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

Sunni or Shia? Truth.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
On 4/16/2020 at 6:17 PM, eThErEaL said:

I grew up Shia.  I have been around Shias.  I still am around Shias.  The Prophet (S) is hardy ever emphasized!  So, I am saying “in practice” , not “doctrinally”.  
I can see this very distinctly because I have seen both Sunnis and Shias practice.  I know weak points of Sunnis and weak points of Shias.  

Do you not think you are focusing too much on the religious practice of the masses rather than the actual religious principles? 

You have correctly made the distinction in your post above, but I wonder if your rejection of Shiism (if indeed you have rejected it at all) is based on principles or more on society? 

I would not say that unemployment, tax fraud, drug dealing and terrorism are 'weak points of Islam' just because we have a disproportionately high representation of muslim immigrants in Europe involved in such activities.

Islam in principle is against such things, unfortunately modern day muslims are not acting according to these principles, but I certainly wouldn't give up my faith just because I don't like the way my co religionists are behaving. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That excuses that Abu Bakr was an idol worshipper and thus his past would be always held against him is the worst thing I hear Shias say. Since when does your previous sin after you repent be held aga

Do you not think you are focusing too much on the religious practice of the masses rather than the actual religious principles?  You have correctly made the distinction in your post above, but I

But this is not enough, because they seem to allow it privately! No?  Do correct me if I am wrong. It is like saying, I permit you to curse privately, but don't do this in front of their faces, d

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

Do you not think you are focusing too much on the religious practice of the masses rather than the actual religious principles? 

You have correctly made the distinction in your post above, but I wonder if your rejection of Shiism (if indeed you have rejected it at all) is based on principles or more on society? 

I would not say that unemployment, tax fraud, drug dealing and terrorism are 'weak points of Islam' just because we have a disproportionately high representation of muslim immigrants in Europe involved in such activities.

Islam in principle is against such things, unfortunately modern day muslims are not acting according to these principles, but I certainly wouldn't give up my faith just because I don't like the way my co religionists are behaving. 

Yes, I am bringing to everyone's attention that there is a problem.  So everyone should fix it.

1) following the sunnah and by not cursing, not having a bad opinion etc etc.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, islam25 said:

Not only shia but many Ahle Sunnah too curse yazeed.

 

Yes, many or very few?  And they were influenced by shias.  

just look at the hadith Ghazali uses for his reasoning.  It is all very clear.  Those who curse yazeed are simply ignorant of the Sunnah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Yes, many or very few?  And they were influenced by shias.  

just look at the hadith Ghazali uses for his reasoning.  It is all very clear.  Those who curse yazeed are simply ignorant of the Sunnah.

May be.

But what about Quran.

Should we follow Quran or hadith.

What authenticity of hadith when they contradict with quran

Edited by islam25
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
36 minutes ago, islam25 said:

May be.

But what about Quran.

Should we follow Quran or hadith.

What authenticity of hadith when they contradict with quran

This is what I am saying.  They don't contradict the Quranic verses.  There is a way of cursing, there is a guideline Ghazali discusses, based on certain Prophetic Ahadith.  

Do look into it.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

This is what I am saying.  They don't contradict the Quranic verses.  There is a way of cursing, there is a guideline Ghazali discusses, based on certain Prophetic Ahadith.  

Do look into it.  

Let us disgree and follow what one is convinced with.

In AhleSunnah there are many sects each believe they are following true sunnah.Some (ahhle Hadith sect) praise him and otheres curse him.Each have narrations in their support.

We Shias are clear that cursing zalim by name is allowed.

Tell if mother sees her minor children got massacred infront her eyes for no sin.

What she will do .Won't she prey Allah to send His wrath or otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, islam25 said:

In AhleSunnah there are many sects each believe they are following true sunnah.Some (ahhle Hadith sect) praise him and otheres curse him.Each have narrations in their support.

I am talking about Traditional Sunnis.  I am talking about people like Hamza Yusuf, Abdul Hakim Murad, Zaid Shakir, Omar Faruk Abdallah, and whole bunch of others who were products of an authentic tradition, a product of a lineage of teachers.  Not some new phenomenon that arose recently due to Saudi dogma.  Traditional scholars appeal to classical scholars like Al-Ghazali (for instance), they follow a tradition.  

1 minute ago, islam25 said:

We Shias are clear that cursing zalim by name is allowed.

This is not something the Prophet (S) did.  So if Shias are clear about allowing the cursing of a zalim by name not specified in Quran then Shias don't follow the Sunnah.  So there is a problem here.  

1 minute ago, islam25 said:

Tell if mother sees her minor children got massacred infront her eyes for no sin.  What she will do .Won't she prey Allah to send His wrath or otherwise.

She probably will curse.  But there is a sunnah way of doing so.  NOT by name!  "God curse the oppressors".  "God curse those who inflict harm unjustly"  something  like this is alright as per Sunnah.  Ghazali mentions this using hadith.

 

 

 

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sorry this does not address the OPs questions, but I will be addressing the thread title because it will actually address the core issue that should be discussed because otherwise most of the time people discuss tertiary stuff which is not really important and just appeals to one's own confirmation bias, and so I will get to the real points we should be discussing.

When considering whether Sunnism or Shi'ism is the correct interpretation of Islam, if we are truly honest with ourselves and not a die hard anti-Shia/anti-Sunni who is blinded by their bias, Sunnism proves Sunni Islam and Twelver Shi'ism proves Twelver Islam if we take their  respective Hadith/scholarly corpus to be acceptable - that is because holistically speaking, the methodologies and Hadith reconcile with each other in such a way that you would not have conflicts within your own creed. That is to say: Shia pulling out a Sunni Hadith saying the Prophet SAW said X about Y, or a Sunni pulling out a Shia Hadith saying the Prophet SAW said X about Y, will not prove anything because other hadith within that corpus negate the point being made, so really it is just a weak cherry picked argument in isolation used to convince the ignorant.

So, as the premise of one's belief is that the Hadith/scholarly books of one's chosen sect are reliable to the exclusion of the other sects, we should look at the integrity of the scholarly corpus of both sects first, then we can work out which creed to follow objectively and without saying Imam Ali this or Sahabah that, etc - ultimately, a Shi'i is a Shi'i because he takes his books as reliable, and a Sunni is a Sunni because he takes his books as reliable.

Therefore we need some objective questions which can be used as a compus to point towards the sect which is more likely to be correct, thus below are those questions:

Who has the numerically most Hadith books?

Who has the numerically most Hadith which go back to the Prophet SAW without assuming the chain of narration?

Who has the numerically most authentic Hadith going back to the Prophet SAW by the respective sects standards?

Who has numerically more contradictory Hadith?

Who has the numerically most early Rijaal books?

Who has the numerically most Rijaal books in total?

Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding the Seerah?

Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding all of the companions?

Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding Islamic history?

Who did the transimission of Qur'an come through?

Who passed down the Qira'at and Ahruf of the Qur'an?

Who narrated the numerically most Israeliyaat/information on the old prophets?

----

The reason these questions are important is because it really gets to the core of "who are you actually taking your understanding from", because Shia and Sunni both claim to have the understanding of the Ahlul Bayt, so the question is how do we know what the Ahlul Bayt said and believed and practiced? These questions above are objective and you can find out the answers yourself if you research. 

I wish I had specific statistics at hand, but from my own personal research over the years since reverting to Islam, the answers to the above questions have overwhelming been the Sunnis - the Sunnis have the most books, the most corroborating hadith from different sources and Muhadditheen which increase the reliability and reduce the risk of fabrication or corruption, the most authentic Hadith going back directly to the Prophet SAW with chains of narrations, the apparent meaning of the Qur'an without placing Ta'wil and abstract arguments sides with the Sunnis, the Sunnis passed down the Qur'an in its variation forms (so without the Sunnis, the Shia would not have a chain of transmission for the Qur'an to my knowledge), the study of Ilmul Rijaal was disproportionately more prmoninant in the Sunni scholastic corpus than in the Shia corpus, all of the stories of the previous prophets come from the Sunni Israeliyaat (Hadith narrated by Jews and Christians during the time of the Sahabah) etc, and conversely, the Shia had more contradictory Hadith which had to be reconciled arbitrarily with the excuse of the narrator performing Taqiyyah (so an arbitray methodology is appliedl, several of the Muhadditheen believed in Tahreef of the Qur'an, and of the 20 or so Hadith books the Shia have, a number of them are written by rhe same authors so there is a much higher risk of fabrication, and "Mutawatir" Hadith within those books are mostly Mutawatir within the book itself rather than between different collections from different Muhaditheen, the Shia do not have any Israeliyaat, etc. 

This would indicate to an objective truth seeker who is truly sincere and not blinded by emotions that Sunni Islam is the truth - but you can establish that yourself if you seek the answers to the questions I listed...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
39 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

I am talking about Traditional Sunnis.  I am talking about people like Hamza Yusuf, Abdul Hakim Murad, Zaid Shakir, Omar Faruk Abdallah, and whole bunch of others who were products of an authentic tradition, a product of a lineage of teachers.  Not some new phenomenon that arose recently due to Saudi dogma.  Traditional scholars appeal to classical scholars like Al-Ghazali (for instance), they follow a tradition.  

I got your view.The branch of AhleSunnah you follow might not be cursing based their view.

But I have come across some well renounond Ahle sunnah Scholar who curse him.

We too definitely curse him.

I have even seen some Sunni scholar who  call him kafir.

So let there be differnce and each follow what they believe to be corect.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
12 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

This would indicate to an objective truth seeker who is truly sincere and not blinded by emotions that Sunni Islam is the truth - but you can establish that yourself if you seek the answers to the questions I listed...

Thanks for your reply. But irrespective of shia and sunni simple comments on the post is that it again ask to consider only the numbers instead of the truth, The emphasis is on one item that who has most books in numbers without giving attention to chains of narrations, whether coming through the family of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) ie Ahl alabayat (عليه السلام) or not?

The simple question arises here that how many narrations have been taken in sunni Sahih books of hadith e.g Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, coming through the family of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).?

The response on the matter is awaited please.

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, islam25 said:

I got your view.The branch of AhleSunnah you follow might not be cursing based their view.

But I have come across some well renounond Ahle sunnah Scholar who curse him.

We too definitely curse him.

I have even seen some Sunni scholar who  call him kafir.

So let there be differnce and each follow what they believe to be corect.

 

You can follow whatever you wan to follow, just saying that it isn't part of the Islamic Tradition.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
24 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

You can follow whatever you wan to follow, just saying that it isn't part of the Islamic Tradition.  

Do you think only those whom you follow are true.

When yazid became khalifa those who gave allegiance justified it by giving backing narrations of holy prophet and those who didn't gave allegiance too support their action with sunnah of holy Prophet saw

Why this difference amongst sahaba.

We after 1400 years have poor acces to true teaching of sunnah as compared to sahaba.So there is much chance we may err.

Ok.

Can you tell me which one sect amongst AhleSunnah are closest to the teachings of Holy Prophet saw.

I may say within sect one scholar differs with other.

We almost in each religious duty the sects differ how to perform it..And each claiming that his sect  true follwer of sunnah of holy Prophet saw.

 

 

Edited by islam25
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Ar.alhindi said:

 

Therefore we need some objective questions which can be used as a compus to point towards the sect which is more likely to be correct, thus below are those questions:

Who has the numerically most Hadith books?

Who has the numerically most Hadith which go back to the Prophet SAW without assuming the chain of narration?

Who has the numerically most authentic Hadith going back to the Prophet SAW by the respective sects standards?

Who has numerically more contradictory Hadith?

Who has the numerically most early Rijaal books?

Who has the numerically most Rijaal books in total?

Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding the Seerah?

Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding all of the companions?

Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding Islamic history?

Who did the transimission of Qur'an come through?

Who passed down the Qira'at and Ahruf of the Qur'an?

Who narrated the numerically most Israeliyaat/information on the old prophets?

----

 

 

For the first 150 years to 200 years after the death of the prophet, the writing of his hadith was forbidden, in accordance Abu Bakr Umar Uthmam

 Also  the compilers had biases in their choice of narrators and both the compilers and the narrators had biases in their choice of hadith texts, motivated by political and theological grounds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Thanks for your reply. But irrespective of shia and sunni simple comments on the post is that it again ask to consider only the numbers instead of the truth, The emphasis is on one item that who has most books in numbers without giving attention to chains of narrations, whether coming through the family of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) ie Ahl alabayat (عليه السلام) or not?

The simple question arises here that how many narrations have been taken in sunni Sahih books of hadith e.g Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, coming through the family of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).?

The response on the matter is awaited please.

Respectfully this is an irrelevant point because my post precisely does give attention to chains of narrators - Ilmul Rijaal, clear and consistent methods of authenticating Hadith and varriations of chains from companions, wives and Ahlul Bayt (all direct witnesses of early Islam*) are all prominent in Sunni Islam, whereas there is not this same breadth of sources in Shia Islam. Conversely, Ilmul Rijaal is a science which is used by Shia scholars too but always was to a lesser extent and only became more important later in Shia Islamic history, much after it was adopted into Sunni Islam; that is not to say that there are not early Shia Ilmul Rijaal books, but there are much less frequent than the Sunni ones contemporary to them. Additionally, authentication standards are notoriously flakey and variant amongst Shia scholars; of course there is Ikhtilaaf and differences in methodology amongst Sunni Ulema too, but for example early scholars like Suduq would disregard swathes of Hadith and practices as stemming from the Ghulaat and being forms of Ghuluw, but modern scholars now adopt them, because they have become apart of the dominant Shia practice e.g. Suduq believed adding Ali Waliyullah in the Adhaan was a Bid'ah of the Ghulaat, but modern scholars accept it and revise other Hadith he graded as weak on the basis of Ghuluw. This would indicate to the objective observer that perhaps modern scholars have a slightly different belief system to classical Shia scholars such that modern Shia are more extreme in Ghuluw than those like Suduq.

Regarding Bukhari, he did not like to narrate through Jafar As Sadiq not because he was a Nasibi but rather because too many fabricated narrations were attributed to him, thus he accepted Hadith with him in the chain if other chains corroborated with it - as you know, Ghulaat and fabricators in Kufa were very prominant early on, and there was a very significant problem with extremism in the early Shia community. If you read into the history of how many subsects there were who believed various things such as Muhammad Ibn Al Hanafiyyah, the third son of Ali, being the Mahdi who went into occultation (which is the origin of the idea) after his uprising and death, as believed by his Shia; those who believed Ali to be a manifestation of Allah; the Zaydiyyah who follow Zayd Ibn Ali Ibn Hussain as their Imam, etc.

On the other hand, other Sunni Muhaditheen still narrate through him, his father and others without noteable issue, and there are more than double the Shia Hadith books, so it is unwise to restrict and limit Sunni Islam to Bukhari (despite it being the most authentic collection it is not everything). 

*The Ahlul Bayt were one of the many witnesses to the start and spread of Islam, so to restrict our understanding to ONLY them would be a bias that I alluded to in my original post. The objective truth seeker would also consider these other sources and also mitigating factors in history which may affect the propogation of authentic Hadith from the Ahlul Bayt, such as the Ghulaat of Kufa like I mentioned for example.

A point I will reitterate from my original post is also that 'Mutawatir' reports from the Ahlul Bayt from Shia books are not necessarily reliable as they many are only Mutawatir within their own books and do not corroborate with other Shia Hadith collections, thus increasing the risk of forgery/weakness as it is solely reliant upon the reliability of the Shia Muhadith, again some of whom didn't even believe the Qur'an we have today had not been tampered with so arguably had deficient belief/disbelief.

To conclude, these reasons above are why I do not stress on using the number of Hadith from the Ahlul Bayt as a valid objective criteria for which sect likely represents the truth, and even if we did, there would be other significant problems in trusting the numerous narrations of the likes of Kulayni or Majlisi for example as being reliable depictions of what the Ahlul Bayt said.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, power said:

 

For the first 150 years to 200 years after the death of the prophet, the writing of his hadith was forbidden, in accordance Abu Bakr Umar Uthmam

 Also  the compilers had biases in their choice of narrators and both the compilers and the narrators had biases in their choice of hadith texts, motivated by political and theological grounds. 

Hadith were still collected, written and narrated by the Sahabah during their times, and there are numerous hadith indicating this; from what I have seen, Hadith indicating prohibition or destruction during the times of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan are much fewer in number and have weak/disconnected chains. This claim is only prevalent amongst the Shia but holds no weight otherwise - you can find articles regarding this topic online and there are extensive refutations to this claim out there, but it is suffice to say that it is not accurate at all; the most that could be argued on the basis of some other Hadith is that at times the narrating of Hadith was restricted for specific reasons, but it was never forbidden, nor were Hadith books burnt (as is believed as per the claims made by Shia).

Arguably that can be said about any compiler - Sunni or Shia - so it is redundant.

My point - which is to be objective - is that there are much different sources and compilers of Hadith which corroborate in the Sunni corpus compared to the Shia corpus. As mentioned, if say 1 Shia compiler was unreliable, then it is possible that say 2/20 collections have become discredited as there were less Shia collectors and they wrote multiple collections; if we compare that to say a Sunni Muhadith, 1/40 or 2/40 collections have been discredited (assuming Shia have 20 books and Sunnis have 40, though I think Sunnis may have more than that). Doing the maths, obviously from an objective standpoint, there is considerably less risk here in adopting the Sunni corpus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
23 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

?  Yes.  I would.  No grudges against anyone.  At all.  Grudges are pathetic and cheap.  A sign of low iman if no iman.  

No,. The Prophet (S) brought Umar up.  

 

miracle indeed.  Is it hard to believe?  He wasn’t the only one by the way.  This is what makes the Prophet (S) so special.  His prayer could transform hearts for lead to gold.  It is sad Shias underestimate this.  What a shame and a pity. 

:salam:

Correction again, it's the sunni tradition that says Prophet (sawas) brought Umar up. 

Hearts go from lead to gold and sometimes go back to lead. Just saying.

It's not holding grudges, it's just not praising whom does not deserve to be praised. His matter is with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), I have never been a fan of cursing anyway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
24 minutes ago, realizm said:

:salam:

Correction again, it's the sunni tradition that says Prophet (sawas) brought Umar up. 

Hearts go from lead to gold and sometimes go back to lead. Just saying.

It's not holding grudges, it's just not praising whom does not deserve to be praised. His matter is with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), I have never been a fan of cursing anyway.

 

It’s not that Shia traditions are all that reliable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

Hadith were still collected, written and narrated by the Sahabah during their times, and there are numerous hadith indicating this; from what I have seen, Hadith indicating prohibition or destruction during the times of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan are much fewer in number and have weak/disconnected chains. This claim is only prevalent amongst the Shia but holds no weight otherwise - you can find articles regarding this topic online and there are extensive refutations to this claim out there, but it is suffice to say that it is not accurate at all; the most that could be argued on the basis of some other Hadith is that at times the narrating of Hadith was restricted for specific reasons, but it was never forbidden, nor were Hadith books burnt (as is believed as per the claims made by Shia).

Arguably that can be said about any compiler - Sunni or Shia - so it is redundant.

My point - which is to be objective - is that there are much different sources and compilers of Hadith which corroborate in the Sunni corpus compared to the Shia corpus. As mentioned, if say 1 Shia compiler was unreliable, then it is possible that say 2/20 collections have become discredited as there were less Shia collectors and they wrote multiple collections; if we compare that to say a Sunni Muhadith, 1/40 or 2/40 collections have been discredited (assuming Shia have 20 books and Sunnis have 40, though I think Sunnis may have more than that). Doing the maths, obviously from an objective standpoint, there is considerably less risk here in adopting the Sunni corpus.

 

Persuasion of the truth in all honesty is not defined by as to how many books each domination has, this kind of rhetoric is no different from what the Christian will ague, they will argue we are the biggest religion on the planet therefore we must be right. This is a fallacy, The truth is not determined by numbers of books… I mean  where did you get this idea from ?  Surly Islam doesn't promote this kind of foolishness. I believe none of your classical or even contemporary scholars  have instilled this kind of mindset  into the public arena, but I could be wrong, because  it appears you are convinced by this.

Nevertheless, having  more scholars or literature Its very unconventional way of convincing anybody of truth in my view. Truth seekers on most occasion are only convinced by the divine book the holy Quran and not by many books. 

And to be frank, there is more sub sects in Sunni Islam than in Shaism right now, and maybe having all these sciences in hadith collection may  have divide your sect into many. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Yes that is why you should read al-Ghazai because of the Hadith he mentions against cursing specific people or things.  This is the position of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama.  It is not just Ghazali. 

Salam Idea of Ghazali & so called Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama is against Holy Quran that curses individuals like Pharaoh & Haman & Qaroon & Abu Lahab so based Ghazali & so called Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama you must remove their names from holy Quran or put aside it & just stick to people like Ghazali & so called Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama instead of word of Quran & prophet Muhammad (pbu) & choose Ghazali & Abdulwahab & cursed Ibn Taymiah as your prophets.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

Hadith were still collected, written and narrated by the Sahabah during their times, and there are numerous hadith indicating this; from what I have seen, Hadith indicating prohibition or destruction during the times of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan are much fewer in number and have weak/disconnected chains. This claim is only prevalent amongst the Shia but holds no weight otherwise - you can find articles regarding this topic online and there are extensive refutations to this claim out there, but it is suffice to say that it is not accurate at all; the most that could be argued on the basis of some other Hadith is that at times the narrating of Hadith was restricted for specific reasons, but it was never forbidden, nor were Hadith books burnt (as is believed as per the claims made by Shia).

Arguably that can be said about any compiler - Sunni or Shia - so it is redundant.

My point - which is to be objective - is that there are much different sources and compilers of Hadith which corroborate in the Sunni corpus compared to the Shia corpus. As mentioned, if say 1 Shia compiler was unreliable, then it is possible that say 2/20 collections have become discredited as there were less Shia collectors and they wrote multiple collections; if we compare that to say a Sunni Muhadith, 1/40 or 2/40 collections have been discredited (assuming Shia have 20 books and Sunnis have 40, though I think Sunnis may have more than that). Doing the maths, obviously from an objective standpoint, there is considerably less risk here in adopting the Sunni corpus.

Salam according to your Sahaba & Ayesha in Sahih books Abubakr collected all hadith then burnt whole of them also Umar banned narrating hadiths that his policy continued until end of Ummayid era but people like Abu Huraira under protection of cursed Muawiah (la) & his cursed descendants fabricated non counting narrations from their imagination that lead to an enormousness fabricated Sunni hadith books that by help of Abbasids these books called Sahihs & became immune from questioning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, realizm said:

Do you consider sunni traditions reliable ?

Not everything from a weak path is incorrect.

Not everyhting from a sahih path is correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

Regarding Bukhari, he did not like to narrate through Jafar As Sadiq not because he was a Nasibi but rather because too many fabricated narrations were attributed to him, thus he accepted Hadith with him in the chain if other chains corroborated with it - as you know, Ghulaat and fabricators in Kufa were very prominant early on, and there was a very significant problem with extremism in the early Shia community. If you read into the history of how many subsects there were who believed various things such as Muhammad Ibn Al Hanafiyyah, the third son of Ali, being the Mahdi who went into occultation (which is the origin of the idea) after his uprising and death, as believed by his Shia; those who believed Ali to be a manifestation of Allah; the Zaydiyyah who follow Zayd Ibn Ali Ibn Hussain as their Imam, etc.

He ignored Jaffer bin Muhammad (عليه السلام) not because he was a nasbi, because too much fake hadiths were attributed to him?

Out of collection of many lacs hadiths, he wrote 7000+ hadiths in sahih Bukhari and i have heard sunni ulima mentioning this. Point is, there were equivalent or even more fake hadiths attributed by people of your sides to sahaba and out of then, he managed to compile 7000 sahihs only. But never paid attention in getting some from Jaffer?

This also proves that you had same problem since many amoung you had attributed fake hadiths to prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) which Bukhari had to ignore in order to compile a sahih.

Rest, you guys have way more grouping in yourself and each accuse others as kafirs so you cannot blame shia as they have much less groupings.

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

Respectfully this is an irrelevant point because my post precisely does give attention to chains of narrators - Ilmul Rijaal, clear and consistent methods of authenticating Hadith and varriations of chains from companions, wives and Ahlul Bayt (all direct witnesses of early Islam*) are all prominent in Sunni Islam, whereas there is not this same breadth of sources in Shia Islam. Conversely, Ilmul Rijaal is a science which is used by Shia scholars too but always was to a lesser extent and only became more important later in Shia Islamic history, much after it was adopted into Sunni Islam; that is not to say that there are not early Shia Ilmul Rijaal books, but there are much less frequent than the Sunni ones contemporary to them. Additionally, authentication standards are notoriously flakey and variant amongst Shia scholars; of course there is Ikhtilaaf and differences in methodology amongst Sunni Ulema too, but for example early scholars like Suduq would disregard swathes of Hadith and practices as stemming from the Ghulaat and being forms of Ghuluw, but modern scholars now adopt them, because they have become apart of the dominant Shia practice e.g. Suduq believed adding Ali Waliyullah in the Adhaan was a Bid'ah of the Ghulaat, but modern scholars accept it and revise other Hadith he graded as weak on the basis of Ghuluw. This would indicate to the objective observer that perhaps modern scholars have a slightly different belief system to classical Shia scholars such that modern Shia are more extreme in Ghuluw than those like Suduq.

First of all, Ahlebait (عليه السلام) is the primary source of guidance and knowledge but you people neglected this, and used them just like you use Wives and Sahaba. And we are here to prove it from Sahih Haidth and Kitab Allah. Instead of taking them as primary source, you people haven't really paid attention to them instead you took way more laws and hadiths from Ashaab and wives which is not the case in shia Islam. Whatever we took, was from Ahlebait (عليه السلام) and we accept hadiths from wives and sahabas, if they don't have hate for Ahlebait (عليه السلام) and their sayings don't contracdict Ahlebait (عليه السلام).

In shia Islam, view of scholors is only Hujjah, when it has basis from Quran and teachings of Ahlebait (عليه السلام) else view is dis regarded. This was problem with most classical shia scholors though. They would term many things as ghuluw as you mentioned Saduq cursing people in Azaan, in Al Hidayah, he brings forwards hadith saying Adhan has 20 parts. In Amali, he dictates hadiths that Allah says no deed is acceptable without iqrar of Nabuwat of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Wilayat e Ali (عليه السلام). thus if he mentioned it at one place, he also corrected himself later. Same goes for other issues. And ikhtelaaf in such matters is needed in order to get to the right path. Not like you people who would blindly follow 4 imams saying all are right. We respect Saduq alot but his personal opinions which have no basis are unacceptable. 

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

(so without the Sunnis, the Shia would not have a chain of transmission for the Qur'an to my knowledge), the study of Ilmul

Can you give me a chain for 4:59 stretching upto Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Just asking bro. It has nothing to do with the Question.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
13 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

Respectfully this is an irrelevant point because my post precisely does give attention to chains of narrators - Ilmul Rijaal, clear and consistent methods of authenticating Hadith and varriations of chains from companions, wives and Ahlul Bayt (all direct witnesses of early Islam*) are all prominent in Sunni Islam, whereas there is not this same breadth of sources in Shia Islam. 

The simple answer to this post is that there have been many claims in your last post but sorry to state those claims regarding the hadith of Ahl albayt included in sunni sahih books have not been justified nor the numbers of hadith narrated by Ahl alabayt (عليه السلام) presented, instead you have come again with a bunch of allegations.

We are  aware there are more than 7000 hadith claimed by Bukhari and without repetition it  comes about 2300 Nos. While the hadith from Ahl albayt (عليه السلام) ie the family of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in blood relation to them is not more than 100 or even lesser. Thus the claim of the sunni following them after the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) becomes incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
13 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

Regarding Bukhari, he did not like to narrate through Jafar As Sadiq not because he was a Nasibi but rather because too many fabricated narrations were attributed to him, thus he accepted Hadith with him in the chain if other chains corroborated with it -

So you are aware of Bukhari did not narrate from the person from the family of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) know as Ahl albayt and justifying him for his  not narrating from Jafar bin Muhamamd .(عليه السلام). Does  that  not show how sunni brother ignore the fmaily of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

Does the sunni scholars  illum rajjal not work for making the selection of true hadith in taking from Ahl labayt (عليه السلام)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
13 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

*The Ahlul Bayt were one of the many witnesses to the start and spread of Islam, so to restrict our understanding to ONLY them would be a bias that I alluded to in my original post. The objective truth seeker would also consider these other sources and also mitigating factors in history which may affect the propogation of authentic Hadith from the Ahlul Bayt, such as the Ghulaat of Kufa like I mentioned for example.

A point I will reitterate from my original post is also that 'Mutawatir' reports from the Ahlul Bayt from Shia books are not necessarily reliable as they many are only Mutawatir within their own books and do not corroborate with other Shia Hadith collections, thus increasing the risk of forgery/weakness as it is solely reliant upon the reliability of the Shia Muhadith, again some of whom didn't even believe the Qur'an we have today had not been tampered with so arguably had deficient belief/disbelief.

The prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has asked to follow two weighty things ie quran and his family, Ahl albayat who are in blood relation to him. sunni hadith books do mentioned it in clarity and both sunni and shai agree on it. As far as the companions and others are concerned shia do not take all the companions as one group, equal in rank, considering them all as just / Adil becasue this is against  the verses of quran and hadith of the prophet.  

There are many verses of Quran and hadith of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) identify quran and Ahl alabayt as as true source of guidance. No muslim can deny the imporatnce asociated with the family of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as they are all bound to say salawat on them. No one can be cosnidred equal in man manner with thefamily of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) iafter him s.aw. This is all whats thev erses of quran and hadith of the prophet mentions.

Shia do have their own criteria for illum Rajjal to judge the authenticty of the hadith.  The  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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
14 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

To conclude, these reasons above are why I do not stress on using the number of Hadith from the Ahlul Bayt as a valid objective criteria for which sect likely represents the truth, and even if we did, there would be other significant problems in trusting the numerous narrations of the likes of Kulayni or Majlisi for example as being reliable depictions of what the Ahlul Bayt said.

 

17 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

Therefore we need some objective questions which can be used as a compus to point towards the sect which is more likely to be correct, thus below are those questions:

Who has the numerically most Hadith books?

Who has the numerically most Hadith which go back to the Prophet SAW without assuming the chain of narration?

Who has the numerically most authentic Hadith going back to the Prophet SAW by the respective sects standards?

Who has numerically more contradictory Hadith?

Who has the numerically most early Rijaal books?

Who has the numerically most Rijaal books in total?

Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding the Seerah?

Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding all of the companions?

Who has the numerically most Hadith regarding Islamic history?

The reason these questions are important is because it really gets to the core of "who are you actually taking your understanding from", because Shia and Sunni both claim to have the understanding of the Ahlul Bayt, so the question is how do we know what the Ahlul Bayt said and believed and practiced? 

Brother in the light of the quoited above posts I request you to please send consistent contents instead of contradictory posts in order to make some valid assumptions. These are itself contradictory. How can a mindful person be convinced by such complete contradictory statements?

wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
17 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

Sorry this does not address the OPs questions, but I will be addressing the thread title because it will actually address the core issue that should be discussed because otherwise most of the time people discuss tertiary stuff which is not really important and just appeals to one's own confirmation bias, and so I will get to the real points we should be discussing.

Salam alaikum brother thanks for sharing your points. The introductory comments regarding the methodology that people often fall into in these discussions are certainly valid. The two-way approach of picking narrations from the other sects book (either to back up one's own point or to find weaknesses in the other) rarely leads to anything conclusive. I understand that for specific topics it can generate interesting discussions but as a global approach I don't think it will lead far.

You have then noted some specific questions related to narrators, narrations and collections. They are important questions and worth looking into, but I feel we are looking here at effects rather than causes and outcomes rather than fundamentals.

Personally I feel that the common ground, which are the Qur'an and the life of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) where the disputes are limited to details rather than the bigger picture, is where one can already make fundamental decisions. The key difference is the wilayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and this I feel was already established on multiple occasions during the time of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). Combined with the commonly accepted narration of the two weighty things, this sets up the platform for Shiism (what follows are the details but the core concept is already established).

What I feel is missing among the ahl us sunnah is a clear guideline or principle on the question of wilayah. The caliphs I feel have been somewhat 'self imposed' because there is no explicit guideline requirement to 'follow' or 'refer to' the khulafa (in fact the khilafa as it unfolded was itself a product of it's society rather than something established by the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) ). Where does it start, where does it end and to what extent is it to be adhered to? Was the authority of al Baghdadi in Mosul equally as legitimate as that of Ibn al Khattab in Medina? Was Yazid more or less legitimate than Muawiyah?

Technically speaking, has one even 'left' the boundaries of Ahlus Sunnah if he recognizes the 12 Imams as rightful guides of the religion, without having any connection or relation to the first three caliphs? 

This is where I feel that the fundamentals are not very clear. As a twelver shiite, I am subscribing to Tawheed, Nubuwwah and Imamah (also Adalah and Ma'ad). Where are the clear boundaries of Sunnism, so to speak? If it is Qur'an and Sunnah, then isn't Shiism technically covered within these boundaries?

I look forward to your feedback inshaAllah. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/18/2020 at 11:54 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam Idea of Ghazali & so called Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama is against Holy Quran that curses individuals like Pharaoh & Haman & Qaroon & Abu Lahab so based Ghazali & so called Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama you must remove their names from holy Quran or put aside it & just stick to people like Ghazali & so called Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama instead of word of Quran & prophet Muhammad (pbu) & choose Ghazali & Abdulwahab & cursed Ibn Taymiah as your prophets.

Wow, knock down argument!  how brilliant!  

Edited by eThErEaL
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...