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
786:)

Kamal al Haydari on ghulat

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

Finally another Shia on Earth other than me alhamdulilah! What a good sign! masha Allah

I’m going to try to find the video where he says this and share with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Guest edena said:

One question,

Would these apply too?:

1. Anyone who claims the Aimmah have full Ilm-ul-Ghayb, rather than a partial ammount of it, are cursed. Allah has infinite knowledge. None but Allah has infinite knowledge I.e. total knowledge of all there ever is or was or could be. Do we agree anyone who claims the Imams can possess this are Najis, cursed, and are outside of the folds of Islam? I do and I hope you do too.

2. Anyone who attributes to the Aimmah that which they did not attribute to themselves through clear Nass/Text are cursed.

1. Are cursed

2. Now clarity of nass will depend upon several factors so leave it.

No one can understand the knowledge/ status Aima (عليه السلام) possessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Guest honesty said:

Like Ayatullah Najafi of Pakistan, the one they mock as 'Dhakku'? Anyone with the guts to try will be abused, distorted and maligned. 

Yes I am aware of him and I respect his efforts. However, there needs to be more like him. I think Jawad Naqvi is similar but he is a bit reserved in his approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 786:) said:

He’s of the opinion that infallibility was a later concept introduced in tashayyu.

Nah... Infallibility was a given, but it was of a lesser extent. Infallibility/Fallibility could be in "application of religious law", or "knowing the religious law", or "not pertaining to either, I.e. trivial matters". Please note that Infallibility is not the same concept as Knowledge of the Unseen, though it is related. 

 

Personally, I believe that Rasulallah (s) and Imams (a) were infallible in the two former categories, but not in the latter category (but I am a nobody, so I am just stating my opinion). I think all scholars agree that they weren't infallible on the latter. The other two, the degree of infallibility is debated, but they are infallible in both nonetheless. I don't find it convincing that God would let his Prophet (s) sleep through Salah, for example. Then again, you can argue that there is no reason to believe this, and that this isn't sinful as it's unintentional. I think they were absolutely infallible in Knowledge but not necessarily in Application (though I'm unsure), and perhaps the Imams (a) needed less infallibility than Rasulullah (s) (this could be something to consider too), but we should accept the Imam's decision as best regardless, since they are our divinely appointed leaders (Vicegerents of God). I.e. They didn't make "perfect" decisions, but they made the "best" ones according to their understanding and ability. I believe that their Knowledge of the Unseen was limited and relevant to their missions, as this is simpler and more believable than saying they knew everything always and the distant future outcomes with certainty by the will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). They made different decisions because they were unique relatable people, who used their reason (aql) and learned (knowledge from cradle to grave), not robotic actors. They were rational decision makers with different opinions. Hasan (a) and Hussain (a) had big differences of opinion on what would be the best decision in a given situation for the Ummah. Ibn al-Hussain had a post on it, but I think he deleted it for censorship sake. Like he did with the Hijab post, where he said it wasn't adorned by Bedouin, Nomad, and Slave Muslimah. Censorship is something I disdain about the seminaries (because I am not learned on the rationale behind it), and I don't know why he would voluntarily choose to do that. I guess that without the preliminary academic/scholarly knowledge, it is susceptible to misunderstanding (confusion, maybe even fitnah) and propaganda (from non-Shias/non-Muslims). And we Shias don't have the resources to combat undue propaganda. Nor do we have the resources to teach every layman (myself included, I am very much layman to the utmost) even the preliminary stuff, let alone the complex theoretical discussions at a high level. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I love what he says in this video too!

Quote

Excerpt: The Messenger himself, the Imams themselves have commanded me that if a Hadith from us reaches you, compare it to the Qur'an. So if I heard it directly from yourself [the Messenger and Imams], should I compare it to the Qur'an? No, the Messenger and Imams are the talking Qur'an. You don't need to compare my [Messenger or Imams] word to the Qur'an. So if I was with Imam Ali (a) or Muhammad (s) or Imam Sadiq (a), and he stated something, do I say "let me compare your word to the Qur'an"? He is the Qur'an himself! That which reaches you from us compare it to the Qur'an. "All that comes to you from us" means that the hadith which is being attributed to us compare it to the Qur'an. 
Sayed Kamal al-Haydari criticizes certain Hadith, not the Sunnah.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare

When the Imam of the Time(عليه السلام) is among you, will you question him(عليه السلام)? Mind tricks not sure what is from his Lord or what is his own opinion. Remember Peace treaty of Hudabhyah and Event of the Pen/paper( Tragedy of Thursday).

Doubts = paralysis = disobedience of the Gods Representative on Earth- which is strictly forbidden in the Book of Allah(عزّ وجلّ)

Your answer will highlight to you the importance of this matter that is discussed so lightly through many angles but the crux of the matter is as I have mentioned.  

Layman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

will you question him

you better do that, otherwise you are a blind follower who could be following one of many impostors. Also, you can expect the Imam to be like any other human being among us, just like the Prophets are described in the Qur'an. Very fallible like the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

When the Imam of the Time(عليه السلام) is among you, will you question him(عليه السلام)? Mind tricks not sure what is from his Lord or what is his own opinion. Remember Peace treaty of Hudabhyah and Event of the Pen/paper( Tragedy of Thursday).

Doubts = paralysis = disobedience of the Gods Representative on Earth- which is strictly forbidden in the Book of Allah(عزّ وجلّ)

Your answer will highlight to you the importance of this matter that is discussed so lightly through many angles but the crux of the matter is as I have mentioned.  

Layman

I think you are missing the point. Do you accept that ghuluw narrators infiltrated Tashayyu or do you not believe such a thing as ghuluw?

Share this post


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

They have the ability to sin, but they never sin. 

not according to the Qur'an. We have sins from Adam to Mohammed lined up. But I know that people like to use their own perception to annul what is clearly written in the holy book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

When the Imam of the Time(عليه السلام) is among you, will you question him(عليه السلام)?

Fallacy of conflating Sunnah with Hadith

8 hours ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

The Messenger himself, the Imams themselves have commanded me that if a Hadith from us reaches you, compare it to the Qur'an. So if I heard it directly from yourself [the Messenger and Imams], should I compare it to the Qur'an? No, the Messenger and Imams are the talking Qur'an. You don't need to compare my [Messenger or Imams] word to the Qur'an. So if I was with Imam Ali (a) or Muhammad (s) or Imam Sadiq (a), and he stated something, do I say "let me compare your word to the Qur'an"? He is the Qur'an himself! That which reaches you from us compare it to the Qur'an. "All that comes to you from us" means that the hadith which is being attributed to us compare it to the Qur'an. 
Sayed Kamal al-Haydari criticizes certain Hadith, not the Sunnah.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 313 Seeker said:

not according to the Qur'an. We have sins from Adam to Mohammed lined up. But I know that people like to use their own perception to annul what is clearly written in the holy book.

No, the Shias have always been unanimous that these aren't sins. It goes against Tawhid for them to have sinned. You are the one reading the Qur'an and putting your own perception to annul what is clear. Read up before talking plenty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 786:) said:

I think you are missing the point. Do you accept that ghuluw narrators infiltrated Tashayyu or do you not believe such a thing as ghuluw?

How is that the point? All Shias know this. And what is your criteria for Ghuluw? It's debated

Share this post


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

No, the Shias have always been unanimous that these aren't sins. It goes against Tawhid for them to have sinned. You are the one reading the Qur'an and putting your own perception to annul what is clear. Read up before talking plenty.

Tawheed is about Allah. Don't mix Allah with His creatures, otherwise that is shirq. That's the whole point of this thread, and I think that Sayed Kamal is the first person I've seen among the Shia who admits to the fact that the Qur'an is more than clear about it. I read about it more than you know. I think you need to read more. Especially the clear words in the Qur'an. Maybe you can read in a post I did years ago, but from my experience of debating with you, I doubt that you will look beyond what scholars say who could be wrong. Just stick to Qur'an directly and study each and every word that I highlighted ..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

It goes against Tawhid for them to have sinned.

maybe you can go into this first. How does human action influence oneness of God, whether they sin or not? Either way it would be God's will or? 

You are basically saying that "if you say the Prophets made sins, then you are not believing in oneness of God". How does that make sense?

Actually, to me saying that God shares His infallibility with His creatures, is more akin to shirq and partnering with Allah

Likewise, I believe that taking scholars opinions over those of clear words in the Qur'an is also shirq. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

Tawheed is about Allah. Don't mix Allah with His creatures, otherwise that is shirq.

No. It is about Tawheed. How could God's Prophets properly guide people if they sinned? Especially Rasulullah (s) this is ridiculous if you see how he was raised, in a manner that would protect  him from sinning later on in life.

Share this post


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

No. It is about Tawheed. How could God's Prophets properly guide people if they sinned? Especially Rasulullah (s) this is ridiculous if you see how he was raised, in a manner that would protect  him from sinning later on in life.

tawheed .. means oneness. How can saying that a Prophet did mistakes have anything to do with dividing the oneness? I am not saying that the Prophet is like Allah in any way, or that he shares anything with God. 

To answer your question about how a guide can guide if they are fallible? Well look at every guide on Earth today, like scholars. They also guide and write hadith books, and Qur'an interpretations in the name of the God and Prophet. Whatever guidance you think you are getting from the Prophet goes through scholars. You don't get teachings from the Prophet directly do you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 786:) said:

This is basically shirk.

It's less logical, but it's not Shirk. What they say isn't provably impossible but it is ridiculous. Shirk is if they think the Imams (a) are independent of God. Or on the reverse, if they think the Imams are fully fallible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

please anybody explain how a Prophet making a mistake has anything to do with oneness of Allah. Making that claim sounds like shirq to me actually. Like the oneness of Allah depends on something!

It goes against our aql of God's Sunnah. No need to make 5 posts reiterating your strawman. It goes against the message of Tawhid. Yes, God is Absolute and One and Independent. Still, fallibility detracts from our understanding of Tawhid in a big way. Fine, I'll say it like this: It's a major misattribution to Nabiyyu.

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

please anybody explain how a Prophet making a mistake has anything to do with oneness of Allah. Making that claim sounds like shirq to me actually. Like the oneness of Allah depends on something!

Quote

Abandoning the Better by Prophets and Imams (a)

The Shiites believe that Prophets and Imams (a) are infallible, so they never commit major or minor sins;[3] but they might sometimes abandon the better. The evidence for this is that the Qur'an refers to mistakes or slippages by Prophets or their istighfar (asking God for forgiveness). For instance, according to Qur'an 2, the Satan misguided the Prophet Adam (a)[4] and then Adam practiced istighfar. Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad (s) and the Imams (a) have asked God for forgiveness in supplications transmitted from them. For example, there is a hadith according to which the Prophet (s) practiced istighfar one hundred times during a day and a night.[5]
 

Examples in the Qur'an

The Qur'an has attributed actions to Prophets (a) in terms such as "'usyan" (disobedience) and "zulm" (injustice or oppression) and their requests for God's forgiveness. Exegetes of the Qur'an have interpreted these cases as abandoning the better. Below are some Quranic verses in this regard plus the interpretations of Quranic exegetes about them:

  • Killing the Egyptian man by Moses (a): "He said, 'My Lord! I have wronged myself. Forgive me!' So He forgave him. Indeed, He is the All-forgiving, the All-merciful".[8]

In this verse, the Prophet Moses (a) asks for God's forgiveness because of killing a person......

 
http://en.wikishia.net/view/Tark_al-Awla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 786:) said:

Yes I am aware of him and I respect his efforts. However, there needs to be more like him. I think Jawad Naqvi is similar but he is a bit reserved in his approach.

He is a supporter of WF that by your standard he is puppet of Safavid Iran ideology :D

Share this post


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

It's less logical, but it's not Shirk. What they say isn't provably impossible but it is ridiculous. Shirk is if they think the Imams (a) are independent of God. Or on the reverse, if they think the Imams are fully fallible.

@Ibn Al-Ja'abi Explained it to me well here: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like the topic of making duas to others than Allah. Ten years ago there were so many people passionately fighting to defend those baseless claims, and accusing me and others of shirk for saying we should only pray to God. Now they are less and less alhamdulilah.

It's a matter of time till this topic becomes mainstream too, and everybody realizes the fallacy of going against clear verses of the Qur'an. It is good, because it will bring them closer to the real Prophet and the current Imam too. They are also less likely to reject the Imam once he emerges, just because they hear or see of a mistake he did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2020 at 11:22 PM, Guest In Allah we trust said:

Sayed Najafi is ridiculed by indo-paks as 'Dhakku'

This is not a ridicule. This is part of his name(Mohammed Hussain Dhakku) smh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is clear that the concept of infallibility has been exaggerated and infallabity itself is a bad translation! Ma'sum is better translated as pure/innocent/safeguarded.The earliest hadith on this topic is within the context of ayat al-Tahir/Purity which translates rijs/filth as meaing doubt. So in other words, the ahl al-Bayt's faith is so high that they do not have the usual doubts which we all have that can lead us into sin.

It's fair to say that this got exaggerated over time... like Mr. Haydari says - a ghulat's get out of jail free card would be "Yes but Allah had willed it!!". Whether it actually did occur or not who knows, but this is why exaggeration is so dangerous...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 313 Seeker said:

This is like the topic of making duas to others than Allah. Ten years ago there were so many people passionately fighting to defend those baseless claims, and accusing me and others of shirk for saying we should only pray to God. Now they are less and less alhamdulilah.

It's a matter of time till this topic becomes mainstream too, and everybody realizes the fallacy of going against clear verses of the Qur'an. It is good, because it will bring them closer to the real Prophet and the current Imam too. They are also less likely to reject the Imam once he emerges, just because they hear or see of a mistake he did. 

Let’s be honest, in mainstream circles it’s a bigger crime to take away from the Imams than it is to take away from Allah. This video of Kamaal Haydari does a good job of explaining this phenomenon.

It is as if the only way one can commit shirk is if one says “there are two Gods”. Nothing else constitutes shirk anymore. You can give every single attribute of Allah to the Imams and the mainstream Shias will be okay with it simply with the idea of “with the permission of Allah”. They have left no difference between the two. To me this is blatant shirk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only exegeration in the case of Ahlul Bayt asws is giving them the status of God (na'uzobillah). 

God takes the soul, this doesn't negates the fact that angel of death takes the soul & angels takes the soul. 

I give salaries to my employees, this doesn't makes me Raziq, but this doesn't negates the fact that God has made me the wasilah for fulfilling the needs of my employees. 

Share this post


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

The only exegeration in the case of Ahlul Bayt asws is giving them the status of God (na'uzobillah). 

God takes the soul, this doesn't negates the fact that angel of death takes the soul & angels takes the soul. 

I give salaries to my employees, this doesn't makes me Raziq, but this doesn't negates the fact that God has made me the wasilah for fulfilling the needs of my employees. 

What makes God unique from Imams? Just the fact that he is the creator of them? All else is equal?

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...