Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
50 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Brother, it’s impossible to win an argument with the ghulat. They don’t conform to the same standards of evidence or respect for rationality that you do. Their methodology is simple: if they like the sound of it, accept it, and if they don’t, reject it.

In starting to think that when the Imams advised us not to sit with the ghulat, it was for the sake of our own sanity more than anything else.

Good to see I wasn’t the only one losing my mind with the ideas presented by him.

also he mentioned Asif Raza Alvi. If you guys are familiar with subcontinent zakireen, this zakir is borderline Nusayri but has weasled his way into mainstream communities unfortunately by tapping onto the emotional appeal of the awaam.

Edited by 786:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

-Mahdavist 2020

Actually it's the basic definition of tawatur. 

Quote

Allah (عزّ وجلّ) clearly said that he has enumerated all things in a clarifying Imam (Masoomeen (عليه السلام)

Imamim mubeen: singular

Ma'soomeen: plural

It helps to have a basic understanding of arabic grammar.

Quote

and who are angels? perspiration of the visitor of Aba Abdillah Al Hussain (عليه السلام)? 

I already corrected your mistranslation and additions to the words of hadith via PM. The term 'perspiration' was introduced by you and wasn't present in the narration you brought forward.

Quote

come one bro! you need to accept these things with a open heart instead of relying on fabricated stuff.

Why would I take reinterpretations from you when we already have a clear description of ghuluw from our aimmah (عليه السلام)? 

If you claim the narrations are fabricated then bring forward the authentic narrations where the aimmah have described ghuluw and the ghulat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Quote

brother I've already said many times that Allah (عزّ وجلّ) is All-knowing because He knows  every knowledge by his own. Masoomeen (عليه السلام) aren't All-knowing because they've been taught by Allah (عزّ وجلّ)

I agree.

Quote

are you trying to say Allah (عزّ وجلّ) can create another Allah but cannot put his knowledge in 73 letters?

despite that he is Al-Qadir?

I didn't say Allah can make another Allah. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the only one who knows how he keeps his knowledge, unless he told anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

And you are not desiring except if Allah so Desires. Surely Allah was always Knowing, Wise [76:30]

here too Allah (awaj) mentioned you=singular.

Actually it's not singular. The word used is tashaaoona (plural tense). 

What you refer to as 'twists' are basic rules of grammar. 

Quote

this Narration from basaair al darajaat mentioned the word perspiration

What is the word for perspiration in arabic?

Quote

what is ghuluw according to the Narrations you brought?

Go back to the post and read them, the aimmah (عليه السلام) have described it in clear terms.

Quote

even you know you won't accept the Narrations i will post and label them weak in front of the readers

Bring them forward, we will see whether they're weak or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

ok, that's just according to you

I didn't make the rules of grammar brother. Even a child studying elementary arabic can tell you that تَشاءونَ conjugated for the second person (you) plural.

With due respect if you can't read the Qur'an you should avoid trying to have linguistic debates about it's verses.

Quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB7tAJO7J1E

obviously i cannot type each and every Narration word to word.

Your evidence is some random brother on a youtube video who doesn't even understand the language of the narrations he is presenting? 

If you're serious bring proper evidence. You've already been corrected on mistranslations a few times by various members, and somehow you were misinformed that 76:30 was in the singular person. 

This is why you need to bring proper references.

Bring forward the narrations of the aimmah (عليه السلام) on ghulu and we will discuss them inshaAllah. You have rejected the ones that were already shared (without any real reason) , so now bring forward what you think is authentic. 

If you're still trying to claim that the narrations were not in line with the Qur'an then I direct you to verse 50 of suratul an'am. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

i did explain to you through PM concept of how any why Calling it perspiration should not be a problem if you remember.

And you will remember that I explained to you that none of the words you were referring to (body, perspiration etc) were present in the narration and that they were all your own additions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

why did you too accept the fabricated Narrations you brought which were in english? I've already proved the contradiction from the Holy Qur'an for tour Narrations

How do they contradict the Qur'an? Refer to 6:50 

Fully consistent.

Quote

i never said the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) knows the unseen. i did write many times that the letter in which unseen has been kept is Veiled from the Masoomeen (عليه السلام). but the difference is the Holy Qur'an also says there are keys to the unseen in it. and according to many Narrations, Allah (عزّ وجلّ) has revealed for them the knowledge till the day of judgement

You still seem to be jumping back and forth on whether to accept Quranic verses or whether to ignore them in favour of narrations (without knowing anything about their reliability)

This is why I have consistently questioned you about your methodology and you consistently ducked the question. 

You also seem to be jumping back and forth on whether the ma'soomeen had knowledge of the unseen or they didnt. In one instance you will say they did because the Qur'an says so (your own interpretation), then you claim they did and Allah did and the only difference is that they were taught (your own claim) and then you jump to the narration about 73 parts of knowledge claiming they have nearly all the knowledge.

You need to make up your mind on whether they (عليه السلام) possess the knowledge of all things or not. 

You are continuously contradicting yourself. My humble suggestion is that you take some time out to reflect upon these points and study them before jumping into debates and stubbornly trying to defend arguments that you aren't even sure of yourself (contradicting yourself in the process and posting false translations of hadeeth and incorrect grammatical statements about the Qur'an. Know that this isn't a light matter and there are serious consequences for distorting such things). 

Quote

i already brought forward the video. you should at least give it a try. 

I am giving it a try. The guy is quoting from an urdu translation of al khisaal and switches between urdu and punjabi when he speaks. I just hope his translations are more reliable than some of yours which turned out to be false.

In any case, if you want to have a serious discussion then you really shouldn't be presenting this video as your evidence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Quote

well, you did say "if he created another God". this is clear that you agreed with the possibility.

and if you didn't said that, Narration says that.

He already told his creation through the tongue of Masoomeen (عليه السلام) which is metaphorically his tongue.

I said If he did, IF there was a possibility 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

the Holy Qur'an also says there will be no wali besides Allah (عزّ وجلّ) 

(sorry i don't remember the verse word to word)

If you want to use a verse to support a belief then bring it forward. Your argument doesn't hold any weight if you misquote verses and fail to provide a reference.

Quote

and if they (عليه السلام) wish to, they can. how? because they have the keys to it.

Refer to 6:59.

And with Him are the keys of the unseen treasures-- none knows them but He; and He knows what is in the land and the sea, and there falls not a leaf but He knows it, nor a grain in the darkness of the earth, nor anything green nor dry but (it is all) in a clear book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

None of your rest fabricated Narrations mentioned The word "ghuluw" either.

Why do you insist that they are fabricated when you don't have any evidence? 

If your only answer is that they contradict the Qur'an then I refer you once again to 6:50 and 6:59. 

It would be more honest of you to say you aren't aware of the authenticity rather than to ignorantly label them as fabrications.

It's also of course in contradiction to your previous stance that everything we receive as a hadith is authentic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

ok agreed. the verse also says "it is in a clear book" who has the knowledge of a thousand books which includes the Holy Qur'an?

well, you've digged a hole for yourself now.

Do you even read the verses before making up your own interpretations:

And with Him are the keys of the unseen treasures-- none knows them but He; 

It doesn't get more clear than this. As you said shortly before, if the hadeeth contradicts the Qur'an throw it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

this Narration says no one defines the servents sustenance except Allah (عزّ وجلّ).

Correct, and absolutely in line with the Qur'an. 

35:3 O men! call to mind the favor of Allah on you; is there any creator besides Allah who gives you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? There is no god but He; whence are you then turned away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

I've proved the concept of sustenance in my previous post. I've proved the concept of creation too.

In short you're claiming the narrations are fabricated because the aimmah (عليه السلام) would not say that all sustenance is from Allah and all creation is from Allah?

Incredible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Lol. He has spammed this thread with copy and pastes of dodgy narrations, and what's worse, the formatting makes the thread almost impossible to read now.

For the benefit of others:

Quote

It has been narrated to us by Muhammad Bin Isa, from Ali Bin Al-Hakam, from Muhammad Bin Al-Fazeyl, from Zareys Al-Wabishy, who has said:
Jabir reports that I said to Abu Ja’farasws, ‘May I be sacrificed for you, the words of the knowledgeable one:

‘I will come to you with it before your glance returns to you’.

He (the narrator) said,

‘He (عليه السلام) said: ‘O Jabir, Allah (عزّ وجلّ) Made His Magnificent Name to be 
upon seventy-three Letters. There used to be with him (Asif Bin Barkhiya) the knowledge of one of these letters. The Earth contracted between him and the throne of Bilquis, until the two met (and heas grabbed the throne), and then it reverted to as it was before, whereas with us, from the Magnificent Name of Allah (عزّ وجلّ), are seventy-two Letters, and one Letter regarding the knowledge of the unseen is hidden with Him (عزّ وجلّ).

Basaair Al Darajaat – P 4 Ch 12 H 6

I Had read in a Narration which states, whenever Asif bin Barkhiya willed, the earth used to fold itself for him. 

محمد بن يحيى وغيره ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن علي بن الحكم ، عن محمد بن الفضيل قال أخبرني شريس الوابشي ، عن جابر ، عن أبي جعفر عليه‌السلام قال إن اسم الله الأعظم على ثلاثة وسبعين حرفا وإنما كان عند آصف منها حرف واحد فتكلم به فخسف بالأرض ما بينه وبين سرير بلقيس حتى تناول السرير بيده ثم عادت الأرض كما كانت أسرع من طرفة عين ونحن عندنا من الاسم الأعظم اثنان وسبعون حرفا وحرف واحد عند الله تعالى استأثر به في علم الغيب عنده ولا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله العلي العظيم.

Weak for a few reasons. Apart from an unknown narrator, an a problematic primary narrator, Shaykh Tusi says that Muhammad ibn Fudail has been accused of ghuluw. Majlisi also grades this hadith as majhool, which seems generous.

Quote

Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad, from Al Husayn Bin Saeed and Muhammad Bin Khalid, 
from Zakariyya Bin Imran Al Qummy, from Haroun Bin Al Jahm, ‘From a man from the companions of Abu Abdullah (عليه السلام), his name was not preserved, who said, ‘I heard Abu Abdullah (عليه السلام) saying:

‘Isa Bin Maryam (عليه السلام) was Given two letters. He used to work with these two; and Musa (عليه السلام) was Given four letters, and Ibrahim (عليه السلام) was Given eight letter, and Nuh (عليه السلام) was given fifteen letters, and Adam (عليه السلام) was Given twenty five letters, and that Allah (عزّ وجلّ) Gathered all of it for Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), and that the Magnificent Name of Allah (عزّ وجلّ) are seventy three letters. Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was Given seventy-two letters, and one letter was Veiled from him"

Bihar Al Anwaar – V 17, The book of our Prophet, Ch 17 H 11

محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن الحسين بن سعيد ومحمد بن خالد ، عن زكريا بن عمران القمي ، عن هارون بن الجهم ، عن رجل من أصحاب أبي عبد الله عليه‌السلام لم أحفظ اسمه قال سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه‌السلام يقول إن عيسى ابن مريم عليه‌السلام أعطي حرفين كان يعمل بهما وأعطي موسى أربعة أحرف وأعطي إبراهيم ثمانية أحرف وأعطي نوح خمسة عشر حرفا وأعطي آدم خمسة وعشرين حرفا وإن الله تعالى جمع ذلك كله لمحمد صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله وإن اسم الله الأعظم ثلاثة وسبعون حرفا أعطي محمد صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله اثنين وسبعين حرفا وحجب عنه حرف واحد.

Weak (obviously).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, 786:) said:

The question is not whether or not Allah can create another Entity like him or not.

Allah isn't an 'entity', angels are entities. Calling Allah an entity would be Shirk. 

The notion of the Absolute creating another Absolute is contradiction of terms. If there are two Absolutes, then they are logically not-absolutes and rather conditioned by the Absolute. It doesn't matter what ratio you 'draw', it will always be governed by the Absolute - as-Samad, so to speak. 

This also brings to mind Surah 21:22, which is not a comment on Allah making more Allah, but a comment on the nature of polytheism. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Haydar Husayn what’s was your conclusion of our deleted debate on the Arians?

mine is a bit complex. 
1. no prophet or imam is all hearing

2. No imam or prophet is omnipresent 

3. every imam and prophet depends on Allah for knowledge, if they know everything wouldn’t the difference be that they had seek it from someone while Allah knew everything before anything was to be known besides the fact that He grants the knowledge of that which is unknown to man to whomever He wishes? 

4. If someone’s compassion for example  is like that of Allah’s compassion wouldn’t that not be shirk since Dawud used Allah’s judgement of the Judgement Day on earth ? (Allah’s justice). 

5. no imam or prophet is omnipotent naturally as humans there is a limit to our power although we will be granted the power of Be-and-it-is in paradise 

6. no human is eternal since the possibility of death still exists and it is out of God’s mercy we live for ever and ever.

someone has mentioned a hadith of were an Atheist had an question, which he asked if Allah is omnipotent can He create another Allah ? The imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) replied that he can create a thousand of Allah’s but Allah will remain being creator while the others are created. 
 

now Arians that believe Jesus is a god the difference between him and God is that he is created. Btw the Arians can easily be refuted. 

Mark 13:32

32“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father.”

That’s just one example. 

Edited by THREE1THREE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Quote

Lol, not only the authentic Hadeeth, it contradicts the Holy Qur'an too.

Allah (عزّ وجلّ) clearly says He Has enumerated All things in a clarifying Imam (عليه السلام).


Surely, We Revive the dead, and We Write down whatever they send forward and their impacts, and We have Enumerated all things in a clarifying Imam [36:12]


And Ali Bin Ibrahim said, 

Regarding His Words:

 and We have Enumerated all things in a clarifying Imam [36:12],

You bring up a very good, solid point here actually. 

I think it relates to the Nur al-Muhammadi, or the 'Eternal Imam', the first created essence by God, the lesser Light, that manifests as all the Nabis, Rasools and Imams in history. This thing is also mentioned in the Ayat where it says that there is never a time that God hasn't had a messenger on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

or will you keep this verse in front too then derive a belief that there are Guardians beside Allah (عزّ وجلّ)?

We know that there are guardians because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has specifically defined them in the Qur'an. Indeed it isn't a contradiction, rather it comes from the fact that wilayah has several meanings and levels in the arabic language so the fact that in some verses Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has kept this attribute solely for Himself and in others He has specified the wilayah of the prophet((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and Imam Ali (عليه السلام) over the believers is no issue.

When it comes to the attributes of creation and of sustenance however, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has not designated this attribute to others. Therefore your rejection of a hadith that states that creation and sustenance come always from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), is in fact baseless.

If you believe that there is a Creator other than Allah and a Sustainer other than Allah then name them. 

If not, then your whole basis of rejecting the narrations becomes false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

and of course they all are authentic.

How can you attribute authenticity to them when you don't even know the narrators? 

Quote

but if you're still facing hesitation, then brother Mahdavist has already made a criteria for people like you.

Many Narrations=Mutawatir Narration

The very definition of tawatur is the multiplicity of chains for a narration. I don't need to make a criteria of a definition that already exists. 

Besides it doesn't help much to have multiple narrations if they're coming from weak narrators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

Narrations, why? because they are being Compatible with the verses of the Holy Qur'an.

and because Imam Saadiq (عليه السلام) said this,

H 33344 – And from Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Abdullah Bin Muhammad, from Ali Ibn Al Hakam, from Aban Bin Usman, from Abdullah Bin Abu Ya’four who said that it was narrated to him from Al Husayn Bin Abu Al A’la, who was present with Ibn Abu Ya’four in this gathering, says:

‘I asked Abu Abd Allah (عليه السلام) about the differences in Hadith, narrated from one whom we trust and from those whom we do not trust’.

He (عليه السلام) said: ‘If a Hadith is referred to you and you find a witness for it from the Book of Allah (عزّ وجلّ) or from the statements of the Messenger of Allah (saws), then its authentic, otherwise give it back to the one who brought it’.

(Wasail ul Shia, H. 33344)

Good in that case you can refer back to the narrations I posted earlier on from Bihaar al Anwaar and retract your accusation that they are fabricated since each of them can be supported by verses of the Qur'an. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

ok, this means you've kept Ayat e wilayat in front before deriving a belief. this means you will believe in the verses which says, there are no Guardian besides Allah (عزّ وجلّ). but later you also believe in the verses which says there are two more Guardian besides Allah (عزّ وجلّ). this means this is your final belief in this concept.because you did keet each and everything in front right? you didn't go with the quantity right?

Correct

Quote

you will have to apply the same criteria here too. so even here, you cannot emphasis by saying, if a verse says, there are no Creators and providers besides Allah (عزّ وجلّ) so i will only believe in that verse.

Correct again, the issue is not on my side. It is you who has rejected the narrations of the aimmah because they stated that only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the creator. 

So why do you reject then when you know that there are verses supporting them in the Qur'an? 

Quote

who made this rule? your mujtahid?:hahaha: 

there are many sermons in Nahj al Balagha without the chain. so do you accept them or not?

To answer your question about nahjul balagha, you should know that in itself it is not a primary source of hadeeth. Rather sharif al radhi has compiled sermons from different sources, many of them sunni sources in fact. So I certainly don't blindly accept any and every sermon, it needs to be evaluated just like any other hadith.

Quote

by the way, this is just tafseer according to your own will which is kufr according to the Narrations. and I've warned you already in the previous threads saying not to do tafseer by your own will.

It isn't tafseer. It's simply a fact of the arabic language that wilayah is a vast term with different levels and meanings. When you grow up and get married even you will become a wali over your wife and kids. 

And as you know, it's a fact that there are verses where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has defined wilayah for Himself and verses where he has defined wilayah for the ma'soomeen (عليه السلام).

To suggest that this is tafseer shows an ignorance on your part of what tafseer is.

At the end of the day I think enough time has been wasted on circular discussions.

The narrations from the aimmah (عليه السلام) are present for those who want to refer to them. If you want to attribute falsehood to them, for the strange reason that you think the aimmah didn't believe Allah to be the only creator and the only provider of sustenance, then it's your own risk.

As salaamu alaikum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Seems like a good place to bring in some quotes from an old thread of mine: 

Shaykh Mufeed on ghuluw:

Quote

The adherents of the doctrine of delegation (al-Mufawwidah) are a group of extremists who are distinguished from the others by their peculiar claim that though the Imams are created, originated beings, and not eternal, yet they ascribe to them creation and sustaining. Also, they maintained that Allah, the Exalted, created them and ceased to create, delegating to them the creation of the world and what lay therein.

[...]

Indeed, it is a sufficient sign of excess to claim that the Imams are not created beings, and that they are divine and eternal, since the only logical conclusion of this assertion is excess; that the Imams are the creators of bodies, originators of substances, and bring into existence accidents which are beyond human power. We need no more than this to judge or to ascertain their position without the signs which Abu Ja‘far, holds the marks of excess.

For those who don't have very good reading comprehension he is saying that if you believe that the Imams "are the creators of bodies, originators of substances, and bring into existence accidents which are beyond human power" then you are a ghali. And he says that while essentially almost accusing Shaykh Saduq of taqsir!

Shaykh Tusi in his tafsir of the Qur'an says:

Quote

The intended meaning of creation (in this verse) is taqdir (ordainment) apart from ihdath (generation). It is said in the explanation that he made from clay as the shape of a bat, and blew thereon and so it became a bird. And the meaning of “I blow thereon”, meaning: I blow the soul (ar-ruh) in it, and it is a subtle body like the wind. And it is other than the life (al-hayat), for the body is only made alive by what Allah does in it of life, for bodies – all of them – are alike, Allah makes to live from them whatever He wills. And he only conditioned his saying of “and it shall become a bird by the permission of Allah” and did not condition his saying of “I will create for you out of clay as though it were the form of a bird” with mention of the permission of Allah so that he might remind by the mention of the permission (al-idhn) that it is from the act of Allah apart from `Isa. But as to the formation and the blowing, then it was his (`Isa’s) act, for it is not of what enters under the determined (maqdur) of qadr. But the transformation of the inanimate body into a living creature is not like that, for no one is able to do that apart from Him. And his saying “and I will bring the dead to life by the permission of Allah” is on a figurative sense in adjoining it to himself, while its reality is that he would pray to Allah to revive the dead, so Allah would revive them and they would live by His permission.

(Tafsir at-tibyan)

 

So Allah gave life to the bird, not `Isa (عليه السلام). As a friend pointed out to me recently, do the ghulat think that Musa (عليه السلام) was physically manipulating the water molecules when the sea was parted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Quote

 bring Narrations and not some Nonsensical opinions by a fallible. and the opinions which you posted are itself contradictory with the Holy verses of the Holy Qur'an. if you want to know how, give some trouble to youself and read the previous pages.

Those fallibles preserved the religion for us, so have a bit of respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Simple answer, The 12 Imams and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) don't know the knowledge of the unseen unless Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has told them through an angel or the knowledge has been passed down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
9 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Simple answer, The 12 Imams and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) don't know the knowledge of the unseen unless Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has told them through an angel or the knowledge has been passed down.

You would think it would be simple...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Quote

@786:) i see you didn't respond yesterday.

are you satisfied enough that the name i mentioned was not Asif raza alvi?

but rather that was a usooli guy who presents fatwas and opinions of your mujtahids (like you people do) and he even wears a turban too.

Have not had a chance to read everything. Nonetheless, Usoolis are only bound by the fiqh of mujtahids—not in the matters of aqeedah. I have not watched the video, but if Ali Raza Rizvi believes in Tafweed then I wholeheartedly disagree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Quote

those very flalibles could've quoted Narrations instead of giving opinions without fearing Allah (عزّ وجلّ). 

even they knew they don't have any references from the Holy Qur'an or the Narrations which are compatible with the Holy Qur'an.

similarly even you're very well aware that there's no option to win this, so why not start doing personals attacks on the members who've proved thier points by bringing the verses from the Holy Qur'an and proved the Narrations you brought as fabrications.

let me see what you got next.

Do you accept there are clear contradictions in Bihar ul Anwar or Al Kafi? If so, what is your method to validate the authentic side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

For example,

hadith 1) Imam says: I grant life and death and give sustenance.

hadith 2) Imam says: Only Allah grants life and death and gives sustence.

How is hadith 2 in contradiction to the Quran? When there are clear cut verses that emphasize this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PsYchological Warfare

Five time a Day We announce (Link)  Ash hadu anna Amiral Mu'minina 'Aliyyan Waliyyullah ( I testify that the Commander of the faithful, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is the vicegerent of Allah)

 

My Layman understanding ( link) Tawheed

 

Ghulat ( link) Classical Scholars and According to Jurists

 

"..Ghulat (i.e. those who believe one of the holy twelve Imams to be God or say that God has penetrated into him)..."

Ayatullah Abul Qasim al-Khu'i.

https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui/impure-things-najasat#infidel

"..Ghulat who believe in any of the holy twelve Imams as God, or that they are incarnations of God.."

Ayatullah al-Sayyid Ali al-Hussani al-Sistani.

http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2132/

"ghulÁt—those who believe in the divinity of an Imam or believe that God dwells within their bodies—"

ÀyatullÁh al-‘UÛmÁ Shaykh Íusain WaÎÐd KhurÁsÁnÐ

Page 35

http://wahidkhorasani.com/Data/Books/ISLAMIC LAWS.pdf

Now 

Ones who use classical Scholars understanding of the issue of that time, should also consider the view of the classical Scholars regarding the Status (Link) Why the Almighty Allah ordered angels to prostrate before Adam ((عليه السلام).)?

Or you are just cherry picking what suits your narrative. 

Or if you are a follower of the leader of Tragedy of Thursday, who claimed’ Book is sufficient” meaning Thank you very much( mailman) , we now have the ball in our hands we will define what is Islam not you. And propagate the narrative of you were just a common man used for delivery, To them Everything is Exaggeration ( Ghulat) .

If your understanding of A iis 10 and our is infinite . 

If your understanding of M is 1 and our is 100

If we say M is 100 you will classify it as Exaggeration.

Subjective interpretations were/are/will be used to divide and conquer. 

Link to comment
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...