyone practically sins. But obviously here it refers to things like rape or oppressing others in the land, causing corruption in the earth basically refers to something else then something like disbelieving the true religion obviously. 

If it applies to murtads, then it equally applies to all disbelievers who disbelieve in the religion, does anyone say God sanctioned bani-Israel to kill all disbelievers in the true religion? Obviously it was teaching them not to kill except for these two reasons. Things like rape are obvious havoc corrupting causes in the earth as they go against the safety of society and the peaceful order that God wants established on earth. However disbelieving in the true religion is obviously not a case where it merits you to be killed and so this applies to both those originally Muslims and those not.

 

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

The truth is they are more likely regarding a lot of things then if a person studied Islam objectively independently of khums and the system of scholars. The reason is because there is pressure there to accept what the scholars have all accepted and not to dispute with them.  For example, to come to the truth of the issue of Khums, you would not go to those who benefit primarily from it to know it's ruling and have become depend on a certain interpretation of it. That is putting you into a bias approach.

I think a child reading Quran has better understanding of some verses then scholars, because scholars are prone to make themselves leaders to Quran rather then Quran being their leader because the position they put themselves in.

While a child would honestly want to see what is in Quran and not lead people regarding what is in it.

 

I wanted to add to this.

Just my two cents.

Mankind, the human mind and our lives are extremely complex.  Life isnt something that can be defined by a super computer.  You cant type in a question, and have it pump out a black and white yes or no answer, then click the save button and have that answer saved in perfection for eternity.  But this is how I feel that people sometimes treat scholars.  As if theyre super computers that you can just send in a question, get a black and white answer, and not have to worry about it being anything less than perfect.

I think about scholars in various fields of science and art that have spent their entire lives studying their individual fields. It is impressive the things that people like steven hawking knows when it comes to physics. But at the end of the day, the human mind has a capacity.  It has limits on information it can take in.  It pushes out information over time.  Information is replaced and updated.  The mind is constantly growing and changing and updating.  It isnt just this static computer with answers. We are very intellectually dynamic.  And its just not right to take 1 human being, and take his 1 single life, and 1 single view, and opinion and experience, and to hold that 1 single person, over your entire life worth of complex decisions and ideas.

Theres just no way that a single individual can successfully provide guidance for hundreds of thousands of complex, individual lives. Some may say, well the Prophet Muhammad was one man.  Muhammad is no longer in a physical state, here with us though, and we are now in an environment where information is being translated and re hashed by those limited human minds. We could never hold any scholar, at the level that we hold figures like Muhammad or Jesus.

-------------------------------------------------

Beyond this though, a couple key points.

Lets say a marja has a 99.999% chance of giving correct advice on a topic. If that marja has a following of over 10,000 muslims, and is asked 10,000 questions, that means that, there is a chance that of those 10,000 muslims, at least 1 will have an idea that out matches the marja.

In this world with over a billion muslims, there are countless, highly educated figures out here, that without a doubt, in certain areas, could intellectually match or outmatch ayatollahs. Probably more often than is commonly discussed. To say that these highly educated muslims do not exist, is to insult muslims of the world.

But the system that currently stands, seems to take these individuals and their novel ideas, and it seems as if it degrades them.  Or perhaps, a highly educated figure, may have a brilliant idea, but may not voice this idea with the assumption that marja are by default correct over his or her own idea. Just a thought.  Ive seen pretty intelligent people fold their cards here on SC, as if they arent giving enough credit to their own ideas. Theyll give up on a topic and just say that we should ask a higher scholar.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Scholars will always be great for general guidance.  But they are not super computers, theyre human beings just like us. This goes with any topic, not just Islamic taqleed, but with any subject you can fathom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you think of the sayings of the A'immah (which is exceedingly obvious) and the issue of apostasy, it's completely ridiculous for you to attack the ulema for deriving their rulings from what our ahadith clearly say, rather than your esoteric, vague interpretations of the Qur'an.

You seem to think that you can pick up any verse of the Qur'an, apply the wildest interpretations to it, and then pretend you're superior to the ulema because you're using the "clear" injunctions of the Qur'an while they're using ahadith.

You evidently have little else to do on this forum other than discrediting the ulema and advocating your superiority to them- that is the purpose of virtually every thread I have seen you make.

Edited by Shaykh Patience101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

What is deemed authentic or not by a system is not 100%. Obviously people will reject Quran and confirm hadiths to follow their scholars. This is one problem I have with scholars. They value the system of rijaal too much in that they abandon clear verses of Quran. What I've shown so far is clear from Quran and people rather abandon Quran because they in fact worship the taghut claiming to worship God alone.

Fitnah is worse than killing.

If people are going to make a campaign against morals, against doing what is good, against defending the weak, eg against Islam, then this is a grave threat to society.

We are not talking about the people who miss the odd prayer, we are talking about those who are publicly waging a fitnah and a war against what is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, iCambrian said:

So, it is good to seek guidance from experts, but every individual should still be responsible and should use their own judgement over an expert, in scenarios where the experts make mistakes. This is just common sense.

Just because one disagrees with a marja does not make the marja wrong. Couldnt it be that the person is wrong. How do you go about proving a marja is wrong? If the marja passes a ruling based on Quran and hadith, the only way you can discredit the marja is if you are more knowledgeable in that area than the marja. Reading 1 book on medicine or physics does not make you a doctor or a physicist.

7 hours ago, iCambrian said:

This all depends on who the individual is and who the marja is and what each of their experiences are.

Scholars, or higher forms of scholars rather, typically do have the upper hand. However, we know that as humans, theyre prone to make mistakes just as everyone else. Every day people, need their own basic knowledge of Islam to be able to make decisions in times where a scholar comes up short.


so you get sick, you google your symptoms, prescribe medication and get healed - is that what you are saying? Every day, hundreds of doctors make mistakes and yet people still go to them; mechanics are known to scam people and yet people still go to them; I can provide a thousand examples to counter your ridiculous logic that basic knowledge supersedes advanced knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iCambrian said:

I wanted to add to this.

Just my two cents.

Mankind, the human mind and our lives are extremely complex.  Life isnt something that can be defined by a super computer.  You cant type in a question, and have it pump out a black and white yes or no answer, then click the save button and have that answer saved in perfection for eternity.  But this is how I feel that people sometimes treat scholars.  As if theyre super computers that you can just send in a question, get a black and white answer, and not have to worry about it being anything less than perfect.

I think about scholars in various fields of science and art that have spent their entire lives studying their individual fields. It is impressive the things that people like steven hawking knows when it comes to physics. But at the end of the day, the human mind has a capacity.  It has limits on information it can take in.  It pushes out information over time.  Information is replaced and updated.  The mind is constantly growing and changing and updating.  It isnt just this static computer with answers. We are very intellectually dynamic.  And its just not right to take 1 human being, and take his 1 single life, and 1 single view, and opinion and experience, and to hold that 1 single person, over your entire life worth of complex decisions and ideas.

Theres just no way that a single individual can successfully provide guidance for hundreds of thousands of complex, individual lives. Some may say, well the Prophet Muhammad was one man.  Muhammad is no longer in a physical state, here with us though, and we are now in an environment where information is being translated and re hashed by those limited human minds. We could never hold any scholar, at the level that we hold figures like Muhammad or Jesus.

-------------------------------------------------

Beyond this though, a couple key points.

Lets say a marja has a 99.999% chance of giving correct advice on a topic. If that marja has a following of over 10,000 muslims, and is asked 10,000 questions, that means that, there is a chance that of those 10,000 muslims, at least 1 will have an idea that out matches the marja.

In this world with over a billion muslims, there are countless, highly educated figures out here, that without a doubt, in certain areas, could intellectually match or outmatch ayatollahs. Probably more often than is commonly discussed. To say that these highly educated muslims do not exist, is to insult muslims of the world.

But the system that currently stands, seems to take these individuals and their novel ideas, and it seems as if it degrades them.  Or perhaps, a highly educated figure, may have a brilliant idea, but may not voice this idea with the assumption that marja are by default correct over his or her own idea. Just a thought.  Ive seen pretty intelligent people fold their cards here on SC, as if they arent giving enough credit to their own ideas. Theyll give up on a topic and just say that we should ask a higher scholar.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Scholars will always be great for general guidance.  But they are not super computers, theyre human beings just like us. This goes with any topic, not just Islamic taqleed, but with any subject you can fathom.

I understand your point, but we have a system. 

Is the knowledgeable person equal to the ignorant person?

If someone is seen as the most knowledgeable, and this is certain, on what basis should you ignore their guidance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

The truth is they are more likely regarding a lot of things then if a person studied Islam objectively independently of khums and the system of scholars. The reason is because there is pressure there to accept what the scholars have all accepted and not to dispute with them.  For example, to come to the truth of the issue of Khums, you would not go to those who benefit primarily from it to know it's ruling and have become depend on a certain interpretation of it. That is putting you into a bias approach.

I think a child reading Quran has better understanding of some verses then scholars, because scholars are prone to make themselves leaders to Quran rather then Quran being their leader because the position they put themselves in.

While a child would honestly want to see what is in Quran and not lead people regarding what is in it.

This more than anything shows you are simply here to discredit the marajae and nothing else.

[Quran 1:1] In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
[Quran 1:2] All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
[Quran 1:3] The Beneficent, the Merciful.
[Quran 1:4] Master of the Day of Judgment.
[Quran 1:5] Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
[Quran 1:6] Keep us on the right path.
[Quran 1:7] The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.

My child read this and determined the path of whom Thou hast bestowed favors best fits Donald Trump and supports him now - go figure.

3 hours ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

Another "mutuwatir" ahadith is that anyone insulting the Prophet or Imams is to be killed. This is while the Prophet was insulted during his time according to Quran but never did the Quran say to kill for that, but rather it taught be patient from what they say. Those mutuwattir ahadith even teach that you don't need permission from the Imam to kill a person who insults the Prophet, that you can take that matter in those hands.

So along with all shia scholars, now you are saying all shia and may be sunni hadith books are wrong.

3 hours ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

There is of course the verse that no one is to be killed except for killing another person or corruption in the earth. If fasad fel arth is interpreted as any type of sin, then it's highly problematic, it does nothing, as everyone practically sins. But obviously here it refers to things like rape or oppressing others in the land, causing corruption in the earth basically refers to something else then something like disbelieving the true religion obviously. 

If it applies to murtads, then it equally applies to all disbelievers who disbelieve in the religion, does anyone say God sanctioned bani-Israel to kill all disbelievers in the true religion? Obviously it was teaching them not to kill except for these two reasons. Things like rape are obvious havoc corrupting causes in the earth as they go against the safety of society and the peaceful order that God wants established on earth. However disbelieving in the true religion is obviously not a case where it merits you to be killed and so this applies to both those originally Muslims and those not.

My child interprets 'corruption on earth' as apostasy and according to you he is correct.

Rape or its punishment on the other hand is not mentioned in the Quran hence obviously 'corruption on earth' cannot refer to it.

If you say people should make their own interpretation of the Quran then I interpret 'corruption on earth' as apostasy and you cannot say I am wrong because it is my interpretation

2 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Scholars will always be great for general guidance.  But they are not super computers, theyre human beings just like us. This goes with any topic, not just Islamic taqleed, but with any subject you can fathom.

Do you understand scholars and marajae?

All of them cover the most common religious topics and become experts in it and then also specialize in certain specific religious topics. In their fatwas and risalahs, they state their opinions on issues but also say it is okay to follow a more learned marja on the topicin question if the marja is known to be more knowledgeable.

Marajae and taqleed is on religious matters and not worldly matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Just because one disagrees with a marja does not make the marja wrong. Couldnt it be that the person is wrong. How do you go about proving a marja is wrong? If the marja passes a ruling based on Quran and hadith, the only way you can discredit the marja is if you are more knowledgeable in that area than the marja. Reading 1 book on medicine or physics does not make you a doctor or a physicist. "

You ask, "Couldnt it be that the person is wrong?"

I ask, "Couldnt it be that the Marja is wrong?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difficulty with this topic, is that we are taking something that is naturally subjective (interpretation of literature), and we are allowing it to be objectively defined with the assumption that it makes us safer.

This is something that, I fundamentally disagree with, hence why I am making my comments.

In geology for example, I dont really have to deal with this, because if my manager says X about a project, typically I can objectively look at data or perform some form of physical investigation to determine its truth or not.  However, when it comes to literature, peoples minds can take this literature, and can do all sorts of funky things with it. And over 2000 years, what you get is something that is different than it originally was.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a very difficult topic in Islam in particular, because, as you are indicating, muslims are put in a situation where theyre forced to compete with marja on their own court. Without considering the fact that there are multiple courts to play on.

I hope that makes sense.  Youre free to disagree with me.  I think the whole design of how taqleed works is fundamentally flawed.  It has its pros in that it assists many with guidance, but has its flaws in that it seems to limit people to view points of a select few.  To the extent that intelligent, outside of the box thinkers, basically throw in the towel and give up.

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...