Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why was Akhbarism rejected?

Rate this topic


Afzali

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

Im not sure what your trying to say.

Are you trying to say Shia do not believe in Itjtihad?

Are you trying to say that all shia hadith are seen as not weak by shia scholars?

No. They do believe in ijtehad and also classify narrations as weak/authentic.

I am talking only about core concepts which they have adopted from one of the most weakest source i.e abban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
29 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

No. They do believe in ijtehad and also classify narrations as weak/authentic.

I am talking only about core concepts which they have adopted from one of the most weakest source i.e abban.

I am not finding it easy to understand what you are saying.

Are you now saying that core concepts are different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

I am not finding it easy to understand what you are saying.

Are you now saying that core concepts are different?

core concepts which they have adopted from one of the most weakest source i.e abban.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235041570-foundation-of-major-beliefs-of-twelver-shias/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

what does your theory have to do with usooli and akhbari?

An usuli will never accept any narration from a weak narrator like abban bin abi ayash even though such narration is in his favor. While an akhbari will easily accept any narration which support his purpose. They can simply reject the narrations which say narrator is weak. They can do anything to prove their point because they are akhbari or in other words non usuli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Fahad Sani said:

An usuli will never accept any narration from a weak narrator like abban bin abi ayash even though such narration is in his favor. While an akhbari will easily accept any narration which support his purpose. They can simply reject the narrations which say narrator is weak. They can do anything to prove their point because they are akhbari or in other words non usuli.

Shia take from the mutawatir , reliable and doesnt go against Quran. 

Secondly, who takes from Abban, ON HIS OWN? If some of his book is corroborated with other sources, then this is different. This is what the early scholars wrote about, and that was their view of the book, eg Shiekh Al Mufeed. 

Those that say it is completely reliable point to statements attributed from the Imams AS about the book, which themselves need to be investigated. Either way, the book can be examined just like any collection of hadith, just because its an early book, does not make it more "special".

In fact this is pretty much the case for all our collections, none are "sahih", and the weight of different chains saying the same thing, with coincidence with the Quran are all used to weigh up hadith. The narrators are also investigated. 

My understanding of Akhbarism, is that they take the "akhbar", eg the report , as it is, and reject any analysis or interpretation. So they are the opposite to what you say, in that they seem to accept more hadith easily, than reject them. Either way, as an academic group, they have died out. The few people that call themselves "akhbari" today in the masses are unlikely to be aware of what the word even means, let alone the history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2017 at 6:36 AM, iraqi_shia said:

Shia take from the mutawatir , reliable and doesnt go against Quran. 

Secondly, who takes from Abban, ON HIS OWN? If some of his book is corroborated with other sources, then this is different. This is what the early scholars wrote about, and that was their view of the book, eg Shiekh Al Mufeed. 

Those that say it is completely reliable point to statements attributed from the Imams AS about the book, which themselves need to be investigated. Either way, the book can be examined just like any collection of hadith, just because its an early book, does not make it more "special".

In fact this is pretty much the case for all our collections, none are "sahih", and the weight of different chains saying the same thing, with coincidence with the Quran are all used to weigh up hadith. The narrators are also investigated. 

My understanding of Akhbarism, is that they take the "akhbar", eg the report , as it is, and reject any analysis or interpretation. So they are the opposite to what you say, in that they seem to accept more hadith easily, than reject them. Either way, as an academic group, they have died out. The few people that call themselves "akhbari" today in the masses are unlikely to be aware of what the word even means, let alone the history. 

 I agree, that Shia take from the mutawatir , reliable and doesnt go  against Quran. But case is totally different with book of sulaim.

What I am saying is that except a few, majority of scholars had  accepted the book and transmitted the same in their own writings. Thus  making the book original main source of events mentioned over there.  This chart says it all.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/uploads/monthly_2016_08/57aea1665fb18_KitabSulaymTREE.jpg.58a6a86b17584bee7cb1b3ca30aadb6f.jpg

This is off course a special book because all other twelver shia books  were written centuries later after this. And majority took data from  this book. Whose contents still today are circling around the minds of  most of laymen shia. Many notable shia sites are still promoting this  book and is available in multiple languages. WHile they hide the fact  that the first and the main narrator of the book i.e abban is weak  according to their own rijal ( See Rijal Tusi See Rijal Ibn Gadairi two earliest shia rijal books). Therefore the book is nothing but a  fabrication of historical events.

I am criticising scholars for this crime and I think they were  akhbaari in this sense. AN Usuli will simply reject the book because of weakness in its chain of narrators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

 I agree, that Shia take from the mutawatir , reliable and doesnt go  against Quran. But case is totally different with book of sulaim.

What I am saying is that except a few, majority of scholars had  accepted the book and transmitted the same in their own writings. Thus  making the book original main source of events mentioned over there.  This chart says it all.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/uploads/monthly_2016_08/57aea1665fb18_KitabSulaymTREE.jpg.58a6a86b17584bee7cb1b3ca30aadb6f.jpg

This is off course a special book because all other twelver shia books  were written centuries later after this. And majority took data from  this book. Whose contents still today are circling around the minds of  most of laymen shia. Many notable shia sites are still promoting this  book and is available in multiple languages. WHile they hide the fact  that the first and the main narrator of the book i.e abban is weak  according to their own rijal ( See Rijal Tusi See Rijal Ibn Gadairi two earliest shia rijal books). Therefore the book is nothing but a  fabrication of historical events.

I am criticising scholars for this crime and I think they were  akhbaari in this sense. AN Usuli will simply reject the book because of weakness in its chain of narrators.

The case is same with Book of Sulaiman, thats my point.

Just because the narrator is weak does not mean the book is "Nothing but a fabrication of historical events".

Secondly there are many other independent chains which back up some of what is written.

I think your trying to imply shiasm is all built up on this one book and you then claim it is unreliable.

There are two problems with this. Firstly shiasm and its history and narrations are not purely or manly based on this book. Secondly a narrator being weak doesnt mean its completely made up and through it out. We compare it to what we have and see if we can piece together the bigger picture.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Akhbariyat is rejected because many prominent mullas today see it as threat to their powerholding. Akhbariyat was everywhere till 1700s except in Iraq. When people went to study in Iraq the usooli of the times convicned them into usooli. Anyways today..usooli is more about power of one above all vs..power being shared by many many many many many mullas.  Remember at the end no matter how cute any religion looks to our eyes there is a huge power struggle behind the curtains of religiousity. 

Regardless of usooli or akbari, every sane muslim can live a simple,humble , good religious life. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

The case is same with Book of Sulaiman, thats my point.

Just because the narrator is weak does not mean the book is "Nothing but a fabrication of historical events".

Secondly there are many other independent chains which back up some of what is written.

I think your trying to imply shiasm is all built up on this one book and you then claim it is unreliable.

There are two problems with this. Firstly shiasm and its history and narrations are not purely or manly based on this book. Secondly a narrator being weak doesnt mean its completely made up and through it out. We compare it to what we have and see if we can piece together the bigger picture.

 

 

This narrator is weak but why? Because he is a well known liar of his time who used to fabricate events. Dig deep in shia rijal books to find out why he is declared as weak by all rijal experts. 

 

Yes but not in the way as described by abban. All those chains also need to checked without being biased. But book of sulaim is more special because it narrate such man made stories in much detail. You will not find such detail anywhere else.

 

Not all shiaism is built up on this book. Only those concepts which they have adopted from this book. Many scholars have copied entire narrations from this book in their own.

 

Honestly speaking about half of shiaism history is based on this book, which is very sad. Just read the entire book you will know the truth. 

 

Twelver shias should leave the stories of this book and the likes from every other book because its main narrator is weak, a famous fabricator and liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2017 at 11:01 AM, Fahad Sani said:

As for as core beliefs are concerned there is no ijtehad I think. Because almost all of twelver scholars have accepted from the source mentioned in the above thread neglecting the fact that all such narrations (akhbaar) are from a very weak unreliable narrator according to their own rijal experts. The akhbaars which are now a days fundamental beliefs of majority of twelver shias. Thus making most of the twelver scholars plus their followers akhbari not usuli.

Are you reading this from a website brother, and then spreading it? Such a statement is patently false. Akhbarism is pretty dead, look up on history and the Usooli revolution. 

 

Edited by uponthesunnah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Akhbarism and usoolism were much of a phase rather than a stand alone schools. Many of the disputed points between the early scholars from that era had been resolved. Some akhbarism points are uphold by current usoolis and some ancient usolism points are rejected by current usooli.

This dichotomous thinking and quick categorisation of narration science in Shia history is stemming from historical ignorance, both in information and in skills to read history and understand the significance of it.

http://www.alhakeem.com/arabic/rsael/osol/index.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, uponthesunnah said:
On 1/1/2017 at 3:01 AM, Fahad Sani said:

As for as core beliefs are concerned there is no ijtehad I think. Because almost all of twelver scholars have accepted from the source mentioned in the above thread neglecting the fact that all such narrations (akhbaar) are from a very weak unreliable narrator according to their own rijal experts. The akhbaars which are now a days fundamental beliefs of majority of twelver shias. Thus making most of the twelver scholars plus their followers akhbari not usuli.

Are you reading this from a website brother, and then spreading it? Such a statement is patently false. Akhbarism is pretty dead, look up on history and the Usooli revolution. 

No. Its my own opinion. most are akhbaari as for as book of sulaim is concerned ..

On 1/1/2017 at 3:01 AM, Fahad Sani said:

Because almost all of twelver scholars have accepted from the source mentioned in the above thread neglecting the fact that all such narrations (akhbaar) are from a very weak unreliable narrator according to their own rijal experts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۷ ه‍.ش. at 8:30 PM, Engineer73 said:

 Are they the same for you? 

What do you mean when you ask the question: are they the same to you? If you mean to ask whether they are literally the same, the answer is in the negative. This is because 'reason' is, literally speaking, something other than 'miracle'. No dictionary considers them antonyms let alone synonyms. But if you however mean to ask whether or not they are consistent with each other, the answer is of course in the affirmative. You endorse the authority of reason but at the same time you can also accept miracle. The acceptance of miracle does not contradict the acceptance of the authority of reason. This is all because miracle is also based on some intellectual arguments. You accept miracle not because it is baseless but because it proceeds from a strong logical narrative. We know that 'x' is a claimant of prophecy and we also know that those who are prophets are linked in particular fashion to the supernatural world. Based on this when we observe a sound miracle we make an argument that goes somewhat like this: X is linked, in a particular manner, to the supernatural world (because of the miracle he works) and those who are linked in a particular manner to the supernatural world are prophets. Thus X is a prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۷ ه‍.ش. at 8:30 PM, Engineer73 said:

Kèeping in view the above statement, I am wondering about the virgin birth of Jesus? :) Please shed some light on it.

     A sound understanding of the virgin birth of Jesus, being a miracle, does not contradict reason in general and the principle of causality in particular. The claimed contradiction is based on a poor understanding of the principle of causality. If this principle is understood in a correct manner there will be no conflict between the two. All the principle of causality says is that an effect, being an effect, must end up in a cause. In other words, the principle lays stress on the fact that no effect can come into being without a cause that precedes it. The principle never says nor can it say anything about the nature of cause or what it is like. It simply demonstrates that 'no cause no effect'.  Thus if an effect is caused by a supernatural cause it will be in line with the principle of causality just as when it is caused by a natural cause. Being under some misconceptions, some people think that the principle of causality is not in harmony with miraculous deeds. This is because they wrongly assume that the acceptance of the law of causality restricts causes to natural causes whereas this is not true. Or because they think miracle does not have a cause while the law says that every effect has a cause. The truth is that according to this law every effect must have a cause; be it natural or supernatural, material or immaterial. It is based on such an understanding that we are of the view that the virgin birth of Jesus, being an effect caused by some supernatural agents, is not inconsistent with reason and the law of causality as its manifestation.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Afzali said:

The acceptance of miracle does not contradict the acceptance of the authority of reason

Reason is a different thing miracle is a different thing in all aspects. Because you can have reasons to accept the authority of miracle.

 I have purposely used the term "authority of miracle" instead of what you mentioned "authority of reason". 

A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon, leading many rational and scientific thinkers to dismiss them as physically impossible (that is, requiring violation of established laws of physics within their domain of validity) or impossible to confirm by their nature (because all possible physical mechanisms can never be ruled out). 

If you see the history, reasons were provided to many nations where warners came but almost every nation demanded from them to brought what they are warning with, neglected & rejected their reasons. 

2 hours ago, Afzali said:

A sound understanding of the virgin birth of Jesus, being a miracle, does not contradict reason in general and the principle of causality in particular.

Why not you accept the fact that the origin of all those reasons & understanding are divine.

You cannot present any reason other than what is mentioned in scripture. And you cannot understand that phenomenon untill or unless explained to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۱۹ ه‍.ش. at 5:46 PM, Engineer73 said:

Reason is a different thing miracle is a different thing in all aspects. Because you can have reasons to accept the authority of miracle.

No doubt they are different, but let me know whether or not they are consistent. When you time and again say that they are different (a simple and self-evident truth), you seem to suggest that they are logically inconsistent. As I mentioned before, as far as their literal meanings are concerned I agree that they are different, but as far as their inconsistency is concerned I do not agree with it. I am of the view that the acceptance miracle is in consistency with the acceptance of reason. As the advocacy of reason does not harm the advocacy of miracle the advocacy of miracle does not harm the advocacy of reason. This is because of the following: Reason says that every effect has a cause, but it never says that every effect has a material cause. If reason supposedly says that every effect has a material cause and since miracle does not have a material cause, therefore it is a violation of the law of causality, then you are absolutely right, but the thing is that the reason never says this. The most the reason says is that every effect has a cause: be it natural or supernatural, material or immaterial. Based on this law, miracle is not an instance of violation, for miracle has a cause and its cause is God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۱۴ ه‍.ش. at 11:46 AM, For The Love of The Emir said:

Akhbarism and usoolism were much of a phase rather than a stand alone schools. Many of the disputed points between the early scholars from that era had been resolved. Some akhbarism points are uphold by current usoolis and some ancient usolism points are rejected by current usooli.

I agree with you that Akhbarism is dead today, but I cannot see eye to eye with you when you say that usulis have adopted parts of the theories presented by Akhbarites. You have made a general claim. I wish you were more particular. Anyway, as far as I know the basic components of the ideology of Akhbarites are rejected today. They were opposed to reason, but today reason is highly valued. They were opposed to consensus, but today we observe that this tool is not utterly outdated. Above all, they were of the view that it is lawful to order people to do what they practically cannot (taklif be ma layutaq), but today nobody subscribes to such tough, irrational and inhuman principles. Let me know which scholar today abides by this principle of Akhbarites? If we endorse this inhuman principle then nothing will be unjust. If you are told to fast day and night at a stretch then you will not be able to criticize saying that it is beyond my ability to do so. If you are ordered to fly without using modern equipment then again you will not have the right to question. You have the right to question as long as such orders are baseless and logically unacceptable. If they are however logically justifiable standing on a firm footing, then questioning will be irrelevant.  It is because of all this, that we believe that Akhbarism is dead.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Afzali said:

Reason says that every effect has a cause,

I would say that with divine guidance and our ability to reason, we can understand anything. If reason alone is sufficient, Allah would not send so many Prophet to guide us. Hence, my reason always put Allah in the first place by accepting the fact that I am "Mohtaaj" of His guidance.

Yes, there has to be an Ever-Living Creator, Designer, Originator at the first place which you can understand as Al-Awwal or the only uncaused-cause.

 

Edited by Engineer73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

I would say that with divine guidance and our ability to reason, we can understand anything. If reason alone is sufficient, Allah would not send so many Prophet to guide us. Hence, my reason always put Allah in the first place by accepting the fact that I am "Mohtaaj" of His guidance.

Yes, there has to be an Ever-Living Creator, Designer, Originator at the first place which you can understand as Al-Awwal or the only uncaused-cause.

 

Reason is the way to recognise the truth that the Prophets AS bring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 1/9/2017 at 8:22 PM, Engineer73 said:

I would say that with divine guidance and our ability to reason, we can understand anything. If reason alone is sufficient, Allah would not send so many Prophet to guide us.

I should make it clear once again that when we lay stress on the authority of reason we do not intend to say that reason is an independent entity having nothing to do with God. We believe that all contingent beings including human reason owe their existence to God. As God has made the universe so has he made the reason. How can human reason be independent when it owes its utter existence to God, depending on Him for each and every minute functioning? Similarly when we talk of the authority of reason we do not intend to say that reason is everything implying that when there is reason there is no need for revelation. This is because we need both reason and revelation. Reason and revelation are not in conflict with each other. Instead they are complementary for each other. Reason is supportive of revelation and revelation is supportive of reason. When reason declares that there has to be a necessary being called God, it lays the foundation of revelation and when revelation says that God has two authorities one whom is visible and the other invisible (human reason), it backs up reason. So there is reciprocal support between reason and revelation. But let’s not forget that the authority of reason is more fundamental than that of revelation. This is because revelation is based on reason but as far is reason is concerned it is not based on revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Afzali said:

Similarly when we talk of the authority of reason we do not intend to say that reason is everything implying that when there is reason there is no need for revelation. This is because we need both reason and revelation. Reason and revelation are not in conflict with each other. Instead they are complementary for each other.

That is totally acceptable statement brother. Agreed 

19 minutes ago, Afzali said:

Reason is supportive of revelation and revelation is supportive of reason

They're same... revelation contains factual statements, commands, followed by reasons e.g

Surah Al-Waqia, Verse 57-59:

نَحْنُ خَلَقْنَاكُمْ فَلَوْلَا تُصَدِّقُونَ

أَفَرَأَيْتُم مَّا تُمْنُونَ

أَأَنتُمْ تَخْلُقُونَهُ أَمْ نَحْنُ الْخَالِقُونَ

We have created you, why do you not then assent? (this is statement of fact and we have reasons afterwards in the 58th, 59th ..... verses) 

43 minutes ago, Afzali said:

But let’s not forget that the authority of reason is more fundamental than that of revelation. This is because revelation is based on reason but as far is reason is concerned it is not based on revelation.

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

We need to see whether revalation is "based" on reason. I think it is not based on reason, rather it "contain" reason. Revalation are the words of Allah and are based on FACTS. 

We need "facts" for reason & understanding means we need revalation for reason.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

How could you recognise the Prophet SAW?

 

 

ـ الإمامُ عليٌ (عَلَيهِ الّسَلامُ): اِعرِفوا اللّه‏َ بِاللّه‏ِ ، والرَّسولَ بِالرِّسالَةِ ، واُولي الأمرِ بِالأمرِ بِالمَعروفِ والعَدلِ والإحسانِ . 

Imam Ali (AS) said, ‘Get to know Allah through Allah, and the Prophet through the message he brought, and those vested with authority through their command to do good, their justice and righteousness.’[al-Kafi, v. 1, p. 85, no. 1]

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by reason you mean aql this is straightforward hadith:

H 6, Ch. 1, h 6 - Al-Kafi

Ahmad ibn Idris has narrated from Muhammad ibn Hassa’n from abu Muhammad al-Razi from Sayf ibn ‘Umayra from Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar from abu ‘Abdallah (a.s) who has said the following.

" One who has Intelligence (aql), has religion, and one who has religion, he enters Paradise."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۲۱ ه‍.ش. at 11:06 PM, Engineer73 said:

We need to see whether revalation is "based" on reason. I think it is not based on reason, rather it "contain" reason.

Revelation is Based on Reason

It is a matter of two plus two is equal to four that revelation is based on reason. God is no doubt the axis of all religions and prophecy and resurrection are next to it in terms of importance, but let me know: can we prove the existence of God without relying on reason? Can we prove the necessity of prophecy without heavily relying on reason? Can we prove the urgency of resurrection without making use of intellect? The answer to all these questions is in the negative. That is why if you carefully read the Holy Quran you find out that Quran takes the existence of God for granted. It never tries to prove the existence of God. Of course, the Quran does deal with polytheism rejecting it using different arguments but it never attempts to prove the existence of God. This is because God knows that it human reason that must prove the existence of God and if God supposedly tries to prove His existence through His words, this kind of reasoning will end up in vicious circle. Similarly the Quran does not attempt to prove principles such as the necessity of prophecy knowing that it is the duty of human reason to do it. It is because of all these that we are of the view that reason is more fundamental than revelation, for the latter is based on the former and not conversely. In addition, reason is your faculty of understanding. If it is totally invalidated then how can we understand anything? And if we reach any understanding of something how can we claim that our understanding of that thing is valid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۲۲ ه‍.ش. at 4:03 AM, Engineer73 said:

mam Ali (AS) said, ‘Get to know Allah through Allah, and the Prophet through the message he brought, and those vested with authority through their command to do good, their justice and righteousness.’

Further Clarification

Let me make it clear once more that when we talk of priority of reason we talk of its priority over revelation in certain areas such as existence of God, necessity of prophecy and the likes. As far as the details of divine qualities are concerned we can somehow rely on revelation. Even here we have to be very cautious, not looking at things at their surface values. If you go through the Holy Quran you will find many verses that attribute to God human qualities. These qualities are called revealed qualities. According to such verses, God has hands as we humans do; God seats Himself on the throne just as we are do and so on and so forth. But can we say, based on the available verses, that God has physical organs just as we humans do? Can we say that God has a body for some verses have got such an implication? Some Islamic schools of thought, like Ahl Hadith, have made such an error; they are anthropomorphists. They describe God in a manner we describe ourselves. But we, as Shias, believing in the supremacy of reason, cannot make such assumptions. That is the reason why Shia scholars have not accepted the revealed qualities with their literal meanings. Instead, they have interpreted the said verses in a manner that does not contradict with philosophical rules and logical laws. That is why "hand" or "throne" mean nothing but "power", according to Shia scholars.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Afzali said:

That is why if you carefully read the Holy Quran you find out that Quran takes the existence of God for granted. It never tries to prove the existence of God. Of course, the Quran does deal with polytheism rejecting it using different arguments but it never attempts to prove the existence of God.

Nearly all the strongest arguments of Muslims in favor of existence of God are deducted from revelation. Whether you take first uncaused cause or any other. Quran discusses that matter in a different style, by asking questions from our intellect, providing us reasons for opening the mind. Example: 52:35-36, 65:12, 31:11, 22:73, 67:2-3, 41:9-13, & much more. The whole Quran describes in detail the creation of all things. How can you say that Quran does not proves existence of God? Every creation points towards its creator, our selves are pointing towards Him. Does such a Creator really need to prove His existence?

 

1 hour ago, Afzali said:

This is because God knows that it human reason that must prove the existence of God and if God supposedly tries to prove His existence through His words, this kind of reasoning will end up in vicious circle


Very Strange sentence, I am wondering why we need to prove the existence of a thing, like which there is nothing. Who has created us & so many things around us for our observations. If you think, it is the duty of human intellect to prove His existence, then everyone believe in any sort of deity, some worship star(s), some worship idols, some even divide that One God into several parts. These were the blunders of human reason and we humans are still doing these non-senses and many insist on their ignorance.

2 hours ago, Afzali said:

It is because of all these that we are of the view that reason is more fundamental than revelation, for the latter is based on the former and not conversely.

Ok, imagine what Christians did with the Oneness of God. If Prophet Muhammad would not arrived among us & there is no Quran. Where our reason would have taken us in such case?  Either you & I were worshipping idols or were believing on triune nature of God or were saying what atheists say, spontaneously created & evolved.

2 hours ago, Afzali said:

If it is totally invalidated then how can we understand anything?

Who is invalidating the reason? You're stressing on authority of reason over revelation while I am stressing on authority of revelation which contains the reason. Reason is our ability, our action, who we are & how we are? See the Quran, what words Allah has used for majority of Humans. 

1 hour ago, Afzali said:

As far as the details of divine qualities are concerned we can somehow rely on revelation. Even here we have to be very cautious, not looking at things at their surface values. If you go through the Holy Quran you will find many verses that attribute to God human qualities. These qualities are called revealed qualities. According to such verses, God has hands as we humans do; God seats Himself on the throne just as we are do and so on and so forth. But can we say, based on the available verses, that God has physical organs just as we humans do? Can we say that God has a body for some verses have got such an implication?

I think we need to understand that the Prophets are also part of revelation. You can see the word "Arsalna" for them in Quran & the word "Tanzeel" for scriptures (57:25). What "Arsalna" really means? Prophets were born here, in this world. Why then Quran has used the word "Arsalna" for them? Arsalna means "to send".  

If Quran saying that God has hands, Quran also provide the literal meaning of His hands e.g., the hand of Prophet has been mentioned as the hand of God, Imam Ali is famous as "Yadullah". So there is no confusion in Quran neither its verses are colliding with each other. 
4:82

أَفَلاَ يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللّهِ لَوَجَدُواْ فِيهِ اخْتِلاَفًا كَثِيرًا

This verse itself is a command to evaluate The Book, the word "yatadabbaroon" inviting human intellect to ponder and the invitation is associated with reason that "if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy."

1 hour ago, Afzali said:

But we, as Shias, believing in the supremacy of reason, cannot make such assumptions. That is the reason why Shia scholars have not accepted the revealed qualities with their literal meanings. Instead, they have interpreted the said verses in a manner that does not contradict with philosophical rules and logical laws. That is why "hand" or "throne" mean nothing but "power", according to Shia scholars.    

All I need to refer here is a famous Hadith of Prophet Muhammad known as "Hadith Al-thaqalain". What two weighty things prophet left among us? He promised that if we cling ourselves to them, we will not be misguided. If reason has such supremacy, Prophet would have not mentioned that most valued things. By the way, we have not invented anything from ourselves rather we have accepted the explanation given by Aimma-e-Tahireen (a.s) which also contain "reason". e.g., Read Touheed-e-Mufassil, read Nehjul Balagha, read the ahadith of Aimma-e-Tahireen (a.s) describing the revealed qualities. 

These are the "Noori" creation, our Hadi & Leaders, the owners of the divine knowledge, peace & blessings of Allah be on them. 

  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few questions here are that what you call a reason which is coliding with Quran or Sunnah?

Secondly, there are approx. 8 billion humans living on Earth at the moment, everyone of them has the ability to reason. If this ability to reason left unbounded or unguided, what would happen to humanity? Every human would have invented false gods, similar to what humans did in past. 

Revelation is based on facts which are supported by reasons, hence it is said that revelation guides us towards truth, and it is not possible for reason to deny the fact.

Surah Yunus, Verse 35:

قُلْ هَلْ مِن شُرَكَائِكُم مَّن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ قُلِ اللَّهُ يَهْدِي لِلْحَقِّ أَفَمَن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ أَحَقُّ أَن يُتَّبَعَ أَمَّن لَّا يَهِدِّي إِلَّا أَن يُهْدَىٰ فَمَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُونَ

Say: Is there any of your associates who guides to the truth? Say: Allah guides to the truth. Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?

Surah Yunus, Verse 36:

وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ إِلَّا ظَنًّا إِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَفْعَلُونَ

And most of them do not follow (anything) but conjecture; surely conjecture will not avail aught against the truth; surely Allah is cognizant of what they do.

Surah Al-Isra, Verse 9:

إِنَّ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ يَهْدِي لِلَّتِي هِيَ أَقْوَمُ وَيُبَشِّرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ الَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ الصَّالِحَاتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ أَجْرًا كَبِيرًا

Surely this Quran guides to that which is most upright and gives good news to the believers who do good that they shall have a great reward.

(English - Shakir)

 

Even if one denies the truth consciously, his nafs would be aware that he is declining the truth & Quran mentions that as:

"Surah Al-Qiyama, Verse 14:

بَلِ الْإِنسَانُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ بَصِيرَةٌ

Nay! man is evidence against himself,"

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

In reference to the topic title, akhbarism is still thriving in the middle east with large numbers of followers adhering to this school of thought, our akhbari scholars/shaikhs are scattered throughout the middle east (iraq, kuwait, east saudi, and bahrain), and we also have our own mosques. Yes, today akhbaris are the minority. In the past (appx 250 years ago), they had a huge presence in iraq during Yusuf Al Bahrani and Al Bahbahini's time, there was a lot of debates and discussions that happened during that time between akhbari and usooli scholars, sadly this lead to accusations and takfir between both groups, the dispute between akhbaris and usoolis reached a point where usooli scholars issued fatwas to kill akhbari scholars!! This resulted in the murder of the akhbari scholar mohammed mirza al akhbari....i know this might shock a lot of shias, but this is the dark history of the dispute between the two schools of thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Khaled J. said:

In reference to the topic title, akhbarism is still thriving in the middle east with large numbers of followers adhering to this school of thought, our akhbari scholars/shaikhs are scattered throughout the middle east (iraq, kuwait, east saudi, and bahrain), and we also have our own mosques.

So you're Akhbari!

What is meant by "akhbar" in the term Akhbari?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
9 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

So you're Akhbari!

What is meant by "akhbar" in the term Akhbari?

Akhbari is derived from the arabic word "Akhbar اخبار" which means "news or reports", and since they reject ijtihad and reasoning, they rely in Akhbar Ahlulbayt (reports of ahlulbayt) and thus they got the name Akhbaris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Khaled J. said:

Akhbari is derived from the arabic word "Akhbar اخبار" which means "news or reports", and since they reject ijtihad and reasoning, they rely in Akhbar Ahlulbayt (reports of ahlulbayt) and thus they got the name Akhbaris.

"Ijtihad (Arabic اجتهاد) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah."

Having said that, I would like to know as to why you reject ijtihad & reasoning? What is the purpose of human intellect? And what are the meanings of these Arabic words used in Quran "yatafakkaroon" & "yatadabbaroon"?

And most important is that how we take guidance from Quran & Sunnah on matters which never discussed in the times of Ahlul-bait a.s? Example, using tooth brush for cleaning teeths, using modern equipments & means for transportation & journey, Blood transfusion, organ transplant, going to outer space or moon etc.

Edited by Engineer73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

"Ijtihad (Arabic اجتهاد) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah."

 

Salam

Actually the term ijtihad comes from the words Jahd which refers to deep struggle in the path of religion.

But the definition you gave came into islam later.The Imams as far as I am aware have not given the definition above.

When you read the Quran or hadiths as far as I know ijtihad/jahd has not been termed as above, it is mainly indicating to people who strive in the path of religion, it did not entail the meaning of going to a particular institute to acquire a particular certificate to be known as a mujtahid.

Back then their was no hawza, to be given a qualification of being a mujtahid.It was either a divinely appointed Imam you follow, or follow the scholars who derived their own opinions from religion, such as Abu Hanifa vs Imam Jafar al Sadiq.

For example you can say Salman Farsi was considered a true mujtahid from God's view because he truly strived hard that he managed to achieve the same knowledge the prophet and Imam Ali had, by the grace of God according to reliable hadiths.

Wasalam

 

Edited by certainclarity
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...