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  
Afzali

Why was Akhbarism rejected?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In the third century AH, a schools of thought called Akhbarism emerged among Shias. Though this school was quickly rejected by the then Shia scholars, it reemerged in tenth century AH and continued to flourish until eleventh century AH when it was again defeated at the hand of great scholars like Bahbahni and Ansari. They believe among other things in the supremacy of tradition and deny the authority of reason, a tendency that gets them closer to the People of Tradition among Sunnis. But let's check for ourselves whether or not it is possible, even religiously speaking, to deny the authority of reason. A brief survey of Quranic verses shows that this is not possible. Let's review these verses:

a) Quran encourages thinking as a manifestation of reason: 1) Do they not reflect? That their companion has not unsoundness in mind He is only a plain warner (7, 184). 2) Do they not reflect within themselves? Allah did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but with truth, and) for (an appointed term And most surely most of the people are deniers of the meeting of their Lord (30, 8). There are other verses to this affect as well.

2) The Holy Quran rebukes those who put aside thinking: 1) Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand (8, 22). 2) And it is not for a soul to believe except by Allah's Permission And He casts uncleanness on those who will not understand (10, 100). 3) And if you ask them who is it that sends down water from the clouds, then gives life to the earth with it after its death, they will certainly say: Allah Say: All praise is due to Allah Nay, most of them do not understand (29, 63). There are plenty of other Quranic verses that convey the same massage. Given all these verses, how can we question the authority of reason let alone rejecting it?

Edited by Afzali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Usulis blindly accept narrations that contradict the Qur'an and contradict logic, so to try and say that this is an attribute exclusively of the Akhbaris isn't true.

Even when illogical narrations are from dodgy sources with weak or non existent chains of narration, many Usuli scholars still accept them, so I fail to in what way they are different from the path that people say that the Akhbaris were on.

Edited by Ali_Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

Many Usulis blindly accept narrations that contradict the Qur'an and contradict logic, so to try and say that this is an attribute exclusively of the Akhbaris isn't true.

Even when illogical narrations are from dodgy sources with weak or non existent chains of narration, many Usuli scholars still accept them, so I fail to in what way they are different from the path that people say that the Akhbaris were on.

Proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Proof?

Are you serious? There are loads of narrations that 'explain' the Qur'an and take you away from it's clear meaning (and at the same time contradict the logic of the revelation of many other verses) that are accepted by scholars even though they are weak narrations, saying that the Imams are the Asma' al-Husna so we have to call on Allah by them being a prime example, however there are others.

As for my second paragraph, just look at what the scholars say about the poem 'Nade 'Ali'.

That is the least of it.

Edited by Ali_Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

Are you serious? There are loads of narrations that 'explain' the Qur'an and take you away from it's clear meaning (and at the same time contradict the logic of the revelation of many other verses) that are accepted by scholars even though they are weak narrations, saying that the Imams are the Asma' al-Husna so we have to call on Allah by them being a prime example, however there are others.

As for my second paragraph, just look at what the scholars say about the poem 'Nade 'Ali'.

That is the least of it.

I thought you were talking about Fiqh. Sorry bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, some Akhbari's in the modern era[2016] believe in tahreef, accepting the entire Al Kafi and four books, reject ilm al rijal, and also our maraji' and are borderline ghulat.

Edited by uponthesunnah

Share this post


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

Quran encourages thinking as a manifestation of reason: 1) Do they not reflect? That their companion has not unsoundness in mind He is only a plain warner (7, 184). 2) Do they not reflect within themselves? Allah did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but with truth, and) for (an appointed term And most surely most of the people are deniers of the meeting of their Lord (30, 8). There are other verses to this affect as well.

2) The Holy Quran rebukes those who put aside thinking: 1) Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand (8, 22). 2) And it is not for a soul to believe except by Allah's Permission And He casts uncleanness on those who will not understand (10, 100). 3) And if you ask them who is it that sends down water from the clouds, then gives life to the earth with it after its death, they will certainly say: Allah Say: All praise is due to Allah Nay, most of them do not understand (29, 63). There are plenty of other Quranic verses that convey the same massage. Given all these verses, how can we question the authority of reason let alone rejecting it?

Although I am neither Akhbari nor pro Akhbari, but since you're quoting Quran & emphasizing on rational thinking, here are few verses which deserve your attention:

Surah Al-Muddathir, Verse 18-19:

إِنَّهُ فَكَّرَ وَقَدَّرَ

فَقُتِلَ كَيْفَ قَدَّرَ

Surah Al-Ankaboot, Verse 43:

وَتِلْكَ الْأَمْثَالُ نَضْرِبُهَا لِلنَّاسِ وَمَا يَعْقِلُهَا إِلَّا الْعَالِمُونَ

Impotant question here is that do people believe because of reason & logic? If this is the case why so many Prophets showed miracles to people? What about the authority of reason & logic when angels said this to Allah:

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 30:

وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً قَالُوا أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاءَ وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ قَالَ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

I think it is very much depends on where, how & for what we use our abilities. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۵ ه‍.ش. at 2:27 PM, E.L King said:

Many Usulis blindly accept narrations that contradict the Qur'an and contradict logic, so to try and say that this is an attribute exclusively of the Akhbaris isn't true.

Since the claim that usulis use traditions that contradict reason is baseless, It seems, to give you the benefit of doubt, as you are under the assumption that if one is an usuli then one should not make use of traditions just as if one is an Akhbarite one should not use reason. An Akhbarite may not be authorized to use reason, but an usuli is allowed to use traditions as long as the traditions he uses do not contradict self-evident intellectual truths. If a tradition happens to say, as an instance, that two plus two is equal to five, no usuli scholar will accept such a tradition. But let's remember that all traditions are not against reason. If a tradition is not in disagreement with the basics of reason, then why should one reject it? When an usuli scholar accepts a tradition he accepts it again on the basis of intellectual rules. It is reason through which we prove the existence of God and it is reason through which we prove the necessity of prophecy. When all these important principles are proven by dint of reason, our reliance on tradition will end up in our reliance on reason. How then can we stand against reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۵ ه‍.ش. at 5:43 PM, Engineer73 said:

Impotant question here is that do people believe because of reason & logic? If this is the case why so many Prophets showed miracles to people? What about the authority of reason & logic when angels said this to Allah:

It seems as if Mr. Engineer tries to suggest there is a dichotomy between reason and miracle. If thus one accepts the authority of reason then one cannot accept miracle and conversely if one accepts the authority of miracle one cannot approach reason. I suppose this approach is not a reasonable one and is not thus defensible. When we talk of logic we talk of reason and evidence. When there is a justification for something then that thing is reasonable. When a person works out miracle he provides you with evidence and when you accept his evidence unquestioningly then logically speaking you cannot refute his claim. The relation between miracle and prophecy for example is similar to the relation between premises and conclusion. When a prophet works out miracle upon the request of his people he actually presents a logical argument to the accuracy of his claim as a prophet. This is because when people question his prophecy they question his link to the supernatural world. When he works out miracles he shows, using a natural language, that he has a strong relation with the supernatural world.  Thus miracle is not contrasted with reason. It is instead one of the manifestations of reason.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ۱۳۹۵/۱۰/۵ ه‍.ش. at 5:43 PM, Engineer73 said:

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 30:

وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً قَالُوا أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاءَ وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ قَالَ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

I think it is very much depends on where, how & for what we use our abilities. 

I agree that there are certain Quranic verses that restrict certain types of knowledge to certain scholars, but this does not mean that the Holy Quran is opposed to reason and understanding. This is because if the Quran were opposed to reason, it would not value it so highly. The few verses mentioned in the introduction of this discussion show how Islam attaches high importance to reason. It is a matter of two plus two is equal to four that revealed sciences are not of one and the same degree. Revealed sciences are instead of different degrees with some being simple and others complex. Not everybody is able to understand every difficult question. Therefore when the Holy Quran restricts certain types of knowledge to certain scholars it does not undermine reason; instead it proclaims that not all divine knowledge is of the same category. When one knows that one has an extremely limited capacity of understanding then one should not strive to examine difficult issues.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Afzali said:

Since the claim that usulis use traditions that contradict reason is baseless, It seems, to give you the benefit of doubt, as you are under the assumption that if one is an usuli then one should not make use of traditions just as if one is an Akhbarite one should not use reason. An Akhbarite may not be authorized to use reason, but an usuli is allowed to use traditions as long as the traditions he uses do not contradict self-evident intellectual truths. If a tradition happens to say, as an instance, that two plus two is equal to five, no usuli scholar will accept such a tradition. But let's remember that all traditions are not against reason. If a tradition is not in disagreement with the basics of reason, then why should one reject it? When an usuli scholar accepts a tradition he accepts it again on the basis of intellectual rules. It is reason through which we prove the existence of God and it is reason through which we prove the necessity of prophecy. When all these important principles are proven by dint of reason, our reliance on tradition will end up in our reliance on reason. How then can we stand against reason?

 

I don't know why you quoted that in my name, I never said those words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, enigma313 said:

Really interested in this topic.  Which scholars, bro?

Off the top of my head, sheikh mufeed & sheikh saduq himself. im certain there are more but im struggling through boxing day sales traffic so cant focus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Off the top of my head, sheikh mufeed & sheikh saduq himself. im certain there are more but im struggling through boxing day sales traffic so cant focus

Ah, I see, boxing day sales, got any good bargains?

Yeah, I'll look up these scholars on al-islam.org, thanks bro.  Hope you're well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Off the top of my head, sheikh mufeed & sheikh saduq himself. im certain there are more but im struggling through boxing day sales traffic so cant focus

Ah, I see, boxing day sales, got any good bargains?

Yeah, I'll look up these scholars on al-islam.org, thanks bro.  Hope you're well. 

Share this post


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

You guys realise that some of our greatest scholars were akhbari, right?

Old-school Akhbari scholars =/= the modern deviant akhbari movement.

Even Shaykh as Sadooq [ra] did not deem all the ahadith in Al Kafi to be saheeh.  Furthermore, almost all of our ulema [maybe all of them] are usooli. 

Akhbarism today is against our ulema, pro-ghuluw, pro-exagerration, and utter deviance from the Quran and Sunnah. I don't even think i symbolically share a religion with them [maybe technically i may do so]. 

I refer to the akhbari's who belief in tahreef, abuse our ulema et al

Edited by uponthesunnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Afzali said:

It seems as if Mr. Engineer tries to suggest there is a dichotomy between reason and miracle.

:) Are they the same for you? 

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Afzali said:

This is because when people question his prophecy they question his link to the supernatural world. When he works out miracles he shows, using a natural language, that he has a strong relation with the supernatural world.  Thus miracle is not contrasted with reason. It is instead one of the manifestations of reason.  

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

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Afzali said:

but this does not mean that the Holy Quran is opposed to reason and understanding.

I never said that Quran is opposed to reason & understanding. 

I guess you missed my point brother, what is the tool of reason? Al-Aql (intellect). This AQL guides us in the absence of divine guidance. In the presence of divine guidance, the function of our AQL is minimized to "samey'na wa ataa'na" (listened & obeyed).

And if you see the verses i referred in my previous post:

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Engineer73 said:

Surah Al-Muddathir, Verse 18-19:

إِنَّهُ فَكَّرَ وَقَدَّرَ

فَقُتِلَ كَيْفَ قَدَّرَ

If you note, the word "faqutela" is associated with "qaddar" not with "fakkar". 

So whoever uses "reasoning skills" to deny divine guidance or made wrong assumptions will go astray.

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Engineer73 said:

I think it is very much depends on where, how & for what we use our abilities. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2016 at 2:13 PM, Engineer73 said:

Although I am neither Akhbari nor pro Akhbari, but since you're quoting Quran & emphasizing on rational thinking, here are few verses which deserve your attention:

Surah Al-Muddathir, Verse 18-19:

إِنَّهُ فَكَّرَ وَقَدَّرَ

فَقُتِلَ كَيْفَ قَدَّرَ

Surah Al-Ankaboot, Verse 43:

وَتِلْكَ الْأَمْثَالُ نَضْرِبُهَا لِلنَّاسِ وَمَا يَعْقِلُهَا إِلَّا الْعَالِمُونَ

Impotant question here is that do people believe because of reason & logic? If this is the case why so many Prophets showed miracles to people? What about the authority of reason & logic when angels said this to Allah:

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 30:

وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً قَالُوا أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاءَ وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ قَالَ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

I think it is very much depends on where, how & for what we use our abilities. 

 

This line of thought is actually the opposite of how it should be.

By your line of thinking, revelation is fundamental and reason is secondary. How could this be true?

Consider this, when Prophets AS were doing dawa, the people did not believe, so referring to revelation is of no value, eg the non Muslims would not be convinced about an argument that referred back to the Quran. They would have to be won over by reason, which is more primary then revelation. 

For example, if we are discussing charity. If a Muslim says to the non Muslim, the reason is the Quran says so. That non Muslim is not likely to be convinced. If however they reflect on the argument using reason, they are forced to either accept that position, or act irrationally, which is an injustice to the self.

Once someone accepts Islam, they can use revelation and reason for discussion, and the two will never contradict.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

By your line of thinking, revelation is fundamental and reason is secondary. How could this be true?

This is true because of this verse:

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Engineer73 said:

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 30:

وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً

:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

For example, if we are discussing charity. If a Muslim says to the non Muslim, the reason is the Quran says so. That non Muslim is not likely to be convinced. If however they reflect on the argument using reason, they are forced to either accept that position, or act irrationally, which is an injustice to the self.

You forgot to mention in your analogy that why we do charity? Zakah @ 2.5% & Khums @20%. Who gave you these ratios? Are we following the commands of "SomeOne" or we are doing so because of morality? 

Once you know this, you will see that reason is secondary & divine guidance is fundamental.

You have "reasons" to follow divine guidance & commands. You cannot invent divine guidance & commands by means of reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Engineer73 said:

You forgot to mention in your analogy that why we do charity? Zakah @ 2.5% & Khums @20%. Who gave you these ratios? Are we following the commands of "SomeOne" or we are doing so because of morality? 

Once you know this, you will see that reason is secondary & divine guidance is fundamental.

You have "reasons" to follow divine guidance & commands. You cannot invent divine guidance & commands by means of reason.

You have failed to address the points I have raised, and thus all your points based on your false assumptions are null and void.

Go back to my post, read again.

The issue is how can you use revelation to a person that does not believe in it?

When you answered that, we can talk further, until you address that, repeating the same irrelevant point is a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

The issue is how can you use revelation to a person that does not believe in it?

No need to use revelation to a person that doesn't believe in it or not willing to accept it. 

Assume for a while, I am non muslim. What reason you have to convince me for giving Charity @ 2.5% or @ 20%?

You can expect questions from my side, which any non muslims can ask. And I hope that you will not involve revelation in your reasoning.

And by the way, you need to look at your own post:

"This line of thought is actually the opposite of how it should be.

By your line of thinking, revelation is fundamental and reason is secondary. How could this be true? (This was your basic objection)

Consider this, when Prophets AS were doing dawa, the people did not believe, so referring to revelation is of no value, eg the non Muslims would not be convinced about an argument that referred back to the Quran. They would have to be won over by reason, which is more primary then revelation.  (Read chapter 53, verse 3, wama yantiqo anil hawa)

For example, if we are discussing charity. If a Muslim says to the non Muslim, the reason is the Quran says so. That non Muslim is not likely to be convinced. If however they reflect on the argument using reason, they are forced to either accept that position, or act irrationally, which is an injustice to the self.

Once someone accepts Islam, they can use revelation and reason for discussion, and the two will never contradict."

 

Edited by Engineer73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Engineer73 said:

No need to use revelation to a person that doesn't believe in it or not willing to accept it. 

Assume for a while, I am non muslim. What reason you have to convince me for giving Charity @ 2.5% or @ 20%?

Some issues can be discussed from an aqli perspective, some from naql, some from both.

However, aql is more fundamental, the aql leads to the naql.

People would not accept religion unless they rationally accepted it. If they accepted it without reason, it becomes blind faith, or the faith of habit or because parents and ancestors had that faith.

How useful is such a situation, lets see:

H 19, Ch. 1, h19 Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from Yahya ibn al-Mubarak from ‘Abd Allah ibn Jabla from ibn Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar from abu ‘Abd Allah recipient of divine supreme covenant, who has said the following:  “Once I asked Imam abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, ‘May Allah keep my soul in service for your cause, I have a neighbor who prays a great deal, generously gives charity and very often visits Makka and he seems to be acceptable.’ The Imam, recipient of divine supreme covenant, asked, ‘How is his Intelligence, O ibn Ishaq?’  I then said, ‘May Allah keep my soul in service to your cause, he does not have much Intelligence.’  ‘Nothing from what he does will be raised up (to heaven),’ replied the Imam.” 

As for your question, I would argue that charity should not be given in a particular percentage, but dependant on your circumstances and the need in the society. This makes rational sense. As charity is the distribution of wealth from those with excess assets to those with excess need.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

As for your question, I would argue that charity should not be given in a particular percentage, but dependant on your circumstances and the need in the society. This makes rational sense. As charity is the distribution of wealth from those with excess assets to those with excess need.

Ok, Agreed. So being a non muslim, one can do charity & there is no need to believe in Islam. Hindu, Budh, Christians, Jews, Sikh & even the Atheists do charity. 

 

Edited by Engineer73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

Ok, Agreed. So being a non muslim, one can do charity & there is no need to believe in Islam. Hindu, Budh, Christians, Jews, Sikh & even the Atheists do charity. 

 

Yes, and the benefit for society is equally good.

Sorry for my sharp tone, when I re read what I had written, I was overly angry. I had a very bad day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2016 at 2:39 AM, DigitalUmmah said:

You guys realise that some of our greatest scholars were akhbari, right?

 

On 12/27/2016 at 7:51 AM, enigma313 said:

Really interested in this topic.  Which scholars, bro?

 

Almost all of your scholars + followers (except a very little number) are akhbari as for as core beliefs are concerned atleast. In this case they all accept narrations (akhbaar) even if they are from weak narrators.

Here is the proof:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam.

I only read the TS. I think it's dangerous to reject the Akhbari's. We should see them as co-muslims who accentuate other elements of our religion.

Maybe they still have some things that vanished in other sects of Islam.

We can however learn from eachother.
 

Edited by Al-Qibli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎27‎-‎12‎-‎2016 at 6:28 PM, iraqi_shia said:

This line of thought is actually the opposite of how it should be.

By your line of thinking, revelation is fundamental and reason is secondary. How could this be true?

Consider this, when Prophets AS were doing dawa, the people did not believe, so referring to revelation is of no value, eg the non Muslims would not be convinced about an argument that referred back to the Quran. They would have to be won over by reason, which is more primary then revelation. 

For example, if we are discussing charity. If a Muslim says to the non Muslim, the reason is the Quran says so. That non Muslim is not likely to be convinced. If however they reflect on the argument using reason, they are forced to either accept that position, or act irrationally, which is an injustice to the self.

Once someone accepts Islam, they can use revelation and reason for discussion, and the two will never contradict.

 

 

That's just utter crap! You cannot forbid people to do haram things if they do not even believe in Allah!

Islam starts with the believe in Allah. Not scientifical proofs for the forbiddance of alcohol!!!!!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2016 at 3:39 PM, Fahad Sani said:

 

 

Almost all of your scholars + followers (except a very little number) are akhbari as for as core beliefs are concerned atleast. In this case they all accept narrations (akhbaar) even if they are from weak narrators.

Here is the proof:

 

Not true.

I suspect the only reason you think this is the definition of itjtihad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Al-Qibli said:

That's just utter crap! You cannot forbid people to do haram things if they do not even believe in Allah!

Islam starts with the believe in Allah. Not scientifical proofs for the forbiddance of alcohol!!!!!
 

I think you have misunderstood.

We do not say Islam starts with other things. We are talking about having a discussion and relevant evidence to non Muslims. Eg if you are talking to a non Muslim colleague at work, is there any point using the Quran as a proof, if they dont accept it?

Of course you could prove Islam and then the Quran is a valid proof for them, but in order to do that, you would have to use reason. Hence the point, that reason is fundamental, and revelation is secondary. As you would need the reason to reach the point of accepting the religion and thus the Quran.

@Engineer73

Some verses to reflect on :

6|25|Among them are those who listen to you; but We place covers over their hearts, to prevent them from understanding it, and heaviness in their ears. Even if they see every sign, they will not believe in it. Until, when they come to you, to argue with you, those who disbelieve will say, “These are nothing but myths of the ancients.”

6|109|They swear by God, with their most solemn oaths, that if a miracle were to come to them, they would believe in it. Say, “The miracles are only with God.” But how do you know? Even if it did come, they still would not believe.
110وَنُقَلِّبُ أَفْئِدَتَهُمْ وَأَبْصَارَهُمْ كَمَا لَمْ يُؤْمِنُوا بِهِ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَنَذَرُهُمْ فِي طُغْيَانِهِمْ يَعْمَهُونَ
6|110|And We turn away their hearts and their visions, as they refused to believe in it the first time, and We leave them blundering in their rebellion.
111۞ وَلَوْ أَنَّنَا نَزَّلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ الْمَلَائِكَةَ وَكَلَّمَهُمُ الْمَوْتَىٰ وَحَشَرْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ قُبُلًا مَّا كَانُوا لِيُؤْمِنُوا إِلَّا أَن يَشَاءَ اللَّهُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ يَجْهَلُونَ
6|111|Even if We sent down the angels to them, and the dead spoke to them, and We gathered all things before them, they still would not believe, unless God wills; but most of them are ignorant.
 
15|14|Even if We opened for them a gateway into the sky, and they began to ascend through it.
 
15لَقَالُوا إِنَّمَا سُكِّرَتْ أَبْصَارُنَا بَلْ نَحْنُ قَوْمٌ مَّسْحُورُونَ
15|15|They would still say, “Our eyes are hallucinating; in fact, we are people bewitched.”
 
Miracles are one thing, but if they do not understand or appreciate the rational and reasonable nature of religion and God, then miracles do not change their mindset. It will only be interpreted by their established mindset, which is that they are hallucinating or its the idols etc.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2016 at 6:19 AM, Engineer73 said:
On 12/30/2016 at 7:39 AM, Fahad Sani said:

Here is the proof:

Where is the proof?

Open the above thread. Its very clearly and explicitly mentioned over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2016 at 0:20 PM, iraqi_shia said:
On 12/30/2016 at 7:39 AM, Fahad Sani said:

 

 

Almost all of your scholars + followers (except a very little number) are akhbari as for as core beliefs are concerned atleast. In this case they all accept narrations (akhbaar) even if they are from weak narrators.

Here is the proof:

 

Not true.

I suspect the only reason you think this is the definition of itjtihad.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

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?

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...