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
Follower of Ahlulbayt

Response— "12 Reasons to Leave Shiasm"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

From the same article as referred above:

"2- Access to the Hadith of the Noble Prophet

Most people are aware that Sunnis build their faith on the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet – peace be upon him – . However, what most Shias are not aware of is the fact that there are not enough prophetic narrations in the Shia hadith corpus for them to build their sect upon, so the same cannot be said for them.

For prophetic narrations, the Sunnis have a variety of sources that they can refer to. Off the top of my head, Sunnis can easily find prophetic narrations in the Saheehain, the four Sunan, Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Malik, Al-Tabarani’s three Ma’ajim, Sunan Al-Daraqutni, Sunan Al-Darimi, Saheeh Ibn Hibban, Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah, Musnad Al-Bazzar, Musnad Abi Ya’la, as well as the Masaneed that have been preserved through Ibn Hajar’s Al-Matalib Al-Aliya.

Shias, on the other hand, do not have a book that collects prophetic traditions. When the odd prophetic narration is found in a book like Al-Kafi, or another one of the four books, it is weak due to the anonymity of a narrator 9 out of 10 times.

It should not be a surprise that the Shias do not have a large number of reliable prophetic hadiths, since they reject the majority of the companions of the Prophet – peace be upon him – as reliable narrators. This leads us to our next point."

Reply:

The famous hadith of two things ie Qur'an and Sunnah is present in Sunni sources, but its is not mentioned in any of the Sunni Sahih books. The version of two weighty things ie Qur'an and the Ahl alabayt of the Prophet saw is considered authentic and it is present in Sunni Sahiheen books. If we consider for sake of analysis  both the hadith then it is concluded that true sunna comes through Ahl alabayt of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) alone.

In the light of true hadith of two weighty things ie Qur'an and Ahl alabayt (عليه السلام) who include the daughter of the Prophet Fatima as and twelve Imams from the progeny of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Shia take the hadith that are coming through them as there is no recognized or approved way by which the narrations of the Prophet s,a,w can be taken. However the reliability and authenticity of these hadith is verified  as per Rijal standards of Shia. Also Shia do not reject the hadith present in Sunni sources all together but their authenticity is verified in the light of the verses of Qur'an provided the narrators that do not hate Ahl Alabayt as and they are not nasibis ie who fought against Ahl labayt as.

Kitub Arbaa (4 books) and other hadith sources are full of narrations from the Ahl alabayt members from the pure progeny of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Their words are true words of the Prophet sa.w.

Four Major Shia Hadith book (Kutub al Arba) are:
1) Al Kafi (The Sufficient) by Mohammed bin Yaqub Kulaini, it has 15176 narrations/ Ahaadith.
2) Man La Yahdruhu Al Faqih (I am my own Jurist) by Shaikh Saduq Mohammed bin Ali, it has 9044 narrations/ Ahaadith
3) Tahdiib Al Ahkaam (The Refinement of Laws) by Shaikh Abu Ja'far Tusi, it has 13590 narrations/ Ahaadith
4) Al Istibsaar (Foresight) by Shaikh Abu Ja'far Tusi, it has 5511 narrations/ Ahaadith

Other Shia Hadith books are:
5) Bihar Al Anwaar (Ocean of Luminescence)
6) Wasaail Ush Shia (Details for Shia)
7) Haqq Al Yaqin (Reality of Certainty)
8) Ain al Hayaat (Essence of Life)
9) Kitab Sulaym bin Qays (Book of Sulaym bin Qays)
10) Sahifa Sajjadiya (Psalms of Sajjad/ 4th Imam), it is a prayer book.
11) Nahjul Balagha (Peak of Eloquence), compiled by Sayyed Radi, the book is collections of sermons, letters and quotations of 1st Imam Ali bin Abu Talib (عليه السلام), etc

Sunni on the other hand has only a few narrations narrated coming through the members of the family of the Prophet( Ahl labayt as) thus confirming that they do not themselves follow the authentic hadith of two weighty things ie Qur'an and Ahl labayt as. Shia do not exclude the saying of members of Ahl albayt of the Prophet saw in any manner and they follow their saying that are in turn true sayings of the Prophet saww.

"From the Shi'I viewpoint, as the era during which the Imams lived (I.e. until the occultation of the last of the Imams) lasted until the year 260 of Hijrah, the traditions of the Prophet (s) and his Sunnah were secure from error until the said year and the chains of fallible narrators pertain to the period intervening between us and the last of the Infallible ones. However, from the Sunni viewpoint, the chains of fallible authorities begin right from the time of die demise of the Noble Prophet (s). In other words, from the Sunni viewpoint, the lifetime of the Prophet of Islam in respect of the exposition of the Shari`ah and the period of immunity of Divine teachings, precepts, laws and prescriptions [from error and interpolation arising from transmission through chains of fallible authorities] was 23 years (I.e. from the beginning of the Prophet's ministry until his demise), whereas from the Shi'I viewpoint it was in effect 273 years (I.e. from the beginning of the Prophet's ministry until the demise of the Eleventh Imam)."

As a result, Islamic teachings, sciences and laws received in the Shi'I tradition from their infallible source are much greater in respect of quantity, and in respect of quality closer to the era of the Infallibles, whereas in the Sunni tradition the bulk of hadith transmitted and received is limited to the first 23 years with a much greater distance of time following it.

if anyone carefully studies the traditions received from the Noble Prophet (s), it would be clear to him that in the Shi'I tradition Sunnah-throughout the course of history and from the time of its inception to the present day-has never encountered the handicaps that it faced in the Sunni tradition. That is because the transmission of Sunnah was faced for a long period with the problem created by the prohibition on its writing and oral tradition was the only means by which it was transmitted from one generation to the next. After the demise of the Noble Prophet (s), the Second caliph, with the claim that `the Book of Allah is sufficient for us' (kafana kitab Allah), severely prohibited the writing of hadith and lie had some of the Companions whipped for writing the traditions of the Prophet (s). This prohibition remained in force until the time of `Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, the Umayyad Caliph. The dangers and drawbacks of oral transmission are obvious and one can guess the extent to which it exposed hadith to the hazards of corruption, alteration and interpolation in respect of wording, form and content."

From: Sunnah, from Shi'I and Sunni Viewpoints , By Ayatollah Ali Mishkini (1996)
https://shiabook.blogspot.com/2010/09/blog-post_1934.html

The other major difference is that the Shia believe that there is no book of Hadith which is 100% authentic, and that all hadiths must be checked against the Qur’an and the established principles of Islam. In contrast, Sunnis believe that certain books, such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, are 100% correct and unquestionable. These books, however, obviously contain some Hadiths which go firmly against the principles of Islam and cannot be justified in any way, and therefore their claim is proven false through the content of the books themselves.

The sayings of the Holy Prophet of Islam collected by Ayatollah Imani’s book A Bundle of Flowers, in which he has taken the great care of carefully selecting various traditions, from various sources, of the Prophet of Islam, and his Ahlul Bait.The selected sayings of the Prophet Muhammad  can be seen at the given link:

http://www.shiacrescent.com/2011/01/01/sayings-of-the-Prophet-Muhammad/

(The Shia view of companions will be responded in nest post.)

Edited by Muslim2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

This argument is non-sequitur because even if we assume for the sake of argument that Shias don't focus on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), how does that make Shi'ism false? How does Shia preaches and speakers on the minbar not focusing on Allah prove Shi'ism false?

The argument didn't say this makes Shi'ism false.

You ignore the points in the argument and try to refute it based not on the argument itself - the claim: "This is most commonly observed in how they encourage putting Ahlul Bayt, as an intermediary, between them and Allah. This is not encouraged in the Qur’an, for we know that Allah – subhanahu wa ta’ala – said [2:186]: “And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he calls on Me.”

You say, "How does Shia preaches and speakers on the minbar not focusing on Allah prove Shi'ism false? All it proves is that we have a problem with our speakers and how they don't talk about God enough."

Do you see how you're not addressing the point?

Share this post


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

The argument didn't say this makes Shi'ism false.

You ignore the points in the argument and try to refute it based not on the argument itself - the claim: "This is most commonly observed in how they encourage putting Ahlul Bayt, as an intermediary, between them and Allah. This is not encouraged in the Qur’an, for we know that Allah – subhanahu wa ta’ala – said [2:186]: “And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he calls on Me.”

You say, "How does Shia preaches and speakers on the minbar not focusing on Allah prove Shi'ism false? All it proves is that we have a problem with our speakers and how they don't talk about God enough."

Do you see how you're not addressing the point?

Lol the title of their article is 12 reasons to leave shi'ism

I responded to this when I mentioned the istigatha point. This is another fallacious argument of theirs. They argue don't do tawassul, yet do not provide any evidence for its prohibition or even its dislike. 

And just for the sake of mentioning it, the issue of tawassul/istigatha is not a Sunni-Shia issue, as the majority of Sunnis believe it is permissible to do tawassul anyway. So this is yet another blunder in their argument.

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Lol the title of their article is 12 reasons to leave shi'ism

I responded to this when I mentioned the istigatha point. This is another fallacious argument of theirs. They argue don't do tawassul, yet do not provide any evidence for its prohibition or even its dislike. 

And just for the sake of mentioning it, the issue of tawassul/istigatha is not a Sunni-Shia issue, as the majority of Sunnis believe it is permissible to do tawassul anyway. So this is yet another blunder in their argument.

Yes, reasons to leave. That is not the same as saying "every single one of the following alone is the reason shi'ism is false."

Tawassul is not prohibited by a single Muslim on Earth who knows what it means. Prohibition of the type of Tawassul mentioned in this topic is based on the Qur'an and hadith.

The encouragement of it or permitting of it exists nowhere in the Qur'an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

This is again another non-sequitur. The argument here is again something along the lines of "Shi'a preachers and speakers narrate fabrications on the minbar, therefore Shiism is false."

It doesn't say shi'ism is false but since it does attack the core of it I don't blame you for using the word here. Yet, your argument is empty. Your argument is that they're argument is empty. Which isn't an argument at all if you have nothing to back it up.

He doesn't say a Shia can't reject the stories and be a Shia. He says that the Sunni narrations are in many cases more logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same source:

3- Acceptance of the Companions of the Noble Prophet

Even though this may seem trivial to average Shias, it is clearly a matter of great significance as we can see from the previous point. The rejecting of companions ultimately leads to rejecting the vast majority of the prophetic traditions.

Shias may attempt to cling at straws by suggesting that the Sunni prophetic tradition is actually the result of Umayyad hadith factories. This theory is based upon a lack of an objective reading of the Sunni texts, since the majority of the Sunni prophetic traditions do not contain anything pro-Umayyad. On the other hand, the narrations about the merits of Ali and the rest of Ahlul Bayt are plenty in number in Sunni books. More importantly, the vast majority of the Sunni traditions revolve around neutral practices and wisdoms from the Prophet – peace be upon him – . By neutral, we mean non-controversial.

Acceptance of the Companions also leads to access to a plethora of their personal opinions in rulings and practices, as well as Qur’anic interpretation. These opinions are not binding upon Sunnis, since the Companions were not infallible. However, access to the opinions of first generation of Muslims provides Sunnis with a better understanding of religious matters that have some vagueness due to language and historical context.

Reply:

First there is no unique definition of a companion / Sahabi. There are different definitions by scholars. Muslims scholars had three views about the companions like:

I.          A fraction of Muslims called Kamiliyah and those who share with them the same extremist views and attitudes maintain that all the companions are infidels.

ii.         This is a popular among Sunni scholars who believe that all the companions are just, reliable, perfect and without any negative aspects in their personalities. Thus, it is not permissible to refute or disprove traditions narrated by them nor is it permissible to criticize their reports. It is as though they became inerrant and immune to all kinds of mistakes and errors as and when they met the Prophet and started to accompany him.

iii.         There is a group of Sunni scholars who have explicitly stated that the companions are like all other people, some of whom are just and others are unjust.

There are three groups of companions in the light of the verses of Qur'an:

Group 1: Those companions who followed the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in his life and remain follower after him. They are considered respectful by both Sunni and Shia scholars.

Group 2: Those companions who were Muslims but violated the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) instructions in his life as well as the teachings of Islam after him.

Group 3: The companions who were Muslims apparently but they were hypocrites. The Qur'an mentions them as they may turn out of fold of Islam.

The following link can be seen for further details about it with the relevant hadith.

 https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235015369-does-the-Qur'an-disrespect-the-sahaba/  

 The categorizing of companions into groups does not reject the hadith of the Prophet s.w. This assumption has no logical basis.  But this categorization  helps to improve the hadith collection and verification process only from those who are really truthful to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and follower of the Ahl Albayt (عليه السلام) after the demise of the Prophet s,a,w.

The great scholars of hadith and their followers have made a lot of remarks and comments about the companions which have been recorded in biographical and historical sources. Instances of those comments follow as under:

Malik bin Anas was asked: "Two different traditions are reported from the Holy Prophet (S) by two reliable narrators. In your opinion, which of those traditions can we act upon?"
Malik answered: "No, by God, you cannot act upon any one of them unless he makes sure which one is true, and only one of them is true. Can two differing statements be true? Only one of those traditions is true."17
As well, elsewhere Anas bin Malik was asked about the companions having different views and he answered that only one of them was right and that precaution had to be exercised in that respect.18

There is another report which says that Abu Hanifa said about the companions as such: "All the companions are just except a few specific individuals." Thereupon he named some of those people who could not be trusted including Abu Hurairah and Anas bin Malik.19

Shafi'ei has been reported to have said to Rabi': "The testimony of four companions is not acceptable. They are Mu'awiyah, Amr bin Aas, Mughairah and Ziyad."20
Shu'bah says in this regard: "Abu Hurairah always practiced tadlis1".21
Laith has also been reported to have said: "Whenever we encounter a situation where we see that companions have different views, we adopt that view which is more precautious."22

Indeed, it is due, mainly, to these sayings that Imamiyah Shia continues to have such a standpoint”.

https://www.imamreza.net/old/eng/imamreza.php?id=13138

From the verses of Qur'an the view of Shia is evident that Ahl albayat of the Prophet s.aw are the reference/ standard of the truth and one position can be verified with that truth for his acceptance or rejection. A companions who hates or had wage a war is certainly not a favorable narrator  unless his narration  is verified by alternate source.

It is quite obvious that hadith were prohibited by second caliph in his rule for writing. The fabrications were made for  hadith in the rule of Umayyad. The detail can be see at the give link:

https://www.al-Islam.org/prohibition-recording-hadith-Sayyid-Ali-al-shahristani/establishment-two-trends-during-umayyad-reign

Merit of Ali and Ahl baayt as has been mentioned in Sunni sources that is not denied  but those who hate them and fought them wars are respected and placed in high esteem even higher than the Ahl alabayt of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This is in contradiction  to the verses of Qur'an (like verse of purification 33:33, Verse of Mubahila verse 3:61, Verse of muwadah ie 42:23, and many others) and hadith of the Prophet s,a.w for their virtues.

Neutral sense means that the Truth is kept hidden by praising both sides who fought a battle and where one side is with truth and other is not but hadith in the Sahiheen books praise both of them. This is not a neutral stance but a possible hypocrisy /dual purpose behavior.

Acceptance of only those companions who were loyal and followers of the Prophet and his pure Ahl albayt during the life of the Prophet or after him are certainly respected by Shia. Also who followed the Ahl labayt in are respected like the companions of group 1 mentioned above.

The fact that's admitted that the companions were not infallible but the Prophet family who are purified in the light of verse 33:33 & hadith of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) that all blemishes are kept away from them are almost neglected for taking the majority of hadith as well as following them in light of hadith thaqlayn ie two weighty things.(Qur'an and Ahl alabayt).

Shia has more direct access to the hadith of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) through the praised Ahl albayt of the Prophet Muhamamd (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who remained present till 273 Hj (as mentioned under reply of point no. 2) instead of fallible companions who include the hypocrites as mentioned Group 3 above.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010

Share this post


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

Yes, reasons to leave. That is not the same as saying "every single one of the following alone is the reason shi'ism is false."

Buddy stop arguing for the sake of arguing. The title of the article is not just reasons to leave shi'ism, but it is 12 reasons... and point one is part of their twelve reasons.

6 hours ago, Aragaia said:

 Tawassul is not prohibited by a single Muslim on Earth who knows what it means. Prohibition of the type of Tawassul mentioned in this topic is based on the Qur'an and hadith.

 The encouragement of it or permitting of it exists nowhere in the Qur'an.

There is no prohibition of istigatha in the qur'an or sunnah. In fact, you will find in the narrations the encouragement of the act of saying Ya Muhammad. See this hadith.

5 hours ago, Aragaia said:

It doesn't say shi'ism is false but since it does attack the core of it I don't blame you for using the word here. Yet, your argument is empty. Your argument is that they're argument is empty. Which isn't an argument at all if you have nothing to back it up.

 He doesn't say a Shia can't reject the stories and be a Shia. He says that the Sunni narrations are in many cases more logical.

Again, read the title of their article.

No, they never said Sunni narrations on Karbala are more logical. They said that some Shia narrations are absurd. Not realising, that much of these absurd narrations are not actually required to be believed in to be Shi'a. They even mention that apparently someone got doubts about Shi'ism because of the fabrications of Karbala. 

I think you missed the point of my argument. All I was trying to say is firstly they misrepresent the diversity of views on the narrative of Karbala and then they make the fallacious argument of because some Shi'a versions of the event of Karbala are absurd, you have to become Sunni.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Buddy stop arguing for the sake of arguing. The title of the article is not just reasons to leave shi'ism, but it is 12 reasons... and point one is part of their twelve reasons.

There is no prohibition of istigatha in the qur'an or sunnah. In fact, you will find in the narrations the encouragement of the act of saying Ya Muhammad. See this hadith.

Again, read the title of their article.

No, they never said Sunni narrations on Karbala are more logical. They said that some Shia narrations are absurd. Not realising, that much of these absurd narrations are not actually required to be believed in to be Shi'a. They even mention that apparently someone got doubts about Shi'ism because of the fabrications of Karbala. 

I think you missed the point of my argument. All I was trying to say is firstly they misrepresent the diversity of views on the narrative of Karbala and then they make the fallacious argument of because some Shi'a versions of the event of Karbala are absurd, you have to become Sunni.

There is no prohibition against istigatha but there is for doing so regarding the dead. Saying ya Muhammad was prohibited at the time he was alive and is still absolutely prohibited.

They didn't say you have to become Sunni. He was critcising the credibility of the text and now you aren't objecting, you're just implying it isn't relevant whether the text is credible or not. But if someone thinks it significantly lacking, how could they support Shia ideologies?

Share this post


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

There is no prohibition against istigatha but there is for doing so regarding the dead. Saying ya Muhammad was prohibited at the time he was alive and is still absolutely prohibited.

No, there isn't any prohibition of saying ya Muhammad after his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) death. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the hadith would have told Uthman b. Hunayf that one should only say ya Muhammad while I'm alive, but that wasn't the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

No, there isn't any prohibition of saying ya Muhammad after his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) death. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the hadith would have told Uthman b. Hunayf that one should only say ya Muhammad while I'm alive, but that wasn't the case. 

In that narration Muhammad was alive. The supplication was permissable. The matter of him saying ya Muhammad may be because this was a special situation as the prohibition was particularly when calling him. Or it may be before the revelation took place.

Share this post


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

In that narration Muhammad was alive. The supplication was permissable. The matter of him saying ya Muhammad may be because this was a special situation as the prohibition was particularly when calling him. Or it may be before the revelation took place.

The Tawassal / intercession is permitted by majority of Sunnis based on the hadith from Sunni sources as well as opinion of their shcoalrs. All the aspects like Istighasa, calling the dead and making dua through the waseela / intermediary etc  all aspects are permitted in Sunni school of thought and Shia may not be blamed for these please.

The detail can be seen from the Ahluss sunna web site and its link is mentioned below:

http://www.ahlus-sunna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010

Share this post


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

In that narration Muhammad was alive. The supplication was permissable. The matter of him saying ya Muhammad may be because this was a special situation as the prohibition was particularly when calling him. Or it may be before the revelation took place.

Yes the Prophet (s) was alive at the time, but my point was that the Prophet never mentioned "only say Ya Muhammed when I am alive", the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) left it general and if you want to put the condition that the Prophet made it only permissible to say ya muhammed in his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) lifetime, then you have to bring the evidence for it. 

In addition, there is a further reliable narration where after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), the sahabi Uthman b. Hunayf himself tells someone to say Ya Muhammed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Yes the Prophet (s) was alive at the time, but my point was that the Prophet never mentioned "only say Ya Muhammed when I am alive", the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) left it general and if you want to put the condition that the Prophet made it only permissible to say ya muhammed in his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) lifetime, then you have to bring the evidence for it. 

In addition, there is a further reliable narration where after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), the sahabi Uthman b. Hunayf himself tells someone to say Ya Muhammed. 

The evidence is in the Qur'an which tells you to only seek help from Allah.

It isn't a question of who denies it as much as who came up with it. It's an innovation since there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith that would prescribe it.

The claim this hadith provides evidence it is permissable is absurd as this man met the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wassallam) and asked his help personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aragaia said:

The evidence is in the Qur'an which tells you to only seek help from Allah.

Wow. Thats pretty shocking. We can't seek help from anyone except Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? So we can't seek help from teachers, parents, doctors, and other people? Oh, you mean we can't seek help from people when they 1) die or 2) are not present. Now let me ask you, where are these conditions mentioned in the qur'an? Does the qur'an mention that asking help from someone is haram (or shirk) when they die and/or not present? No, there is no evidence for that. 

4 minutes ago, Aragaia said:

It isn't a question of who denies it as much as who came up with it. It's an innovation since there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith that would prescribe it.

 The claim this hadith provides evidence it is permissable is absurd as this man met the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wassallam) and asked his help personally.

It isn't an innovation. The Prophet (s) himself told us that we can call him, and there is no evidence that the Prophet (s) restricted saying Ya Muhammed to only when he was alive. 

Uthman bin Hunayf said Ya Muhammed, and the Prophet (s) was not present. This is evidence that the Prophet (s) can hear us when we call upon him. Also, the sahaba Uthman b. Hunayf also said Ya Muhammed after the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) death, so that is evidence that the Prophet can hear us after his death as well. Otherwise, you must admit that Uthman b. Hunayf a sahabi committed an innovation or that he committed shirk. 

Anyways since the Prophet left it general and didn't put any restrictions, it will be considered permissible to say Ya Muhammed even today.

Share this post


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

The evidence is in the Qur'an which tells you to only seek help from Allah.

It isn't a question of who denies it as much as who came up with it. It's an innovation since there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith that would prescribe it.

The claim this hadith provides evidence it is permissable is absurd as this man met the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wassallam) and asked his help personally.

The evidences have been presented in earlier posts with the verses of Qur'an, hadith and Sunni scholars opinions for their interpretation.

These comments are  just sueprfical presented here without any thought giving session on the evidences for their interpretation.

waslaam

Edited by Muslim2010

Share this post


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

The evidence is in the Qur'an which tells you to only seek help from Allah.

It isn't a question of who denies it as much as who came up with it. It's an innovation since there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith that would prescribe it.

The claim this hadith provides evidence it is permissable is absurd as this man met the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wassallam) and asked his help personally.

Are you serious?

Many times the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was requested by people to pray for forgiveness or commanded by Allah to do so.

Same with asking help. How is that shirk?

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Are you serious?

Many times the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was requested by people to pray for forgiveness or commanded by Allah to do so.

Same with asking help. How is that shirk?

Because he was alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Aragaia said:

Because he was alive.

Although you contradict yourself by using the Qur'an to prohibit tawassul and reject a hadith about intercession after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) which is widely accepted by Ahlus-Sunnah except the Salafi's I'd like to continue to discuss this on another level.

 

The question is not about life or death.

It's about consciousness.

Which is the ability to perceive without a human body.

Is this possible according to you?

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Aragaia said:

Because he was alive.

http://www.ahlus-sunna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57

From above link few hadith are presented;

روى أبو صادق عن علي قال : قدم علينا أعرابي بعدما دفنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بثلاثة أيام , فرمى بنفسه على قبر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وحثا على رأسه من ترابه ; فقال : قلت يا رسول الله فسمعنا قولك , ووعيت عن الله فوعينا عنك , وكان فيما أنزل الله عليك " ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم " الآية , وقد ظلمت نفسي وجئتك تستغفر لي . فنودي من القبر إنه قد غفر لك .

Its related from Abu Sadiq (رضي الله عنه) that Imam Ali (رضي الله عنه) said: "Three days after burying the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) The Araabi did come and did throw himself on the grave of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), he took the Earth and threw it on his head. He said: "Ya Rasulallah! (Peace Be Upon Him) You did speak and we did hear, you learned from Allah and we did learn from you. Between those things which Allah did send you, is following: (4:64) I am the one, which is a sinner and now I did came to you, so that you may ask for me." After that a call from the grave did came: "Theres no doubt, you are forgiven!" [Tafsir al-Qurtubi, al-Jami li Ahkam al-Qur'an Volume 006, Page No. 439, Under the Verse, 4:64]

1.  No companion stopped the person that it was not permitted to speak with the Prophet after his death or it was shirk.including the narrator and Imam Ali as per hadith given above.

2. No Imam of Sunni has mentioned it as shirk or not permitted.

وَهُوَ أَنَّ رَجُلاً كَانَ يَخْتَلِفُ إلَى عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عَفَّانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فِي حَاجَةٍ لَهُ، وَكَانَ عُثْمَانُ لاَ يَلْتَفِتُ إلَيْهِ، وَلاَ يَنْظُرُ فِي حَاجَتِهِ، فَلَقِيَ عُثْمَانَ بْنَ حُنَيْفٍ فَشَكَا ذلِكَ إلَيْهِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ عُثْمَانُ بْنُ حُنَيْفٍ: ائْتِ الْمِيضَأَةَ فَتَوَضَّأْ، ثُمَّ ائْتِ الْمَسْجِدَ فَصَلِّ فِيهِ رَكْعَتَيْنِ، ثُمَّ قُلِ: اللَّهُمَّ إنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ، وَأَتَوَجَّهُ إلَيْكَ بِنَبِيِّنَا مُحَمَّدٍ نَبِيِّ الرَّحْمَةِ، يَا مُحَمَّدُ! إنِّي أَتَوَجَّهُ بِكَ إلَى رَبِّي فَيَقْضِي حَاجَتِي، وَتَذْكُرُ حَاجَتَكَ وَرُحْ إلَيَّ حَتَّى أَرُوحَ مَعَكَ، فَانْطَلَقَ الرَّجُلُ فَصَنَعَ مَا قَالَ لَهُ، ثُمَّ أَتَى بَابَ عُثْمَانَ فَجَاءَ الْبَوَّابُ حَتَّى أَخَذَ بِيَدِهِ، فَأَدْخَلَهُ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عَفَّانَ فَأَجْلَسَهُ مَعَهُ عَلَى الطُّنْفَسَةِ، وَقَالَ: مَا حَاجَتُكَ؟ فَذَكَرَ حَاجَتُهُ فَقَضَاهَا لَهُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: مَا ذَكَرْتُ حَاجَتَكَ حَتَّى كَانَتْ هذِهِ السَّاعَةُ، وَقَالَ: مَا كَانَتْ لَكَ مِنْ حَاجَةٍ فَائْتِنَا، ثُمَّ إنَّ الرَّجُلَ خَرَجَ مِنْ عِنْدِهِ فَلَقِيَ عُثْمَانَ بْنَ حُنَيْفٍ فَقَالَ لَهُ: جَزَاكَ اللَّهُ خَيْراً، مَا كَانَ يَنْظُرُ فِي حَاجَتِي، وَلاَ يَلْتَفِتُ إلَيَّ حَتَّى كَلَّمْتَهُ فِيَّ، فَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ بْنُ حُنَيْفٍ: وَاللَّهِ مَا كَلَّمْتُهُ، وَلَكِنْ شَهِدْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، وَأَتَاهُ رَجُلٌ ضَرِيرٌ فَشَكَا إلَيْهِ ذَهَابَ بَصَرِهِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ: «أَوْ تَصْبِرُ»، فَقَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إنَّهُ لَيْسَ لِي قَائِدٌ، وَقَدْ شَقَّ عَلَيَّ؟ فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ: «ائْتِ الْمِيضَأَةَ فَتَوَضَّ

Translation: Imam Tabrani has narrated an incident that a person repeatedly visited Uthman bin Affan (رضي الله عنه) concerning something he needed but Uthman paid no attention to him. The man went to Uthman bin Hunaif (رضي الله عنه) and complained to him about the matter- [Note: this was after the death of the Prophet and after the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar ] so Uthman bin Hunaif said : “Go to the place of Wudu, then come to the Masjid, perform two Rak'ats and then say : “O Allah!, I ask you and turn to you through our Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad! I turn through you to my lord, that He fulfil my need” and mention your need. Then come so that I can go with you [to the caliph Uthman] So the man left and did as he had been told, then went to the door of Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him), and the doorman came, took him by the hand, brought him to Uthman ibn Affan, and seated him next to him on a cushion. 'Uthman asked, "What do you need?" and the man mentioned what he wanted, and Uthman accomplished it for him ...(till the end of hadith)

References: Imam al-MundhirI (rah) brought this under "SALAT AL HAJAH" and said: Imam Tabarani after narrating it said "THIS HADITH IS SAHIH" [At-Targheeb wa Tarheeb, Page No. 129 in the chapter of Salaat al Hajah]

Chapter 5: Regarding Tawassul through the Prophet (Peace be upon him) "AFTER HIS DEATH". It is narrated by At-Tabrani and al-Bayhaqi "WITH CONTINEOUS CHAIN (بإسناد متصل ) HAVING THIQA NARRATORS" the hadith of Uthman bin Hunaif (رضي الله عنه) that a man came to Uthman bin Affan (رضي الله عنه) regarding his Hajah .. until the end of same hadith [Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salihi in Sabl al Hadi, Volume No.12, Page No. 407]

حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو النعمان ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏سعيد بن زيد ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏عمرو بن مالك النكري ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو الجوزاء أوس بن عبد الله ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏قحط ‏ ‏أهل ‏ ‏المدينة ‏ ‏قحطا ‏ ‏شديدا فشكوا إلى ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏فقالت انظروا قبر النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فاجعلوا منه ‏ ‏كوى ‏ ‏إلى السماء حتى لا يكون بينه وبين السماء سقف قال ففعلوا فمطرنا مطرا حتى نبت العشب وسمنت الإبل حتى ‏ ‏تفتقت ‏ ‏من الشحم فسمي عام ‏ ‏الفتق

Imam Dārimī Relates from Abu al-Jawza’ Aws bin ‘Abdullah: The people of Medina were in the grip of a severe famine. They complained to ‘A’ishah (about their terrible condition). She told them to go towards the Prophet’s grave and open a window in the direction of the sky so that there is no curtain between the sky and the grave. The narrator says they did so. Then it started raining heavily; even the lush green grass sprang up (everywhere) and the camels had grown so fat (it seemed) they would burst out due to the over piling of blubber. So the year was named as the year of greenery and plenty.

References ►Sunan Darimi Volume 001, Page 227, Hadith Number 093 

Muhammad bin ‘Alawi al-Maliki says, “This tradition has a good chain of transmission; rather, in my opinion, it is sound. The scholars have also acknowledged its soundness and have established its genuineness on the basis of almost equally credible evidence. [Shifa’-ul-fu’ad bi-ziyarat khayr--il-‘ibad Page No.153]

.....Others

The above are all Sunni hadith and interpretation of Sunni Imams thus Shia are not be blamed regarding tawassal principle. It is matter of differences among the Sunni so considering it as a reason of leaving Shiism is just a statement of those who live fools paradise.

wasalam

 

Share this post


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

Although you contradict yourself by using the Qur'an to prohibit tawassul and reject a hadith about intercession after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) which is widely accepted by Ahlus-Sunnah except the Salafi's I'd like to continue to discuss this on another level.

 

The question is not about life or death.

It's about consciousness.

Which is the ability to perceive without a human body.

Is this possible according to you?

I have not prohibited tawassul. Nobody has.

it isn't about consciousness. It is about who is capable of helping you and who isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Aragaia said:

I have not prohibited tawassul. Nobody has.

You used the Qur'an to support your interpretation of seeking help only from Allah.

After that you changed and claimed we should only ask help from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) when alive.

17 minutes ago, Aragaia said:

It isn't about consciousness. It is about who is capable of helping you and who isn't.

It isn't about helping but to ask someone to pray for him.

When there is consciousness there is the ability to pray for someone.

And even if the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would be unconscious for the sake of argument then still we can get salvation through his name just like Sayyidina Adam (عليه السلام) when he (عليه السلام) saw the name of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) on the Throne of Allah.

Love and respect for the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is a virtue and a good deed which can save us from the evil from our own and others just as any other good deed.

Edited by Faruk

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.


×
×
  • Create New...