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  
ShiaMan14

Tactic of Hypocrites

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cyrax said:

السلام عليكم

Ramadan Mubarak, akhi.

Well, in our traditions the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم prayed night prayers in congregation and stopped doing so out of fear of it becoming obligatory on the Ummah.  Therefore, there is nothing wrong with congregational prayers in Ramadan, you want to call it Taraweeh, you want to call it Qiyam al-Layl, its all good.  However, my problem is with how strict some Shi'as are about performing Qiyam al-Layl in congregation in Ramadan (which I saw someone on here claim is going against the principles of Islam!) while simultaneously defending the promoting doing Zanjeer Zani, and in Ramadan on top of it all.  You don't see that as being inconsistent, بارك الله فيك?

Salaam and Ramadan Mubarak brother,

The Prophet strictly said pray this at home, our sunni brothers pray it in mosque. So the question becomes whose sunnah is this upon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Intellectual Resistance 's credibility used to reduce day by day but it's hour by hour. He has provided a list of marajae who condemn tatbir but at the same time can't bring himself to tell us who his marja is.

Usooli » Akhbari » Quranist » ???

The regurgitation of old comments trying to deviate from the topic is an old and all too common to tactic of hypocrites...not that you are one of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Do you know if Zanjeer Zani is banned in Iran?

They permit it without blades.

Brother - neither tarawih nor tatbir is the crux of our religion and yet an inordinate amount of time is spent discussing it. 

There are much more important topics to discuss such as those people who reject and want to do away with the sunnah of the Prophet (saw).

 

Edited by ShiaMan14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Do you know if Zanjeer Zani is banned in Iran?

As far as the rest of the post, I was going to respond to it in the post you created, but I guess I'll do it here since it came up.

Having studied the Salafi aqeedah with Salafis, the Asha'ri with Asha'ris and the Mu'tazili with Mu'tazilis and Shi'as (aqaed.com is a major source for me in understanding the Mu'tazili aqeedah) I don't have the same negative view towards their aqeedah as you do.  Rather, I think all three approaches are valid and all three have salaf for their views.  The Salafis focus on affirming what Allah سبحانه وتعالى said in the Qur'an, the Mu'tazilis focus on negating any possible deficiencies, and the Asha'ris take a position in between.  My view is, the extremists are those who (despite which school they belong to) quote lines from their "opponents" (who are other Muslims والعياذ بالله) and try to criticize their aqeedah without actually studying the basics of it and addressing the nuances.  I don't believe Salafis to be mujassimah, and I don't believe the Mutakalimmeen to be mu'ttilah, rather, I think that anyone that still makes a big deal of these issues in 2018, accusing others of heresy, are like the Catholic priests who would argue about "how many angels can God fit on the tip of a pin" while armies are gathering around their borders.

Barkallahu Feek for laying out your concise and clear position. 

I will have to be honest and say here that it seems the view you seem to be taking is a little ambiguous. As you mentioned, you believe this to be an issue that people are making too important and a big deal out of. You have likened it to the arbitrary questions some like to asks, like the one you cited regarding angels being fit on a head of a pin, or if i can perhaps offer one: God creating a rock he himself can not lift. 

The problem here is, it is a big deal. There is nothing more important in the religion of Islam that the correct understanding of the divine attributes. Every single Prophet of God came to preach that God is one , indivisible, and unlike anything else. The Salafis, the Asharis, the Shias , and even the M'utazila will affirm the importance of having the correct understanding of the divine attributes. What can be more foundational than Tawheed?

Now, whether the Salafis are M'utazila, or whether the Ashariyya and Maturidiyya are really Jahmiyya/Mutazilla, aren't really my concern here. People can eventually make their own conclusions, but what is most important is, no-one can have an ambitious position about Allah the Almighty.

I've studied the views of the Salafi scholars in depth, i've read Sharh Aqeedah al-Wasitiyyah and its commentaries. I understand the position of the Salafis is that they take the literal meaning but consign the 'howness' to Allah, the Almighty. So they affirm, Allah literary has a hand, fingers, a shin and a foot, a face, an actual literal location, ascend and descends, but state that these are all in a manner which befits him. They claim they do not perform Tahreef , Ta'teel, Takyeef, or Tamtheel. Never the less, this does not detract from the fact the Salafis hold an incoherent, extremely flawed and highly deviant understanding of Allah the Almighty, which is not just rejected by Shias, but rejected by the majority of Sunnis. Here by Sunnis i refer to the Ashariyya and Maturidiyya schools, who have historically been the largest group of Sunnis, and are the majority in the UK, Pakistan, India, North Africa, and many Asian countries.  

One has to decide what school of Aqeedah they follow and what position on Allah and his attributes they are going to take. This is a fundamental issue and matter. What the Ashariyya/Maturdiyya schools do is that they allow T'awil as a possible interpretation but they perform Tafweed e M3ana and consign the true meaning to Allah, but negate the literal meaning. 

An Ashari will say (like a Shia) that Allah existed before space, and before time. Allah created space, and created 'Where' and so the question of 'Where' can not apply to him. Before he created the creation, there was no question of 'where' for him. The same applies after the creation, because he does not exist in space, or specially relative anything. Salafis on the other hand believe Allah literally has a direction, and such a position is contrary to reason, intellect, or any coherent and proper understanding of Allah, the Almighty. This is just one of many issues in their Aqeedah.

This might be worth a watch from the Sunni-Hanafi-Maturidi channel:

 

We exist to know and worship Allah. There can be absolutely no ambiguity with regards to our Aqeedah regarding Tawheed and the divine attributes.  The worrying thing, among the Ahlus-Sunnah there is bitter, chaotic debate about the most fundamental aspect of our creed: Tawheed.

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Salaam and Ramadan Mubarak brother,

The Prophet strictly said pray this at home, our sunni brothers pray it in mosque. So the question becomes whose sunnah is this upon?

He صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't "strictly" say anything, rather, he said it is better to pray at home.  I think you need to realize that you can't base your entire fiqh on one or two narrations (especially when those narrations are being narrated by people who interpret them the opposite of how you understand them.)  However, at the end of the day, we can agree to disagree about secondary issues; the problem is, how can Zanjeer Zani be justified during the nights of Ramadan while taking such a confrontational attitude towards congregational prayers?

Share this post


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

He صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't "strictly" say anything, rather, he said it is better to pray at home.  I think you need to realize that you can't base your entire fiqh on one or two narrations (especially when those narrations are being narrated by people who interpret them the opposite of how you understand them.)  However, at the end of the day, we can agree to disagree about secondary issues; the problem is, how can Zanjeer Zani be justified during the nights of Ramadan while taking such a confrontational attitude towards congregational prayers?

Akhi, i think the problem in discussing the Fiqh issue of Taraweh is that our scholars are not basing their views from the Sunni Hadith corpus, which is more ambiguous than the Shia Hadith corpus in this regard. They are basing their rulings from our Hadith corpus, and not the ones you have. So when discussing these Fiqh issues, we can only give you things which indicate our view , without maybe proving it. 

The Sunni view is that the Prophet (saw) only forbade it out of fear it may become mandatory. Once he died there was no longer such a possibility, and so it came permissible again. Our position is that he forbade it and generally congregational prayers that were optional , and told people to pray such things in their homes, or on their own. 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

He صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't "strictly" say anything, rather, he said it is better to pray at home.  I think you need to realize that you can't base your entire fiqh on one or two narrations (especially when those narrations are being narrated by people who interpret them the opposite of how you understand them.)  However, at the end of the day, we can agree to disagree about secondary issues; the problem is, how can Zanjeer Zani be justified during the nights of Ramadan while taking such a confrontational attitude towards congregational prayers?

Some people do take a confrontational attitude towards tarawih but the majority of shias do not really care to be honest. You are free to spend your time as you see fit.

The only time it is an issue is when our sunni brothers insist it is the sunnah of the Prophet when it clearly isn't. Other than that, no issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Barkallahu Feek for laying out your concise and clear position. 

I will have to be honest and say here that it seems the view you seem to be taking is a little ambiguous. As you mentioned, you believe this to be an issue that people are making too important and a big deal out of. You have likened it to the arbitrary questions some like to asks, like the one you cited regarding angels being fit on a head of a pin, or if i can perhaps offer one: God creating a rock he himself can not lift. 

The problem here is, it is a big deal. There is nothing more important in the religion of Islam that the correct understanding of the divine attributes. Every single Prophet of God came to preach that God is one , indivisible, and unlike anything else. The Salafis, the Asharis, the Shias , and even the M'utazila will affirm the importance of having the correct understanding of the divine attributes. What can be more foundational than Tawheed?

Now, whether the Salafis are M'utazila, or whether the Ashariyya and Maturidiyya are really Jahmiyya/Mutazilla, aren't really my concern here. People can eventually make their own conclusions, but what is most important is, no-one can have an ambitious position about Allah the Almighty.

I've studied the views of the Salafi scholars in depth, i've read Sharh Aqeedah al-Wasitiyyah and its commentaries. I understand the position of the Salafis is that they take the literal meaning but consign the 'howness' to Allah, the Almighty. So they affirm, Allah literary has a hand, fingers, a shin and a foot, a face, an actual literal location, ascend and descends, but state that these are all in a manner which befits him. They claim they do not perform Tahreef , Ta'teel, Takyeef, or Tamtheel. Never the less, this does not detract from the fact the Salafis hold an incoherent, extremely flawed and highly deviant understanding of Allah the Almighty, which is not just rejected by Shias, but rejected by the majority of Sunnis. Here by Sunnis i refer to the Ashariyya and Maturidiyya schools, who have historically been the largest group of Sunnis, and are the majority in the UK, Pakistan, India, North Africa, and many Asian countries.  

One has to decide what school of Aqeedah they follow and what position on Allah and his attributes they are going to take. This is a fundamental issue and matter. What the Ashariyya/Maturdiyya schools do is that they allow T'awil as a possible interpretation but they perform Tafweed e M3ana and consign the true meaning to Allah, but negate the literal meaning. 

An Ashari will say (like a Shia) that Allah existed before space, and before time. Allah created space, and created 'Where' and so the question of 'Where' can not apply to him. Before he created the creation, there was no question of 'where' for him. The same applies after the creation, because he does not exist in space, or specially relative anything. Salafis on the other hand believe Allah literally has a direction, and such a position is contrary to reason, intellect, or any coherent and proper understanding of Allah, the Almighty. This is just one of many issues in their Aqeedah.

This might be worth a watch from the Sunni-Hanafi-Maturidi channel:

 

Disagree with those post whole sale, and it just a very good example of what I'm talking about.

First of all, the pins on a needle thing is not the same as "can Allah create a rock that he can't lift."  The second is something that all three schools agree on is impossible, while the first is a questions of the unseen.  Just like issues of Allah's names and attributes.  We don't know their reality, we don't know what is the reality of Allah's power, just like we don't know the reality of Allah's "eyes, throne etc"  These are all concepts of the unseen which Allah mentions in the Qur'an.  You unfortunately have decided that theological issues which most laymen don't think about (or even know about) as the most important aspect of tawheed.  I do not think that people are going to be thrown in hell for having the wrong interpretation about Allah's attributes.  I do think you will be thrown in hell for misinterpreting someone else's aqeedah in an attempt to portray him as a mujassim or a mu'attil.

Second of all, I think that worship of Allah is the most important aspect of tawheed, not secondary issues about things we can't possible know or even conceive.  To me its' far more problematic to call on other than Allah in times of hardship or to say that Allah gave certain slaves of His complete power over every atom.  These are clearly laid out in the Qur'an.  For me, if a person is convinced by any of the three schools, that's fine, he may be right, but he's not a better Muslim than the other two just because they were wrong in an academic discussion.

Finally, I don't think being a salafi has any negative effects on a person's relationship with Allah; you've never seen any Salafis for example creating images of Allah despite the consistent attacks on them being anthropomorphic.  Just like I haven't seen any mutakalimeen negating the existence of Allah despite the consistent attacks on them being negaters of Allah's essence.  Rather, what I've seen is atheists and liberals having a field day attacking Islam while we sit on the side line arguing about whether Allah's eyes are metaphorical or they are real in a matter that befits him; the Islamic equivalent of how many angels can God fit on a pin.

P.S. Hanafi fiqh channel is a perfect example of an extremist channel.  I don't take anything they say seriously  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Akhi, i think the problem in discussing the Fiqh issue of Taraweh is that our scholars are not basing their views from the Sunni Hadith corpus, which is more ambiguous than the Shia Hadith corpus in this regard. They are basing their rulings from our Hadith corpus, and not the ones you have. So when discussing these Fiqh issues, we can only give you things which indicate our view , without maybe proving it. 

The Sunni view is that the Prophet (saw) only forbade it out of fear it may become mandatory. Once he died there was no longer such a possibility, and so it came permissible again. Our position is that he forbade it and generally congregational prayers that were optional , and told people to pray such things in their homes, or on their own. 

I know your position, the problem is that Shi'as attempt to prove their views "from Sunni sources" which is quite absurd to be honest.  Again, I don't care about our differences here, if you'd prefer not pray congregational prayers during Ramdan, that's your choice, I don't care one way or another and it is not a means for us not to unite.

However, I will say, things such as this fiqh ruling and praying 3 times a day (even in a Mosque, not even making the Athan 5 times a day) are issues that will probably turn off most people interested in Shi'asim right away (just being frank here). 

Share this post


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

Disagree with those post whole sale, and it just a very good example of what I'm talking about.

First of all, the pins on a needle thing is not the same as "can Allah create a rock that he can't lift."  The second is something that all three schools agree on is impossible, while the first is a questions of the unseen. 

What i had meant to intend thereby was the idea of asking unnecessary questions. We don't need to be asking questions like this, or entertaining them, particularly as lay people. Perhaps a different question in a different light is 'can God create a triangle that has four sides'. The question however, of Allah the Almighty, and the proper understanding of what he is not, and his divine attributes is of the utmost importance.

29 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Just like issues of Allah's names and attributes.  We don't know their reality, we don't know what is the reality of Allah's power, just like we don't know the reality of Allah's "eyes, throne etc"  These are all concepts of the unseen which Allah mentions in the Qur'an.  You unfortunately have decided that theological issues which most laymen don't think about (or even know about) as the most important aspect of tawheed.  I do not think that people are going to be thrown in hell for having the wrong interpretation about Allah's attributes.  I do think you will be thrown in hell for misinterpreting someone else's aqeedah in an attempt to portray him as a mujassim or a mu'attil.

If someone claims something which is contrary in every way to what befits Allah the Almighty, and portrays Allah in a manner which strongly shakes the core understanding of his real attributes, that is a grave matter. 

Again brother, you have taken an ambiguous position. What do you do when you look at the traditions contained in your books? Do you affirm the literal meaning, that Allah has feet, a shin, eyes, fingers, a literal location, ascends and descends, but refer the 'howness' to him as the Salafis do, which is extremely problematic? Or do you do what the majority of Sunnis do, who are Ashari and Maturidi, and allow T'awil but with the understanding that they perform Tafweed and consign the real and true meaning to Allah, the Almighty, but negate the literal meaning? You can't have it one way or the other, you have to commit to a proper school of Aqeedah if you're a Sunni.

These issues are actually very important to lay people, which is why they are becoming such an issue. Everyone has, even as a child once asked 'Where is God?' Salafis place enormous emphasis on this, such that they regard Asharis and Maturidis as not from the Ahlus-Sunnah and as deviants. That is how seriously they take this, and here is a Fatwah from IslamQA proving this:  "Based on this, it is better for a Muslim to study Islamic knowledge and sharee’ah only with scholars who are well known for their knowledge and sound belief (‘aqeedah), and to keep away from those who follow bid’ah and go against Ahl al-Sunnah, including the Ash’aris" - Uthatmeen from: https://islamqa.info/en/34531

Uthaymeen here believes having a proper Aqeedah is so important, while he will not make Takfir on Asharis, he considers them Ahlul-Bidah in Aqeedah and other matters and encourages people not to take knowledge from them. The vast majority of Sunni schools of learning are Ashari and Maturidi. I would argue many Hanafis tend to be Maturidi.

29 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Second of all, I think that worship of Allah is the most important aspect of tawheed, not secondary issues about things we can't possible know or even conceive.  To me its' far more problematic to call on other than Allah in times of hardship or to say that Allah gave certain slaves of His complete power over every atom.  These are clearly laid out in the Qur'an.  For me, if a person is convinced by any of the three schools, that's fine, he may be right, but he's not a better Muslim than the other two just because they were wrong in an academic discussion.

That's not the position the scholars in the major schools take. The Salafis class those who are Ashariyya and Maturidiyya as being from the Ahlul-Biddah and Mukhalifeen. They regard them as major deviants in Aqeedah itself, and even stress on the undesirability of taking knowledge from them. The Ashariyya and Maturidiyya scholars have launched scathing attacks on Salafi Aqeedah, claiming what Salafis attribute to Allah, the Almighty is a serious and grave thing and lowers the Almighty to what can be attributed for his creation. Takfeer and whether someone is or is not a Muslim isn't my issue here, but gross inconsistencies and vehement disputes about understanding Allah, the Almighty. You have to take a position here, which school of Aqeedah do you follow my dear brother?

 

29 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Finally, I don't think being a salafi has any negative effects on a person's relationship with Allah; you've never seen any Salafis for example creating images of Allah despite the consistent attacks on them being anthropomorphic.  Just like I haven't seen any mutakalimeen negating the existence of Allah despite the consistent attacks on them being negaters of Allah's essence.  Rather, what I've seen is atheists and liberals having a field day attacking Islam while we sit on the side line arguing about whether Allah's eyes are metaphorical or they are real in a matter that befits him; the Islamic equivalent of how many angels can God fit on a pin.

P.S. Hanafi fiqh channel is a perfect example of an extremist channel.  I don't take anything they say seriously  

Almost all Salafis have launched scathing attacks on the Ashariyya and Maturidiyya. Hanafi Fiqh has responded and attacked the Salafis. It isn't just Hanafi Fiqh channel , but many among the Ashariyya and Maturidiyya schools. Whether or not it has a negative effect on someones behaviour, relationship or the like isn't the issue. The problem is, preaching a deviant view of Allah, which gives him attributes that only apply to his creation, and so completely distort his divine attributes, and promote what he is not, and this is a grave matter.

My dear brother, while you have taken am ambiguous position, this is a rather serious issue. You have to commit to a view, and when you do that, you have to recognise other major schools will highly reprimand you for holding that view. 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

I know your position, the problem is that Shi'as attempt to prove their views "from Sunni sources" which is quite absurd to be honest.  Again, I don't care about our differences here, if you'd prefer not pray congregational prayers during Ramdan, that's your choice, I don't care one way or another and it is not a means for us not to unite.

However, I will say, things such as this fiqh ruling and praying 3 times a day (even in a Mosque, not even making the Athan 5 times a day) are issues that will probably turn off most people interested in Shi'asim right away (just being frank here). 

I won't deny, sometimes this does occur. However, there are a number of major incidents which were so public, or so widely reported, that between both of our books there is mass transmission of that incident. If the Prophet (saw) openly and publicly declared something one would expect that it would reach both of our books, in many cases.

One such incident is that of Hadith at-Thaqalayn:

(Musnad Ibn Rahwayh): On the authority of Ali ibn Abi Talib: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “I have left behind over you (al-Thaqalayn) that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray: the Book of Allah – one end of which is in the Hand of Allah and the other in your hands– and my Ahl al-Bayt” [2-3]

حدثنا سليمان بن عبيد الله الغيلاني، حدثنا أبو عامر، حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي، عن أبيه، عن علي رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :إني تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله، سببه بيد الله، وسببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي.

Do take a look at the research, where Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and many others have authenticated the chain.

 

Naturally if they accept the tradition, they will differ with us on the T'awil. But again, like the doctrine of Tawheed and the divine attributes, there is confusion about the meaning of his tradition. Why do we find this? It is precisely because the clear outward meaning entails the supreme authority of the Ahlulbayt, but because it is at odds with what is believed, an attempt must be made to reconcile.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

However, I will say, things such as this fiqh ruling and praying 3 times a day (even in a Mosque, not even making the Athan 5 times a day) are issues that will probably turn off most people interested in Shi'asim right away (just being frank here). 

This isn't a big issue. If someone rejected Shia Islam over a Fiqh issue of combining, then i can safely say they are not searching the truth. Some non-Muslims may be put of the Islamic ruling concerning female-captives in war and sexual intercourse. We can not follow our whims and desires and chase the unclear, or those issues not palatable to what we are used to, or not of the fundamentals. It is established in our Fiqh that it is permissible to combine, it may be preferable to separate (and i separate) and this should be no divider between distinguishing Shia Islam as on Haq or on Batil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

What i had meant to intend thereby was the idea of asking unnecessary questions. We don't need to be asking questions like this, or entertaining them, particularly as lay people. Perhaps a different question in a different light is 'can God create a triangle that has four sides'. The question however, of Allah the Almighty, and the proper understanding of what he is not, and his divine attributes is of the utmost importance.

Not sure what you meant here (PS how do you keep quoting my post without having to copy and paste everytime?  Would make my life a lot better! بارك الله فيك)

Quote

If someone claims something which is contrary in every way to what befits Allah the Almighty, and portrays Allah in a manner which strongly shakes the core understanding of his real attributes, that is a grave manner. 

This is something each school says about the other; however, when you break them down, you find they all share the same outlook on the names and attributes; they just either a) don't understand the other side, or b) or give the other side an intrepretation that they didn't intend.  I tend to find the Salafi criticisms to be from the first category, while I find the mutakillim criticisms, yours being included, to be from the second category.  I personally agree with the Salafis on some issues, the Mu'tazilah on some and the Ash'aris on most.

Quote

Again brother, you have taken an ambiguous position. What do you do when you look at the traditions contained in your books? Do you affirm the literal meaning, that Allah has feet, a shin, eyes, fingers, a literal location, ascends and descends, but refer the 'howness' to him as the Salafis do, which is extremely problematic? Or do you do what the majority of Sunnis do, who are Ashari and Maturidi, and allow T'awil but with the understanding that they perform Tafweed and consign the real and true meaning to Allah, the Almighty, but negate the literal meaning? You can't have it one way or the other, you have to commit to a proper school of Aqeedah if you're a Sunni.

The same way I do when I find those ayat in the Qur'an, it depends on context.  I don't agree with the Salafis regarding eyes and hands, just like I don't agree with the Mutakilimeen regarding the attribute of Mercy.  I find their reinterpretation of words like mercy to be equally as problematic as you do with the Salafis interpretations of hands and eyes.  If you want to know which aqeedah I belong to, then I would say I am reluctant Ash'ari.

Quote

These issues are actually very important to lay people, which is why they are becoming such an issue. Everyone has, even as a child once asked 'Where is God?'

I disagree with this completely, I have never in my life met a non-student of knowledge who has heard the words Ash'ari and Mu'tazili; they know the word Salafi, but not because of aqeedah.  As far as the child asking that question, does he, after you answer him, ask you "are Allah's attributes separate from his entity?"  Come on, akhi, lets be real here.  These issues have no significance whatsoever to the Muslim layman, what they care about are atheism, gay rights, marriage, slavery etc.

Quote

Salafis place enormous emphasis on this, such that they regard Asharis and Maturidis as not from the Ahlus-Sunnah and as deviants. That is how seriously they take this, and here is a Fatwah from IslamQA proving this:  "Based on this, it is better for a Muslim to study Islamic knowledge and sharee’ah only with scholars who are well known for their knowledge and sound belief (‘aqeedah), and to keep away from those who follow bid’ah and go against Ahl al-Sunnah, including the Ash’aris" - Uthatmeen from: https://islamqa.info/en/34531

What's funny is you hold the same views they hold about you; I personally think both of you are wrong.  Shaykh ibn Uthaymeen رحمه الله was wrong, and I don't have a problem saying that.  You'd need to discuss this with someone who agrees with him, i.e. someone like you.

Quote

Uthaymeen here believes having a proper Aqeedah is so important, while he will not make Takfir on Asharis, he considers them Ahlul-Bidah in Aqeedah and other matters and encourages people not to take knowledge from them. The vast majority of Sunni schools of learning are Ashari and Maturidi. I would argue many Hanafis tend to be Maturidi.

I disagree with him.

Quote

That's not the position the scholars in the major schools take. The Salafis class those who are Ashariyya and Maturidiyya as being from the Ahlul-Biddah and Mukhalifeen. They regard them as major deviants in Aqeedah itself, and even stress on the undesirability of taking knowledge from them. The Ashariyya and Maturidiyya scholars have launched scathing attacks on Salafi Aqeedah, claiming what Salafis attribute to Allah, the Almighty is a serious and grave thing and lowers the Almighty to what can be attributed for his creation. Takfeer and whether someone is or is not a Muslim isn't my issue here, but gross inconsistencies and vehement disputes about understanding Allah, the Almighty. You have to take a position here, which school of Aqeedah do you follow my dear brother?

I follow people like al-Hafidh ibn Hajar and al-Nawawi رحمهما الله.  Both agreed with the Asha'ris in some cases, and the Salafis in other cases.  I also follow where Allah says:

Quote

and be not of Al-Mushrikun, of those who split up their religion and became sects, each sect rejoicing in that which is with it.

I think all sects have something to offer, I dont just stick to one group and ignore the rest of the Ummah and think everything I have is right.

Quote

Almost all Salafis have launched scathing attacks on the Ashariyya and Maturidiyya. Hanafi Fiqh has responded and attacked the Salafis. It isn't just Hanafi Fiqh channel , but many among the Ashariyya and Maturidiyya schools. Whether or not it has a negative effect on someones behaviour, relationship or the like isn't the issue. The problem is, preaching a deviant view of Allah, which gives him attributes that only apply to his creation, and so completely distort his divine attributes, and promote what he is not, and this is a grave matter.

All sectarians from all different groups launch scathing attacks on each other.  People like Hanafi Fiqh are the same as IslamQA and sad to say, the same as you.  I'm glad you said "almost all"; while that is not true, it at least shows that you admit that not everyone is worrying themselves about sectarian dogmatic issues 

Quote

My dear brother, while you have taken am ambiguous position, this is a rather serious issue. You have to commit to a view, and when you do that, you have to recognise other major schools will highly reprimand you for holding that view. 

No I don't, I can be a Muslim and I don't have to follow a dogma.  Sorry, this is not Islam as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cyrax

To quote just hi-light the selected portion you want and wait until a hover option comes up to 'quote selected' My dear brother i am going to be breaking my fast in an hour, and inshAllah i will respond to your posts sooner rather than later.

 

BarakallahuFeek.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

I won't deny, sometimes this does occur. However, there are a number of major incidents which were so public, or so widely reported, that between both of our books there is mass transmission of that incident. If the Prophet (saw) openly and publicly declared something one would expect that it would reach both of our books, in many cases.

Lets just stick to one topic at a time, you've already introduced the concept of names and attributes on a thread which has nothing to do with that.  I will say, I have seen your research of hadeeth ath-Thaqalayn and found it to be unconvincing.  Now, lets stick to the already number of topics we are discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Lets just stick to one topic at a time, you've already introduced the concept of names and attributes on a thread which has nothing to do with that.  I will say, I have seen your research of hadeeth ath-Thaqalayn and found it to be unconvincing.  Now, lets stick to the already number of topics we are discussing.

The research, as far as was possible, was not designed to be an opinion piece. It was rather an objective exercise of relaying pure facts; Nothing can change, for example, the fact that major scholars of Hadith, such as Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and orthodox Sunni Hadith science has authenticated the version i have cited. 

Do please note, due to archaic rules on this forum, the first thread i made on the issue could not be deleted, even though i had expressly asked it be deleted because of major and necessary updates and re-writing. The thread in question is the updated version . I agree, let us not delve into too many topics and InshAllah, you may if you wish post your grievances on the thread. I sought to bring up the point because i wanted to demonstrate that while Shias can wrongly try to use Sunni Hadith, or perhaps prove something the Hadith can not prove, there are more important cases where it firmly prove our position.

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

This isn't a big issue. If someone rejected Shia Islam over a Fiqh issue of combining, then i can safely say they are not searching the truth. Some non-Muslims may be put of the Islamic ruling concerning female-captives in war and sexual intercourse. We can not follow our whims and desires and chase the unclear, or those issues not palatable to what we are used to, or not of the fundamentals. It is established in our Fiqh that it is permissible to combine, it may be preferable to separate (and i separate) and this should be no divider between distinguishing Shia Islam as on Haq or on Batil.

Not really comparable, because one is focused on the basics of the religion (prayer and the lack of emphasis put on it by the 12er madhhab) while the other is an issue which is misinterpreted by Islamaphobes.  Both Sunnis and Shi'is (i.e. none Daeshis) agree about the treatment of slaves and war captives in Islam; just like both agree about the importance of prayer.  Yet, in practice, we see Shi'as making a big deal of congregational prayer in Ramadan while performing matam or zanjeer zani instead, and praying 3 times a day EVERY day because 5 times a day is inconvenient.  This is enough to make the average Muslim not take the fiqh ruling of 12ers seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Intellectual Resistance said:

The research, as far as is possible, was not designed to be an opinion piece. It was a literally objective here's a fact, and this is how it is. Nothing can change, for example, the fact that major scholars of Hadith, such as Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and orthodox Sunni Hadith science has authenticated the version i have cited. 

Do please note, due to archaic rules on this forum, the first thread i made on the issue could not be deleted, even though i had expressly asked it be deleted because of major and necessary updates and re-writing. The thread in question is the updated version . I agree, let us not delve into too many topics and InshAllah, you may if you wish post your grievances on the thread. I sought to bring up the point because i wanted to demonstrate that while Shias can wrongly try to use Sunni Hadith, or perhaps prove something the Hadith can not prove, there are more important cases where it firmly prove our position.

And the Sunni Defense team also provided research into this topic and they also presented "literally objective here's a fact, and this is how it is".  Their argument was academic from people that understand Ilm al Hadeeth, sorry akhi, I don't think you really understand the basics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Not really comparable, because one is focused on the basics of the religion (prayer and the lack of emphasis put on it by the 12er madhhab) while the other is an issue which is misinterpreted by Islamaphobes.  Both Sunnis and Shi'is (i.e. none Daeshis) agree about the treatment of slaves and war captives in Islam; just like both agree about the importance of prayer.  Yet, in practice, we see Shi'as making a big deal of congregational prayer in Ramadan while performing matam or zanjeer zani instead, and praying 3 times a day EVERY day because 5 times a day is inconvenient.  This is enough to make the average Muslim not take the fiqh ruling of 12ers seriously.

We often combine them because it is permissible. In our Fiqh it is also better to separate them, and this is also permissible. If someone chases this issue as a criterion between right and wrong, they would not be genuine truth seekers. In Islam we look at the fundamentals of any belief, rather than peripheral Fiqh issues.

On this topic it is rather interesting to note that Malikis (much more common in the past) pray in the manner of Sadl' and put their hands on their sides, the same way as Jafferis (Shias). A deeper research on the geopolitical and historical connotations of this will yield very interesting findings.

Some videos i'd like to share:

 

 

 

If there s confusion about even where one can place their hands in prayer, what hope does one have with respect to many other elements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Intellectual Resistance said:

We often combine them because it is permissible. In our Fiqh it is also better to separate them, and this is also permissible. If someone chases this issue as a criterion between right and wrong, they would not be genuine truth seekers. In Islam we look at the fundamentals of any belief, rather than peripheral Fiqh issues.

On this topic it is rather interesting to note that Malikis (much more common in the past) pray in the manner of Sadl' and put their hands on their sides, the same way as Jafferis (Shias). A deeper research on the geopolitical and historical connotations of this will yield very interesting findings.

LOL, akhi, come on.  I said "and praying 3 times a day EVERY day because 5 times a day is inconvenient."  I agree with you that is allowed (although I don't think the hadeeth of Anas ibn Malik is enough to not put restictions on it, but if that is your fiqh, thats fine by me), my issue of it being done inside of the 12er Masajid.  So you don't "often" combine, you infact combine every time (out of convenience).

This is the tactic that I hoped I wouldn't see out of you.  Whenever you get cornered in an issue, you open up on a new one.  The fact of the matter is, Malikis pray by Sadl because of some statements that some of the tabi'een made, which they turned into "Amal of Madeenah", not because of any authentic hadeeth they can trace back to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.  Whats' even more fascinating however, is that the Malikis admit that Imam Ali عليه السلام prayed by grasping his hands.  That to me is more interesting than reading into the geopolitical and historical connotations that which confirms my bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

 @Cyrax - brother, please don't use this topic to discuss tarawih. 

@Intellectual Resistance is doing it on purpose so please don't fall for it.

I am going to ask a Mod to remove all off-topic posts.

Yeah, I called him out on it, he's jumping from topic to topic, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

And the Sunni Defense team also provided research into this topic and they also presented "literally objective here's a fact, and this is how it is".  Their argument was academic from people that understand Ilm al Hadeeth, sorry akhi, I don't think you really understand the basics

The Sunni Defence team? Are you aware my dear brother that i have debated their chief article writer, 'Hani' and that my article was in direct refutation to what he has written ? Are you aware he himself admitted he was going against Al-Arnaut, Al-Albani, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, ibn Qatan al-Fasi and that he doesn't care how many or what rank scholars dispute with him ? Do you know who 'Hani' is?

From a 'Sunni Defense team' screen cap:

ZypYfnP.png

 

Would you also like to know what he has said about Ali ibn abi Talib?:

VgdqJyl.png

If you can't read what he's written, it says: "That doesn't answer anything, `Ali failed miserably in his reign as Caliph, he created enemies for no reason, couldn't command his armies, was pressured into doing things by his closest Shia, his own governors abandoned him, he didn't take advice or council from his family members then regretted it, his opponent became the leader and triumphed.  As for Abu Bakr and `Umar, under their divine leadership, they established and strengthened the state; they commanded armies and defeated empires; they united Muslims and strengthened their body and won the love and admiration of the majority of Muslims as well as most non-Muslim historians."

 

In part of the research i have proven how:

1. Hani has gone against Al-Albani, Ibn Hajar, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Qattan al-Fasi and most of your major scholars in this field in declaring Muhammed b. Umar b. Ali ibn Abi Talibs narrations as weak, after he himself graded it Hasan before i flagged him up on that? 

2. Hani has claimed Kathir b.Zaid is 'weak' when Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar, and even Al-Albani have authenticated his traditions in many cases?

3. Many of your scholars in their grading and perhaps even interpretation. 

 

Give this a read, with an objective mind. The worst outcome is you might be unconvinced, and you can post why:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

 @Cyrax - brother, please don't use this topic to discuss tarawih. 

@Intellectual Resistance is doing it on purpose so please don't fall for it.

I am going to ask a Mod to remove all off-topic posts.

Ask them to make a new thread and move, rather than remove. It would be a waste if they were deleted.

@Abu Nur

@starlight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

LOL, akhi, come on.  I said "and praying 3 times a day EVERY day because 5 times a day is inconvenient."  I agree with you that is allowed (although I don't think the hadeeth of Anas ibn Malik is enough to not put restictions on it, but if that is your fiqh, thats fine by me), my issue of it being done inside of the 12er Masajid.  So you don't "often" combine, you infact combine every time (out of convenience).

This is the tactic that I hoped I wouldn't see out of you.  Whenever you get cornered in an issue, you open up on a new one.  The fact of the matter is, Malikis pray by Sadl because of some statements that some of the tabi'een made, which they turned into "Amal of Madeenah", not because of any authentic hadeeth they can trace back to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.  Whats' even more fascinating however, is that the Malikis admit that Imam Ali عليه السلام prayed by grasping his hands.  That to me is more interesting than reading into the geopolitical and historical connotations that which confirms my bias.

My dear brother,

I've clarified why the issue of combining should be no criteria for deciding what is truth or not truth. There isn't an issue of anyone winning or losing in this regard, and any truth seeking individual should be able to see that this is.  As for Sadl, it's interesting how Imam Malik , born in Medina, a contemporary of Imam Jaffer ibn Muhammed as-Sadiq, in the city where the Prophet remained and where a distortion of the religion due to geography and politics was less likely than other religions where the other major Sunni Imams came from, that there seems to be strong evidence for the permissibility and even practise of lowering ones hands by the side. 

That itself , if one reflects on it, should the the gate into the pursuit of further matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

 @Cyrax - brother, please don't use this topic to discuss tarawih. 

@Intellectual Resistance is doing it on purpose so please don't fall for it.

I am going to ask a Mod to remove all off-topic posts.

You have a Shia brother here defending the Madhab of Muhammed and ale Muhammed, and you've jumped on the attack against me? Both of us have to be fair, gone off topic here and introduced other topics not related to your thread, and so while i apologise for that, it is sad that to make a comment against me has more worth than to see our madhab defended.

Share this post


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

Not sure what you meant here (PS how do you keep quoting my post without having to copy and paste everytime?  Would make my life a lot better! بارك الله فيك)

This is something each school says about the other; however, when you break them down, you find they all share the same outlook on the names and attributes; they just either a) don't understand the other side, or b) or give the other side an intrepretation that they didn't intend.  I tend to find the Salafi criticisms to be from the first category, while I find the mutakillim criticisms, yours being included, to be from the second category.  I personally agree with the Salafis on some issues, the Mu'tazilah on some and the Ash'aris on most.

The same way I do when I find those ayat in the Qur'an, it depends on context.  I don't agree with the Salafis regarding eyes and hands, just like I don't agree with the Mutakilimeen regarding the attribute of Mercy.  I find their reinterpretation of words like mercy to be equally as problematic as you do with the Salafis interpretations of hands and eyes.  If you want to know which aqeedah I belong to, then I would say I am reluctant Ash'ari.

I disagree with this completely, I have never in my life met a non-student of knowledge who has heard the words Ash'ari and Mu'tazili; they know the word Salafi, but not because of aqeedah.  As far as the child asking that question, does he, after you answer him, ask you "are Allah's attributes separate from his entity?"  Come on, akhi, lets be real here.  These issues have no significance whatsoever to the Muslim layman, what they care about are atheism, gay rights, marriage, slavery etc.

What's funny is you hold the same views they hold about you; I personally think both of you are wrong.  Shaykh ibn Uthaymeen رحمه الله was wrong, and I don't have a problem saying that.  You'd need to discuss this with someone who agrees with him, i.e. someone like you.

I disagree with him.

I follow people like al-Hafidh ibn Hajar and al-Nawawi رحمهما الله.  Both agreed with the Asha'ris in some cases, and the Salafis in other cases.  I also follow where Allah says:

I think all sects have something to offer, I dont just stick to one group and ignore the rest of the Ummah and think everything I have is right.

All sectarians from all different groups launch scathing attacks on each other.  People like Hanafi Fiqh are the same as IslamQA and sad to say, the same as you.  I'm glad you said "almost all"; while that is not true, it at least shows that you admit that not everyone is worrying themselves about sectarian dogmatic issues 

No I don't, I can be a Muslim and I don't have to follow a dogma.  Sorry, this is not Islam as I understand it.

InshAllah, if the moderators can relocate our posts, i will respond to this and after Iftaar. Your comments about being a 'reluctant Ashari' is of great interest dear brother. 

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

You have a Shia brother here defending the Madhab of Muhammed and ale Muhammed, and you've jumped on the attack against me? Both of us have to be fair, gone off topic here and introduced other topics not related to your thread, and so while i apologise for that, it is sad that to make a comment against me has more worth than to see our madhab defended.

He is genuinely interested. You are doing it to dodge from the earlier issues.

You cited several marajae on tatbir yet refuse to tell us who is your marja. Go figure... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

He is genuinely interested. You are doing it to dodge from the earlier issues.

You cited several marajae on tatbir yet refuse to tell us who is your marja. Go figure... 

If my intention for spending two or more hours while fasting was to 'dodge' from earlier issues and not solely to promote the Haq of Muhammed and his purified progeny, then may Allah guide me. He knows what is truth and i refer the matter to him.

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


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

*snips*

Honestly, when I went to look up the thread you are quoting from, I honestly felt sincerely embarrassed for you.

Look at what was said to you

Quote

Point #1 He is a jahil in ilm al rijal and is trying to debate me in ilm al-rijal. He claims that I am biased and that I am not following proper rijali standards. He said in one of his responses to me:
 

Quote
In his article, or the article he uses on TSN,he claims Ibn Hiban and two other medium/lower tear scholars have weakened him. This is not how Rijal works and Farid knows that well.
 


Ya miskeen... You talk to me about ilm al-rijal and you refer to Yahya bin Ma'een as a "medium/lower" tier scholar?!

This shows that you fundementally don't understand ilm al-rijal, and why your Thaqalayn article isn't convincing to other Shi's, let alone mainstream Muslims.

This was downright emberassing, as you posted the same thing on here as well:

Quote

Point #2. He wants to argue with me about texts and yet he doesn't know a word in Arabic.

He quotes Ibn Uthaymeen who allegedly said:  ”اخراس شٛخ ا س و اتٍ ذًّٛٛ سحًّ   انرفصٛم ٔقال إرا دػد انحاخح إنٗ إسضاع انكثٛش ٔأسضغ ثثد انرحشٚى

Akhi, how can you expect me to take you seriously after this; I am being serious.

Quote

He first joined the site as a fake Sunni and made a post asking about Rijali matters. See his post below. He used the same username on Shiachat. He also used the same material on Shiachat for his site. Why should I even entertain someone who is posing as a fake Sunnis?! 

This doesn't need a comment truly.

Then look what Hani said, which totally shows your dishonesty in your copy and paste of him

Quote

I've actually debated him on some topic related to Imamah, go check that out. He got frustrated when we treated `Ali the same way he treats other Sahabah and couldn't provide reasonable defense except taking screen-shots.

Absolutely shocked that you would do such a thing during Ramadan, WHILE fasting.

You were already completely refuted when you tried to post on the "other site" and I already read it there.  So I hope you understand why I don't your posts about hadeeth seriously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Honestly, when I went to look up the thread you are quoting from, I honestly felt sincerely embarrassed for you.

I'm not surprised that an individual should defame and slander me, while he himself has slandered Ali ibn Abi Talib. So you are in contact and communicating with the same Hani who said this regarding Ali ibn Abi Talib?:

VgdqJyl.png

If you can't read what he's written, it says: "That doesn't answer anything, `Ali failed miserably in his reign as Caliph, he created enemies for no reason, couldn't command his armies, was pressured into doing things by his closest Shia, his own governors abandoned him, he didn't take advice or council from his family members then regretted it, his opponent became the leader and triumphed. 

 

49 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

This shows that you fundementally don't understand ilm al-rijal, and why your Thaqalayn article isn't convincing to other Shi's, let alone mainstream Muslims.

Yahya bin Ma'een obviously has strong weight. I was referring to him getting around the breast-feeding of an adult issue. I believe i had misread what was written and saw Ibn Hibban and another. I'll acknowledge i probably misspoke , but even then my point stands that he can not weaken someone as he sees fit. Ibn Hajar many other scholars have collectively seen what has been said about different narrators and have come to a conclusion over that. It's not as simple as finding a scholar here or there that weakens them and concluding that.

This is a great way for Hani to avoid addressing the points i raised. This is called an Ad Hominem attack, when you focus on the individual and ignore the arguments. By the way, i did absolutely no 'Ilm al-Rijal' in my article. I was point-blank giving you the view of your scholars. That was all. 

49 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Point #2. He wants to argue with me about texts and yet he doesn't know a word in Arabic.

He quotes Ibn Uthaymeen who allegedly said:  ”اخراس شٛخ ا س و اتٍ ذًّٛٛ سحًّ   انرفصٛم ٔقال إرا دػد انحاخح إنٗ إسضاع انكثٛش ٔأسضغ ثثد انرحشٚى

I have been studying Arabic for well over a year regularly. Anyone can understand that particular piece is severely broken and incomprehensible. I had copied it from an article PDF file of a Sunni brother documenting Ibn Taymiyyah and it appears it destroyed the Arabic. I'm going to inshAllah relocate the original when i can. I left the broken Arabic on there for my own references so i can try to find the original document i no longer have later on. 

49 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

He first joined the site as a fake Sunni and made a post asking about Rijali matters. See his post below. He used the same username on Shiachat. He also used the same material on Shiachat for his site. Why should I even entertain someone who is posing as a fake Sunnis?! 

This needs to be clarified. I never joined as a 'Fake' Sunni. I literally made one account and asked one question. Why did i do that? Precisely because i know that when people realise that evidence can be used against them, they change their positions rapidly. I wanted to get that point from the 'horses mouth' as it is said. I never made threads upon threads and spent any more than that particular question , before i made a proper account and debated them head on. So that claim is extremely overblown. Once more, Hani trying to totally diverge from the real issue here.

49 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

I've actually debated him on some topic related to Imamah, go check that out. He got frustrated when we treated `Ali the same way he treats other Sahabah and couldn't provide reasonable defense except taking screen-shots

Yes, Hani, and isn't this when you said the following about Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) which shocked me so much i recognised there was little use in debating you?:

, `Ali failed miserably in his reign as Caliph, he created enemies for no reason, couldn't command his armies, was pressured into doing things by his closest Shia, his own governors abandoned him, he didn't take advice or council from his family members then regretted it, his opponent became the leader and triumphed. 

Let's not ignore the times when you made further comments which were even worse. What's the point of that, what do you gain from it?

 

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

This shows that you fundementally don't understand ilm al-rijal, and why your Thaqalayn article isn't convincing to other Shi's, let alone mainstream Muslims.

Let me clarify this. My issue was that in Farids article he wanted to weaken a narrator based on the view of Yahya and Ibn Hibban. I believe when reading the article, i had misread - as he never named three authors but only two, and one of them was Yahya Bin Ma'een. That was a mistake on my part because i had misread it. I believe i was focused more on him trying to weaken a narrator and go against the view of Ibn Hajar and many other scholars who have had access to all what was said by previous scholars and pass an overall judgement. 

My discussions with Hani were not a debate on Ilm ar-Rijal. I was point blank telling him what his own scholars were saying.

Does Al-Albani not authenticate the tradition of the two weighty things? Did Al-Arnaut not also authenticate it? Did ibn Hajar not also authenticate it? My exercise was only putting to the eyes of the people what they have not been saying. I have not gotten embroiled in a debate about Rijal which i'm not a beginner in either way.

 (Musnad Ibn Rahwayh): On the authority of Ali ibn Abi Talib: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “I have left behind over you (al-Thaqalayn) that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray: the Book of Allah – one end of which is in the Hand of Allah and the other in your hands– and my Ahl al-Bayt” [2-3]

حدثنا سليمان بن عبيد الله الغيلاني، حدثنا أبو عامر، حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي، عن أبيه، عن علي رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :إني تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله، سببه بيد الله، وسببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي.

 

What does Ibn Hajar say?

Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani states: هذا إسناد صحيح 

Source: [3.2] Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, al-Matalib al-Aliyah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-Thamaniyyah (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah; 1414 H) [annotator: Prof. Shaykh Habib al-Rahman al-A’zami], vol., 4, p. 65, # 3972

 

What does al-Arnaut say?

 Shu’ayb Arnaut states regarding the above tradition: إسناده حسن

Abu Ja’far Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Salamah b. ‘Abd al-Malik b. Salmah al-Azdi al-Hajari al-Misri al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar (Muasassat al-Risalah; 1st edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 5, p. 13, # 1760

 

What has Al-Albani said?:

y0FrqBE.png

 

He regards all the men are Thiqat - meaning he has no problem in Muhammed b. Umar b. Ali ibn abi talib. As for Kathir b. Zayd - he talks about Yazid b.Kathir actually being Kathir b.Zayd in the part not shown. He has graded chains with him as 'Hasan': https://sunnah.com/adab/12 and https://sunnah.com/urn/1293060 and many other places.  Furthermore, he starts be saying this Hadith is a strong witness. 

 

What have Ibn Hajar and Ibn Qattan al-Fasi and Al-Albani said with regards to Muhammed b. Umar b. Ali b. Ali Talib?

:Muhammad ibn ‘Umar ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (rahimahullah) was ‘qalilul Hadith‘ i.e He reported few Hadith only. Imams Nasai, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah (rahimahumullah) have accepted his Hadiths.

Imam Ibn Hibban (rahimahullah) has declared him reliable. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al ‘Asqalani (rahimahullah) declares him ‘saduq‘ i.e. His Hadiths will be sound. ‘Allamah Ibnul Qattan (rahimahullah) was also of the view that his Hadiths are sound (hasan).

(Refer: Mizanul I’tidal, vol. 4 pg. 222, Tahdhibut Tahdhib, vol. 9 pg. 361. Taqribut Tahdhib, 6170): https://hadithanswers.com/the-hadith-narrator-muhammad-ibn-umar-ibn-ali-ibn-abi-talib/

You can add Al-Albani who never saw any problem with him in his comments in the print-screen shown. You can also add Al-Arnaut and many other major scholars of Hadith. Hani won't accept what the scholars say. I choose , when discussing with Sunnis to relay to them what their own scholars say, rather than accept the view of lay people on refutation websites. He's arguing against Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar, Al-Albani, Ibn Qattan al-Fasi, and not me.

 

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


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

You were already completely refuted when you tried to post on the "other site" and I already read it there.  So I hope you understand why I don't your posts about hadeeth seriously

Completely refuted? What Hani here has done is slander and has quickly rushed to throw half-baked personal attacks. Ask him to address the above post.  Ask him , was Al-Albani wrong in authenticating the version of Thaqalayn i was debating about? What Al-Arnaut wrong? Was ibn Hajar wrong? He wasn't debating me, but your scholars. 

Share this post


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

This shows that you fundementally don't understand ilm al-rijal, and why your Thaqalayn article isn't convincing to other Shi's, let alone mainstream Muslims.

 

One more thing Hani, you're happy with taking from the Ashariyya, Mutazila, and Salafi schools , and cooperating with Farid, a Salafi-Athari who considers you from the Ahlul-Biddah in Aqeedah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cyrax

Ask Hani the following and ask him to bear witness to Allah, the Almighty:

1. Does, or does Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani not consider Muhammed b. Umar b. Ali b. Abi Talib as Saduq?

2. Does or does Ibn Qattan al-Fasi not consider him as Hasan-ul-Hadith?

3. Does or does Al-Arnaut, a major scholar in Hadith not grade the chain i presented as Hasan?

4. Does Al-Albani not authenticate the tradition, regard Muhammed b. Umar b. Ali b. Abi Talib as reliable to take traditions from, and has said regarding the tradition of Thaqalayn and i quote:  "the mention, in this hadith, of the members of his household, alongside the Qur’an, is like the mention of the way of the Rightly Guided Caliphs alongside the Sunnah (way) of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in the hadith: “I urge you to adhere to my way (Sunnah) and the way of the Rightly Guided Caliphs…”  Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah (4/260).

5. Did he (Hani) not say regarding Ali ibn Abi Talib that: "`Ali failed miserably in his reign as Caliph, he created enemies for no reason, couldn't command his armies, was pressured into doing things by his closest Shia, his own governors abandoned him, he didn't take advice or council from his family members then regretted it, his opponent became the leader and triumphed." What Sunnis would even condone that kind of language ?

 

If he answers truthfully, it will be clear Hani is not debating me, he is debating your own scholars. I have the honesty to say i have no authority in this field, and he should come up front and refrain from having his own standards in Rijal and going against his own major 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...