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

16 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

Obeying the Prophet and Imams is obeying God.

If so, then how can rizq "distrubuted" by them is supposed to be provided by them? 

The term "rizq" has many forms/shapes, it is not limited to the food we eat. Hikmah is also a form of rizq, tazkiya is also a form of rizq, knowledge is a form of rizq, sabr, thabat etc too are rizq in my point of view. Keeping this in mind, see the following verse:

Surah Al-Jumua, Verse 2:
هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ

He it is Who raised among the inhabitants of Mecca an Apostle from among themselves, who recites to them His communications and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, although they were before certainly in clear error,
(English - Shakir)

 

Share this post


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

I'm warning the way how the Imams (عليه السلام) warned about this matter, to be very careful.

Well done, keep reminding

Surah Adh-Dhariyat, Verse 55:
وَذَكِّرْ فَإِنَّ الذِّكْرَىٰ تَنفَعُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

And continue to remind, for surely the reminder profits the believers.
(English - Shakir)

Share this post


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

If so, then how can rizq "distrubuted" by them is supposed to be provided by them? 

The term "rizq" has many forms/shapes, it is not limited to the food we eat. Hikmah is also a form of rizq, tazkiya is also a form of rizq, knowledge is a form of rizq, sabr, thabat etc too are rizq in my point of view. Keeping this in mind, see the following verse:

Surah Al-Jumua, Verse 2:
هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ

He it is Who raised among the inhabitants of Mecca an Apostle from among themselves, who recites to them His communications and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, although they were before certainly in clear error,
(English - Shakir)

 

Hikmah,Knowledge etc are all from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). If Imam (عليه السلام) gives me something, it is because God gave it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
وَوَصَّيْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ بِوَالِدَيْهِ حَمَلَتْهُ أُمُّهُ وَهْنًا عَلَىٰ وَهْنٍ وَفِصَالُهُ فِي عَامَيْنِ أَنِ اشْكُرْ لِي وَلِوَالِدَيْكَ إِلَيَّ الْمَصِيرُ {14}

[Pickthal 31:14] And We have enjoined upon man concerning his partners - His mother beareth him in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning is in two years - Give thanks unto Me and unto thy parents. Unto Me is the journeying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kelenba

Does anyone have one clear, authentic  statement from the Prophet or the Imams of Ahlul Bayt  where they have said Allah has given them the duty of delegating sustenance among his servants and to therefore call on them for it ? Give he great importance of this area, if such a thing ever happened, would you not expect the Prophet or Imams to clearly relay it to us?

Does it make sense the only evidence is indirect evidence based on text of dubious authenticity or linguistic gymnastics on texts that can be interpreted in several ways?

Does it also make sense such a belief is not found among th Prophet, Imams and their companions ?

I am not saying it is shirk, but that something being hypothetically possible does not mean it’s true. You need clear evidence. Not hypothetical indirect logic justifying introducing things into the religion hundreds of years after, whereas there was hardly a trace of it before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological warfare
On 4/2/2020 at 2:43 PM, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Correct it's a poem, not even a dua. But who are these lay people that are taking this to be authentic in the Shia Jafari school?

AsSalaamu Alayka Ya Mazhar Al- Ajaib.

The Title- Mazhar-Al Ajaib is Authentic.(Any one has information to the contrary- need to post it)

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235040894-nad-e-Ali-an-analysis/?tab=comments#comment-2945947

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
On 4/2/2020 at 1:43 PM, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Correct it's a poem, not even a dua. But who are these lay people that are taking this to be authentic in the Shia Jafari school? The scholarly consensus is that it's inauthentic. 

.....

Even with promotion of (certain parts of) the Dua, it is not enough promotion to reasonably believe that laymen would go against the most eminent Marja (Sayyid Khui).

Conceptually its sound

وَقُلْ رَبِّ أَدْخِلْنِي مُدْخَلَ صِدْقٍ وَأَخْرِجْنِي مُخْرَجَ صِدْقٍ وَاجْعَلْ لِي مِنْ لَدُنْكَ سُلْطَانًا نَصِيرًا {80}

[Shakir 17:80] And say: My Lord! make me to enter a goodly entering, and cause me to go forth a goodly going forth, and grant me from near Thee power to assist (me).
[Pickthal 17:80] And say: My Lord! Cause me to come in with a firm incoming and to go out with a firm outgoing. And give me from Thy presence a sustaining Power.
[Yusufali 17:80] Say: "O my Lord! Let my entry be by the Gate of Truth and Honour, and likewise my exit by the Gate of Truth and Honour; and grant me from Thy Presence an authority to aid (me)."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2020 at 1:26 PM, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Nami Farhat and Haydari reach the same conclusion to not beat your wife, but the former says that this is what the Qur'an says, and the latter says it is not what the Qur'an says.

I don't know Arabic. But, what I meant is which opinion are you lot more inclined to believe:

(Note: I don't think it would be appropriate to open a new topic/thread for this) Italics indicates that this is from me, not in the videos posted.

- Nami Farhat: the Qur'an does say "strike/hit your wife" in such an instance, but it does not necessitate that this be a command for all times and places nor was it ever obligatory. It was appropriate [and perhaps needed] advice in the past [I.e. for that socio-cultural context], but it is no longer applicable. There have been modern attempts to justify this verse using the "miswak", which is evidently ridiculous... Hitting with a miswak would not accomplish anything in a big fight*. Nowadays, we don't chop the fingers, we imprison people.

*a rebuttal would be that this is exactly the intent, to say "don't beat your wife" in an indirect way, or else the people wouldn't take heed to the message.

Again though, this is ridiculous and seems like modern conjecture. Also, why should we suppose that God would indirectly teach His message? This is extremely problematic for numerous reasons, the specifics of which we don't need to expound upon here, but basically it goes against any proper understanding of Wahy (revelation), and should therefore be swiftly rejected.

Moreover, if it meant "don't beat your wife" the succession wouldn't follow a logical order, as it is increasing in intensity: As for those [wives] whose misconduct you fear, [first] advise them, and [if ineffective] keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them. 

- Haydari (ha): the Qur'an does not say "strike/hit your wife" in such an instance, rather it was the Scholarly mind** that presupposed this meaning onto the Qur'an. What the Qur'an means is to "take a strike", I.e. leave (distance yourself from) the house. This is shown by other verses like [4:101], in conjunction with Classical Arabic dictionaries that "daraba" is the matter of separation, of distancing. **he says the scholarly mentality was a mentality of narrations, so a couple of narrations that say beat her lightly, along with preconceived societal notions***, brought the meaning of "darb" entirely as "beating" in the scholarly mind.

It is totally incompatible with the logic of the Qur'an, meaning all our religious sciences. Ask "what meaning does beating have at all?". Even if you go to the narrations, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would not allow people to hit animals, or hit the face of others, or sit on horses in excess (get off your horse if you want to converse with someone). So why would the Qur'an then say to beat your wife? These are two different logics. They are not compatible with one another.

***a patriarchal society "mentality of manliness", note that this isn't inherently bad per se. Some in modern times have oddly even went so far to say that women felt respected if their husbands beat them in pre-Islamic society, and he would beat his wife to show her importance to him. They argue this way as a means of fixing this issue. If this is the case, then why do they also talk about the supposed conduct of beating with leaves (leaf). The narrations say that the beating should not leave redness or bruises. Well then what effect does this beating have? Nothing! Remember, this is the same religion which says that you must pay financial compensations if you bruise a child.

Restated, leaving a bad situation is in complete concordance with Islamic teachings, and is demonstrated many times by Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and other revered figures (by this I mean in other non-marital situations, not 4:34), or at least in his teachings. Whereas hitting your wife is in complete contradiction to the teachings of the divine Sharia, Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and Ahlul-Bayt (عليه السلام). Rasulullah (s) never hit a woman, and more generally, hitting the face is Haram altogether. 

Also to note is that apparently Classical Islamic courts gave financial compensations and granted immediate divorce to women who came with bruises and redness, though her testimony alone was sufficient. Dr.. Jonathan Brown has a book which mentions it, "Misquoting Muhammad".

Also to note is that apparently Hussaini Qazwini said that the correct meaning or translation in this verse is to "ignore" and not "beat" (same opinion as Kamal al-Haydari).

I wrote all this to say that I am still inclined to believe Nami Farhat. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the scholars have always misinterpreted this verse due to their mindset of narrations. All this serves to do is for non-Muslims to come say "see they couldn't even get their religion right up until modern times!". Our religion doesn't necessitate beating your wife as the third course of action towards her misconduct. It also doesn't necessitate slavery, but that doesn't mean there is something inherently immoral with slavery. Similarly, we no longer follow Hudud laws & Apostasy laws (although this a totally different argument of it being due to the 'absence' of the current  Imam (ajtf), but let's ignore this here). Why? They have been deemed as un-essential... as specific constructs that made sense in that particular socio-cultural context. The biggest difference being the major shift from empires/civilizations to nation-states. Importantly we also don't need to return to those times. That being said, there are things in jurisprudence that will always be absolutely forbidden, such as homosexuality and any sexual relations outside of marriage (including Zina with yourself, and Zina of the eyes). And of course it goes without saying that the wajibat, like the 5 Salat, is absolutely wajib and always will be.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al-Qur'an.info/#4:34

[4:34] 

الرِّجالُ قَوّامونَ عَلَى النِّساءِ بِما فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعضَهُم عَلىٰ بَعضٍ وَبِما أَنفَقوا مِن أَموالِهِم ۚ فَالصّالِحاتُ قانِتاتٌ حافِظاتٌ لِلغَيبِ بِما حَفِظَ اللَّهُ ۚ وَاللّاتي تَخافونَ نُشوزَهُنَّ فَعِظوهُنَّ وَاهجُروهُنَّ فِي المَضاجِعِ وَاضرِبوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِن أَطَعنَكُم فَلا تَبغوا عَلَيهِنَّ سَبيلًا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كانَ عَلِيًّا كَبيرًا

Ali QULI QARAI

Men are the managers of women, because of the advantage Allah has granted some of them over others, and by virtue of their spending out of their wealth. So righteous women are obedient, care-taking in the absence [of their husbands] of what Allah has enjoined [them] to guard. As for those [wives] whose misconduct you fear, [first] advise them, and [if ineffective] keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them. Then if they obey you, do not seek any course [of action] against them. Indeed Allah is all-exalted, all-great.

(4:34:29)
wa-iḍ'ribūhunna
and [finally] strike them.
wordimage?id=10486 CONJ – prefixed conjunction wa (and)
V – 2nd person masculine plural imperative verb
PRON – subject pronoun
PRON – 3rd person feminine plural object pronoun
الواو عاطفة
فعل أمر والواو ضمير متصل في محل رفع فاعل و«هن» ضمير 

http://corpus.Qur'an.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=4&verse=34#(4:34:29)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Context of the Surah:

Quote

CHAPTER 4

WOMEN
AL-NISĀʾ ( النساء )

176 verses • revealed at Medinan

»The surah that enshrines the spiritual-, property-, lineage-, and marriage-rights and obligations of Women. It makes frequent reference to matters concerning women (nisāʾ), hence its name. The surah gives a number of instructions, urging justice to children and orphans, and mentioning inheritance and marriage laws. In the first and last verses of the surah, it gives rulings on property and inheritance. The surah also talks of the tensions between the Muslim community in Medina and some of the People of the Book (verse 44 and verse 61), moving into a general discussion of war: it warns the Muslims to be cautious and to defend the weak and helpless (verse 71 ff.). Another similar theme is the intrigues of the hypocrites (verse 88 ff. and verse 138 ff.).«

 

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Light
On 4/3/2020 at 3:38 PM, Guest Kelenba said:

but that something being hypothetically possible does not mean it’s true. You need clear evidence. Not hypothetical indirect logic justifying introducing things into the religion hundreds of years after, whereas there was hardly a trace of it before.

:bismillah:

Surah Al-Qadr, Verse 4:
تَنَزَّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ فِيهَا بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِم مِّن كُلِّ أَمْرٍ

The angels and Jibreel descend in it by the permission of their Lord for every affair,
(English - Shakir)

"كُلِّ أَمْرٍ" in above verse also includes the rizq. There are many ahadith in Shi'I hadith books which mentions that angels & spirit descend to Imam of the time. 

Wassalam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2020 at 1:15 PM, Abu Nur said:

Read this very very carefully:

أَمري إِلَى اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ بَصيرٌ بِالعِبادِ

and I entrust my affair to Allah. - 40:44

I entrust my affair to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), it does not say Imam (عليه السلام). This verse is very clear, every affair is entrusted to only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), or rest will be shirk.

It is shirk to even think that I come to Imam (عليه السلام) and ask him for some rizq, thinking that the rizq is given by Imam. Many people fall in this trap in daily basis. What is correct is that every sustenance comes from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) even if it was given by Imam (عليه السلام).

وَما مِن دابَّةٍ فِي الأَرضِ إِلّا عَلَى اللَّهِ رِزقُها

There is no animal on the Earth, but that its sustenance lies with Allah

Lol....

You are the same person who believes life and death are in the hands of Allah and at the same time believes that it is malikul maut Angel that takes the soul of every person dying on the death bed. 

By the way, if death is in the hands of Allah, why does he itself not takes the soul of every person instead of appointing  an Angel for taking the soul. Is Allah not enough to take soul of every person on Earth??????

You say in surah fatiha "Oh Allah, we ask you only for Help" and when any person gets a heart attack from your home, you are the same person who will quickly run to a doctor to seek "Help"...

Is Allah "alone" not enough to cure heart Attack and diseases???? 

Y need a doctor???

=======

and I entrust my affair to Allah.

Well we all do entrust affairs to Allah but tell me what is the meaning of affairs here???

what is the meaning of this verse here ?

How did you know the meaning of this verse and who do you take this translation of this Qur'an from??

How how can you be so sure what meaning this verse is trying to convey....???

_________

we interest our affairs to Allah only  but it is up to Allah through whom he wishes to take care of his affairs..

If if he can distribute his task to the angels, why can't he distribute his work among his appointed ones??

This does not mean he is not capable of doing so...

Think rationally and use your brain, Simple :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Man Kunto Maula said:

What is correct is that every sustenance comes from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) even if it was given by Imam (عليه السلام).

That is what I said initially if you read, Imam is not the creator of sustenance, they simply take care or distribute it by the sole  permission of Allah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If if he can distribute his task to the angels, why can't he distribute his work among his appointed ones??

Look, this statement bring us nowhere. Ghulat people can easily tell that Imams (عليه السلام) have this task and that task by permission of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Where is the proof? When I learn that most of our narrations are weak, there is high chance that these are but fake narrations that give Imams (عليه السلام) all these different attributes that does not belong to them in first place.

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You are the same person who believes life and death are in the hands of Allah and at the same time believes that it is malikul maut Angel that takes the soul of every person dying on the death bed. 

It is not you Angle of Death who took the soul when you took, it is I (Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) who took.

My whole point in this matter was an warning that we can easily fall to polytheism:

“And most of them do not believe in Allah without ascribing partners to Him.”

Imām al-Sādiq (‘a) thus interpreted this verse, “A man who says that if so and so were not there [to help him], he would have been afflicted with hardships and his family would have been exterminated, has ascribed a partner to Allah; a partner in whom he puts faith and believes that he provides sustenance and repels calamities.” The transmitter of [this] hadīth says, “I asked Imām al-Sādiq (‘a), ‘Is saying that I would have been afflicted by hardships if Allah had not been merciful to me by sending so and so to help me the same as ascribing a partner to Allah?’ Imām al-Sādiq (‘a) responded, ‘This is not forbidden’.” Majma‘ al-Bayān, vol. 5, p. 462.

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KerbsA
44 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

According to which verse or which narration?

There aren’t any authentic ones. This belief came much later on in history. I don’t believe in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Man Kunto Maula said:

Is Allah "alone" not enough to cure heart Attack and diseases???? 

we interest our affairs to Allah only  but it is up to Allah through whom he wishes to take care of his affairs..

If if he can distribute his task to the angels, why can't he distribute his work among his appointed ones??

This does not mean he is not capable of doing so...

Think rationally and use your brain, Simple :)

This is pathetic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2020 at 12:51 PM, Abu Nur said:

If Imam (عليه السلام) gives me something, it is because God gave it.

Certainly, it is the case. But you were taking the opinion that Imam cannot "distribute rizq". So even this statement too supports the views of others who say that Imam distribute rizq. 

Remember, the discussion is about "distribution" only. There is no difference of opinion on the fact that Allah is Al-Raziq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

According to which verse or which narration?

Salam this refers to story of Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) that he interpreted dream of pharaoh by his divine knowledge that there will be 7 years of  high Rizq & then seven years of drought in Egypt that by his divine knowledge he became distributer of rizq of people in Egypt that he had authority to give rizq to everyone or stop it like as mentioned when he said to his brothers that they must bring their youngest brother or they won’t have share from rizq next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2020 at 12:21 PM, Cool said:

The term "rizq" has many forms/shapes, it is not limited to the food we eat. Hikmah is also a form of rizq, tazkiya is also a form of rizq, knowledge is a form of rizq, sabr, thabat etc too are rizq in my point of view. Keeping this in mind, see the following verse:

Surah Al-Jumua, Verse 2:
هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ

He it is Who raised among the inhabitants of Mecca an Apostle from among themselves, who recites to them His communications and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, although they were before certainly in clear error,
(English - Shakir)

Salam, 

I was viewing a video and found a beautiful hadith of Imam Zayn ul Abideen (عليه السلام) in it. That belongs to his "Risalatul Huqooq" and it says:

"The right of the Mo'uddin in your community is that you go and thanks him for he calls you to the greatest rizq". 

Here Imam (عليه السلام) has mentioned "Salah" as greatest rizq and that greatest rizq indeed distributed between us by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in the first place but "through" Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). So while we are thankful to a "Mo'uddin" who is calling us to the greatest rizq, should we not thanks the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who has not only taught us the Salah but the Adhan as well? And what does it mean when we thanks to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? I guess it equals to as we are thanking Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) because "wama Muhammadun illa Rasool".

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look I don't know anything, but...

I have a few problems with the fourth theory of ijtihad that Sayed al-Haydari promotes (or at least his understanding of it).

1) It doesn't address scholarly takfir. It is bad enough as it is, and it creates tension among the laymen as it is, but with "intellectual freedom" it will only worsen. It's not appropriate for modernity. It is built on insulting other scholars, denouncing them, and causing fitnah. That itself is part of the loose "intellectual freedom" that has no boundaries or limits. This may have been fine in a less interconnected world, but it would only cause troubles nowadays. He is of the mistaken belief that we can somehow have this fourth ijtihad without the aformentioned takfir.

2) Laypeople are inclined to follow bad opinions, no matter how refuted, so that ought to be a concern with too much intellectual variety. Bringing scholars forth to destroy bad beliefs is unconvincing to laymen.

3) Our communities and mosques would devolve into competing theological subsets. We would lose all unity.  

4) All our political advances thus far as Twelver Shias would seemingly vanish or halt if we become disunited

5) This would open the gates for even more crowd-pleasing majalis/khateeb/zakir reciters. We don't need more opportunistic people coming in and confusing the Twelver Ummah.

6) I'm not sure why we should return to  bad ideas. These bad ideas have already been dispelled.

7) As he mentioned, we have no need to be following the scholarly opinions of the past. Which is why recent Twelver scholars hold to an unlimited scope of ilm al-ghayb for the Imams. 

I would only be okay with such a theory if the following methods were in place, which brings us back to a slightly toned down version of the third theory: 

No issuing Fatwas against other Twelver scholars unless they: 

a. Reject Ijtihad and Taqlid

b. Reject Usul al-Din or Furuh al-Din

c. Promote disunity in the mosques and community centres 

d. Are of genuine Ghuluw or Khawarij or corporeal God beliefs

If these limitations are not placed, then expect that due to our modern environment, Shiism would be destroyed from within. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: His claim that Hisham ibn Hakam believed in the corporeality of God is misleading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_ibn_Hakam#Books

Quote

'Alamul Huda, a Shiite scholar writes: "this famous sentence 'God is corporeal but not like other corporal bodies' which Hisham has been accused of saying, has been interpreted in different ways." Hisham was, he says, debating with Muʿtazila and he had to use their own phraseology.

Al-Shahrastani, the writer of the book Al-Milal wa al-Nihal said a similar thing when he wrote that Hisham used this phrase during his debates with the group of Ghulat (extremists).[2][5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't understand the claim that Rasulullah (s) made mistakes in practice of deen. If I am able to ask God to wake me up for Fajr, then so is Rasulullah (s). If someone goes their whole life without having mistakenly prayed 4 rakat instead of 2 rakat, then so could Rasulullah (s).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Look, everyone.  You can still  love the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) dearly. without accepting the theological baggage associated with Shiaism.

No human being is infallible.  To say a human individual is infallible is shirk. 

The statement reminds non Shia theory that the rejection of the caliphate of 3 cliphs is kufr, :grin:

Share this post


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

No human being is infallible.  To say a human individual is infallible is shirk. 

Salam,

None among humans is معصوم ? 

So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is عاصم for angels only?

Surah Al-Isra, Verse 65:
إِنَّ عِبَادِي لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانٌ وَكَفَىٰ بِرَبِّكَ وَكِيلًا

Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector.
(English - Shakir)

Surah Al-Hijr, Verse 42:
إِنَّ عِبَادِي لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانٌ إِلَّا مَنِ اتَّبَعَكَ مِنَ الْغَاوِينَ

Surely. as regards My servants, you have no authority, over them except those who follow you of the deviators.
(English - Shakir)

 

Edited by Cool

Share this post


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

Salam,

None among humans is معصوم ? 

So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is عاصم for angels only?

Surah Al-Isra, Verse 65:
إِنَّ عِبَادِي لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانٌ وَكَفَىٰ بِرَبِّكَ وَكِيلًا

Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector.
(English - Shakir)

Surah Al-Hijr, Verse 42:
إِنَّ عِبَادِي لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانٌ إِلَّا مَنِ اتَّبَعَكَ مِنَ الْغَاوِينَ

Surely. as regards My servants, you have no authority, over them except those who follow you of the deviators.
(English - Shakir)

 

How about a guided believer, does he included in the verse?

Share this post


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

How about a guided believer, does he included in the verse?

:bismillah:

Surah Az-Zumar, Verse 37:
وَمَن يَهْدِ اللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُ مِن مُّضِلٍّ أَلَيْسَ اللَّهُ بِعَزِيزٍ ذِي انتِقَامٍ

And whom Allah guides, there is none that can lead him astray; is not Allah Mighty, the Lord of retribution?
(English - Shakir)

Again, concept of معصوم :)

 

Share this post


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

Salam,

None among humans is معصوم ? 

So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is عاصم for angels only?

Surah Al-Isra, Verse 65:
إِنَّ عِبَادِي لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانٌ وَكَفَىٰ بِرَبِّكَ وَكِيلًا

Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector.
(English - Shakir)

Surah Al-Hijr, Verse 42:
إِنَّ عِبَادِي لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانٌ إِلَّا مَنِ اتَّبَعَكَ مِنَ الْغَاوِينَ

Surely. as regards My servants, you have no authority, over them except those who follow you of the deviators.
(English - Shakir)

 

None other than God is free from error, mistakes.  Sin Is being other than God.  Being other than God is itself to be in error.  Separative existence is itself sin, error, mistaken, and ignorance.  
Even angels are not free of error.  No one is! 
 


 


 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


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

:bismillah:

Surah Az-Zumar, Verse 37:
وَمَن يَهْدِ اللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُ مِن مُّضِلٍّ أَلَيْسَ اللَّهُ بِعَزِيزٍ ذِي انتِقَامٍ

And whom Allah guides, there is none that can lead him astray; is not Allah Mighty, the Lord of retribution?
(English - Shakir)

Again, concept of معصوم :)

 

Thanks. Then we have this:

Allah does not lead any people astray after He has guided them until He has made clear to them what they should beware of. Indeed Allah has knowledge of all things. 9:115

-
So believers still can be in state where shaytan can not effect them and they do not sins or disobey as long Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) have mercy upon them and as long they don't deviate by themselves. When it comes to Ma'soom, the only verse that make sense is 33:33, where it clearly say Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) want to keep this particular group out from this, thus making them pure and will not do sins.

The only concern is what is the definition Ma'soom. Sure it include sins, but what about mistakes, etc why it is necessary also included? Remember they are still humans, created weak. By weak Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) want to show that we are depend and need only in Him (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

 

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


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

None other than God is free from error, mistakes

What about whom God wills to keep free from errors/mistakes?

Surah An-Najm, Verse 2:
مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَىٰ

Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray;
(English - Shakir)

 

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...