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

Popular Shia Sheikh says that Imam Ali(as) is equal to the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Knock knock whos there? Wahabi Lol

This narration where Ali (عليه السلام) said i am a slave of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)is weak as said by Allamah Majlisi in Mirat Ul Uqool. So it wom't count as a hujjah till proven.

He can't be "one of the slaves" come on.

Oh so now believing that Imam Ali was a student and obeyer of Rasoolallah is a Wahhabi position. Whats next? Believing Allah is one is Wahhabi?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's just Modarresi being Modarresi. This Sunni Defense channel are doing a whole series on him, which is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. This is the full video: Around the 1

He said the truth. Let me elaborate his message although I haven't seen the video. And I would like to build my argument on the basis of just one verse of Qur'an: Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 61

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said that he is a slave of Muhammad (S).   and this isn’t fake humility and nor is it a slave to the mere “function” of prophethood as prophethood (nubbuwat and risalat) in

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

That argument thag we can't find in books of people in chain is worhtless.

For example i read, that Sheikh Sadooq wrote 200+ books.

How many of then you have today?

Not even 20?

Even lost a book "Bab Madina tul Ilm" and that left us with The Four books only instead of five.

So this argument is nothing. 

Right... because of course a hadith like that would be narrated by random people who don’t show up anywhere else, go unmentioned (even as in passing reference) in all the books we do have, only to reappear out of nowhere 1000 years later in some unnamed book. That absolutely sounds like the kind of proof you should use for your beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Knock knock whos there? Wahabi Lol

This narration where Ali (عليه السلام) said i am a slave of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)is weak as said by Allamah Majlisi in Mirat Ul Uqool. So it wom't count as a hujjah till proven.

He can't be "one of the slaves" come on.

 

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

That argument thag we can't find in books of people in chain is worhtless.

For example i read, that Sheikh Sadooq wrote 200+ books.

How many of then you have today?

Not even 20?

Even lost a book "Bab Madina tul Ilm" and that left us with The Four books only instead of five.

So this argument is nothing. 

 

Huh? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)

Soon we are going to argue about how many wings particular Angels have. This is horrifying, soon our greatest Scholars are gone and we are left with ones who will only bring arguments that does not benefit us anymore in our guidance.

He said: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Umar al-Ji’abi reported from Abdullah ibn Ishaq, who reported from Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Baghvi, who reported from Abu Qatan, who reported from Hisham al-Dastwai, from Yahya ibn Abu Katheer, from Urwah, from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, said:

"Surely, Allah does not withdraw knowledge from the people by erasing it from their minds; rather, He does so by taking away the learned people (from among them). And when there is no learned man around, people adopt the ignorant men as their leaders, and refer their questions to these (ignorant leaders), who answer without any knowledge, thus going astray, and causing others to go astray."

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I don’t know if it’s funny or sad, but in every clip the Sunnis use against Modarresi, he is quoting a weak hadith, and usually one that is ridiculously weak, not just weak due to an unknown narrator or something. Maybe he would cause less embarrassment if he just stuck to what was reliable?

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

I don’t know if it’s funny or sad, but in every clip the Sunnis use against Modarresi, he is quoting a weak hadith, and usually one that is ridiculously weak, not just weak due to an unknown narrator or something. Maybe he would cause less embarrassment if he just stuck to what was reliable?

Well he’s came out and said 95% of Shia traditions are authentic. What do you expect? Left 5% wiggle room to call the non-ghuluw narrations not authentic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
14 minutes ago, 786:) said:

Well he’s came out and said 95% of Shia traditions are authentic. What do you expect? Left 5% wiggle room to call the non-ghuluw narrations not authentic.

Are you saying 95% of our hadith are ghuluw? Astaghfirullah

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

It seems that the view that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) have the same qualities but are different in terms of Prophethood and Imamat is a view that is also espoused in the below video. The sheikh narrates the incident of Mubahila. Skip to 10:30.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, 786:) said:

Oh so now believing that Imam Ali was a student and obeyer of Rasoolallah is a Wahhabi position. Whats next? Believing Allah is one is Wahhabi?

Nope. 

Saying "One of the Slaves of Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)" doesn't seem right. Or may be that translation is incorrect. Since Ali (عليه السلام) wasn't a slave of Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Because Fatimah (عليه السلام) wasn't married to a Slave Nauzobillah. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Right... because of course a hadith like that would be narrated by random people who don’t show up anywhere else, go unmentioned (even as in passing reference) in all the books we do have, only to reappear out of nowhere 1000 years later in some unnamed book. That absolutely sounds like the kind of proof you should use for your beliefs.

No dear.

It was quoted by Authentic Thiqa scholor not a forger.

So i just mean,

If you see names of Sheikh Mufeed , and other great classical scholors and can't find it in their books, you must know how much of the books you have lost over time.

Like 200 vs under 15? Thats really low.

So this sort of argument is invalid.

Especially a hadith, who's matn is supported by various Sahih Hadiths. Even Sunni hadiths.

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

I've come across various opinions of our scholars, both classical and contemporary, discussing how there exists a difference of opinion on whether the A'immah are greater than the rest of prophets (after Prophet Muhammad). Or if the A'immah are greater only than the rest of the prophets after ulu al-`azm. Or if the Ai'mmah are only the greatest of creation after all the prophets.

I may be wrong, but I haven't seen any of our scholars even discuss whether Imam Ali was equal to Prophet Muhammad. They probably underestimated the threat and the extent of ghuluw which has crept into the beliefs of Shi'as today. Sayed Mahdi Modaressi is the first sheikh I've come across saying Imam Ali is equal to the Prophet. I've heard many speakers on the minbar also implying similar claims trying to get a rouse out of the audience. But to hear this sort of thing from a much more learned person is disappointing.

The closest thing I could find which clearly mentions rankings (which is what seems people here are looking for) is in al-Kafi

(...)

فقال: إن خير الخلق يوم يجمعهم الله الرسل وإن أفضل الرسل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وإن أفضل كل أمة بعد نبيها وصي نبيها حتى يدركه نبي، ألا وإن أفضل الأوصياء وصي محمد عليه وآله السلام، ألا وإن أفضل الخلق بعد الأوصياء الشهداء

(...)

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1122_الكافي-الشيخ-الكليني-ج-١/الصفحة_498

Edited by Jaabir
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn Mahbub from al-Hassan ibn Nu‘aym al-Sahhaf who has said the following. “I asked abu ‘Abdallah ((عليه السلام).) about the words of Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious. “. .some of you have accepted the faith and some of you have not.. .” (64:2) The Imam ((عليه السلام).) said, “On the day that Allah made all the offspring of Adam to make a covenant with Him when they were just small particles He made faith our Wilaya, (Leadership with Divine Authority) the standard for faith and disbelief.”.

Allamah Baqir al-Majlisi: حسن - Mir‘at al ‘Uqul Fi Sharh Akhbar Al al Rasul (5/10)

 حدثنا يعقوب بن يزيد عن الحسن بن محبوب عن محمد بن الفضيل عن أبي الحسن عليه السلام قال ولاية على مكتوب (3) في جميع صحف الأنبياء ولن يبعث الله نبيا الا بنبوة محمد وولاية وصيه علي عليه السلام
بصائر الدرجات - محمد بن الحسن الصفار - الصفحة ٩٢

He (عليه السلام) said the Wilayah of Ali is written in all the Mushafs of prophets, and Allah never sent a Prophet except on (after accepting) prophet-hood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and the Wilayah of Ali (عليه السلام). Basair AL Darjaat is older than AL-Kafi. 

and there are a bunch of such narrations in Al-Kafi and even in Amali e Tusi , once i get it, i will share if needed.

So saying Imams (عليه السلام) are below Prophets except for Muhamamd (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is not a shia aqeedah and it doesn't matter what a classical or modern scholor say so, it just proves that they had very less Mari'fat of Aima (عليه السلام).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

 

 حدثنا يعقوب بن يزيد عن الحسن بن محبوب عن محمد بن الفضيل عن أبي الحسن عليه السلام قال ولاية على مكتوب (3) في جميع صحف الأنبياء ولن يبعث الله نبيا الا بنبوة محمد وولاية وصيه علي عليه السلام
بصائر الدرجات - محمد بن الحسن الصفار - الصفحة ٩٢

He (عليه السلام) said the Wilayah of Ali is written in all the Mushafs of prophets, and Allah never sent a Prophet except on (after accepting) prophet-hood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and the Wilayah of Ali (عليه السلام). Basair AL Darjaat is older than AL-Kafi. 

and there are a bunch of such narrations in Al-Kafi and even in Amali e Tusi , once i get it, i will share if needed.

So saying Imams (عليه السلام) are below Prophets except for Muhamamd (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is not a shia aqeedah and it doesn't matter what a classical or modern scholor say so, it just proves that they had very less Mari'fat of Aima (عليه السلام).

Muhammad b. Fudail is weak, accused of ghuluw. And the content is problematic, since this isn’t in the Qur’an. If you want to believe in narrations like this, then you probably need to commit yourself to believing in tahrif of the Qur’an.

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

Muhammad b. Fudail is weak, accused of ghuluw. And the content is problematic, since this isn’t in the Qur’an. If you want to believe in narrations like this, then you probably need to commit yourself to believing in tahrif of the Qur’an.

Ghuluw is in terms of Aqaid and shia takes narrations of Non-Shia thiqa people and these narrations are considered موثق

Muhammad Bin Fusail is honest in terms of hadith transmission.

Also criticism from classical scholors just based on ghuluw is un acceptable. Especially of people who are trustworthy in hadith transmission.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Muhammad b. Fudail is weak, accused of ghuluw. And the content is problematic, since this isn’t in the Qur’an. If you want to believe in narrations like this, then you probably need to commit yourself to believing in tahrif of the Qur’an.

Hadith of thaqalayn isn't in Quran.

Rakahs of Namaz arent in Quran.

Names of 5 Namaz arent in Quran.

And so on.. 

This doesn't make them problematic 

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

Muhammad b. Fudail is weak, accused of ghuluw. And the content is problematic, since this isn’t in the Qur’an. If you want to believe in narrations like this, then you probably need to commit yourself to believing in tahrif of the Qur’an.

Muhamamd Bin Fudail is reliable according to a bunch of classical scholors since Hassan Bin Mehboob has narrated from him

And Hassan Bin Mehboob is from among Ashaab Al Ijma and Al-Kashi mentioned Ijma of shias on accepting narrations of Ashaab Al Ijma.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

then you probably need to commit yourself to believing in tahrif of the Qur’an

Our scholors have interpreted all those hadiths in the way that it proved Tehreef(in terms of omission).

And this isn't the topic. I will make a thread on it by list some Ahle sunnah scholor vids and refuting tehreef based upon taweel of hadith they do to defend narrations of tehreef in their books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Mufazzal Bin Umar Al-Mahalby reported from his men, a correct report, from Muhammad Bin Sabit who said,

‘Abu Al-Hassan Musa (عليه السلام) narrated to me saying: ‘Rasool-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said to Ali (عليه السلام): ‘I am a Rasool of Allah, the Preacher from Him, and you are the Face of Allah Conferred by Him. Therefore there is no match for me except for you, and no similarity to you except for me’.

( Ta'veel Al Aayaat  13  ت2 :567 /38)

In the similar book, there is another hadith but I don't know anything about their authenticity.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
16 hours ago, 786:) said:

Well he’s came out and said 95% of Shia traditions are authentic. What do you expect? Left 5% wiggle room to call the non-ghuluw narrations not authentic.

Let us all see when and where he said that. 

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

Muhammad b. Fudail is weak, accused of ghuluw. And the content is problematic, since this isn’t in the Qur’an. If you want to believe in narrations like this, then you probably need to commit yourself to believing in tahrif of the Qur’an.

He has narrated in:

1. Tafseer e Qummi (Tawtheeq#1)

2. Kamil Az-Ziaraat (Tawtheeq#2) Ch#39

3. Ashaab Al Ijma narrated from him (Tawtheeq#3)

4. 7/288 14299 - محمد بن الفضيل بن كثير الأزدي الكوفي الصيرفي أبو جعفر الأزرق: عدوه من أصحاب الصادق والكاظم والرضا صلوات الله عليهم. استضعفوه ورموه بالغلو. لكن يستفاد حسنه وكماله ودفع الرمي من مكاتبته إلى أبي جعفر الجواد عليه السلام. كمبا ج 12 / 111، وجد ج 50 / 53، والعيون ج 1 / 56، وج 2 / 221

A companion of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام), Kadhim (عليه السلام), Reza (عليه السلام) He was weakened, and charged with Ghulu, but we find Goodness/hasan and Glory/kamal in him, and the charge of Ghulu gets removed... (tawtheeq#4)

5. Ayatullah Khoi in his Rijal Volume 18 page 152 graded two of his narrations in Al-Kafi as Sahih.

فقد روى الكليني بسند صحيح، عن الحسين بن سعيد، عن محمد بن الفضيل، عن أبي جعفر الثاني عليه السلام. الكافي: الجزء 2، كتاب الدعاء 2، باب القول عند الاصباح والامساء 48، الحديث 36.
وروى بسنده الصحيح أيضا عنه، عن محمد بن الفضيل، عن أبي جعفر الثاني. الكافي: الجزء 4، كتاب الحج 

Al-Kulayni narrated with a saheeh isnaad, on the authority of Al-Hussein bin Saeed, on the authority of Muhammad bin Al-Fudhail, on the authority of Abu Jaafar II, peace be upon him. Al-Kafi: Part 2, Supplication Book 2, Chapter 48, Hadith 36. And he narrated with his authentic chain of narration also on his authority, on the authority of Muhammad bin Al-Fadil, on the authority of Abu Jaafar II. Al Kafi: Part 4, Hajj Book 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Ghuluw is in terms of Aqaid and shia takes narrations of Non-Shia thiqa people and these narrations are considered موثق

Muhammad Bin Fusail is honest in terms of hadith transmission.

Also criticism from classical scholors just based on ghuluw is un acceptable. Especially of people who are trustworthy in hadith transmission.

What’s your evidence of him being reliable in hadith transmission?

And why are accusations of ghuluw unacceptable from the classical scholars? They had access to more information than us and were closer to the time of the Imams. Why would it assume people now understand the religion better than them?

3 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Muhamamd Bin Fudail is reliable according to a bunch of classical scholors since Hassan Bin Mehboob has narrated from him

And Hassan Bin Mehboob is from among Ashaab Al Ijma and Al-Kashi mentioned Ijma of shias on accepting narrations of Ashaab Al Ijma.

Al-Kashshi didn’t say that there is consensus on accepting any hadith from them no matter what the source. He says there was consensus on them being reliable narrators in themselves.

3 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Our scholors have interpreted all those hadiths in the way that it proved Tehreef(in terms of omission).

And this isn't the topic. I will make a thread on it by list some Ahle sunnah scholor vids and refuting tehreef based upon taweel of hadith they do to defend narrations of tehreef in their books.

This is the difference between us. I’m not willing to throw the Qur’an under the bus in order to accept dubious narrations. It doesn’t even make all that sense for you either, since I assume you believe in referring hadiths back to the Qur’an. Why would the Imams tell us to refer back to a corrupted source? You could say that things have only being omitted, but that in itself could change the context, and therefore the meaning. And then if words are removed from individual ayaat, then obviously that would change the meaning of those ayaat. So you would need to reject the principle of comparing with the Qur’an as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

This is the difference between us. I’m not willing to throw the Qur’an under the bus in order to accept dubious narrations. It doesn’t even make all that sense for you either, since I assume you believe in referring hadiths back to the Qur’an. Why would the Imams tell us to refer back to a corrupted source? You could say that things have only being omitted, but that in itself could change the context, and therefore the meaning. And then if words are removed from individual ayaat, then obviously that would change the meaning of those ayaat. So you would need to reject the principle of comparing with the Qur’an as well.

I guess you have got some serious issues

Tehreef is proven, not from dubious narrations but from Saheeh narrations.

Quran isn't a corrupted source. Only ayahs and parts were lost and removed by Companions.

Talk about context? Ok lets accept Quran is 100% same, please prove conext of Ayah e Tatheer and that Ayah e Baligh and ayah 5:3 was revealed at ghadeer.

No. The meanings would not change. Haven't you read the Quran? Allah has said he sent down Zikr and he is protecting it. So the message of Quran must reach everyone inorder to assure protection. And thats one of Miracles of Allah Almighty.

And you have to derive meanings by using Quran and hadith both, not only Quran. So tbere is no chance meanings would change. Indeed its in protection of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

We cannot use one ayah, without Tafseer of Imams and just by using commentary of fallible scholors, we cannot reject a 100s of authentic narrations.

6 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Al-Kashshi didn’t say that there is consensus on accepting any hadith from them no matter what the source. He says there was consensus on them being reliable narrators in themselves

In correct.  There is ijma on accuracy of "hadiths" transmitted by them. You can check it out.

 

6 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

What’s your evidence of him being reliable in hadith transmission?

And why are accusations of ghuluw unacceptable from the classical scholars? They had access to more information than us and were closer to the time of the Imams. Why would it assume people now understand the religion better than them

Ok. Lets believe he was Ghali. But ghuluw is in terms of Aqeedah.

And in Usool Al Hadith, a hadith of someome who has corrupted belief system is "موثق" like people from Waqafi sect, Sunni sect etc. So why soo much issues with Shias just because of ghuluw?

You need to look what you are doing. You are throwing away a bunch of narrations like this. We already have alot of weak narrations and thats enough.

6 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Why would it assume people now understand the religion better than them

And its in hadiths, i think, but i will confirm first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

I guess you have got some serious issues

Tehreef is proven, not from dubious narrations but from Saheeh narrations.

There aren’t that many that could be considered Sahih. In fact, I think there may only be one, and then that has been challenged. In any case it doesn’t matter. If it’s a choice between the Qur’an and narrations, I’m picking the Qur’an.

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Quran isn't a corrupted source. Only ayahs and parts were lost and removed by Companions.

Lol. Parts of an ayah can be lost, but the Qur’an isn’t corrupted? Taking a word out of any sentence can completely change the meaning. So how would it not be corrupted, especially if as you say they were ‘removed’ by the companions. That’s corruption in anyone’s mind.

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Talk about context? Ok lets accept Quran is 100% same, please prove conext of Ayah e Tatheer and that Ayah e Baligh and ayah 5:3 was revealed at ghadeer.

Why would I need to? Obviously the Qur’an itself doesn’t tell you when and where any particular ayah was revealed. But there are verses that go together, and if you move them around (or worse, parts of verses), then you can completely change the meaning of the text.

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

No. The meanings would not change. Haven't you read the Quran? Allah has said he sent down Zikr and he is protecting it. So the message of Quran must reach everyone inorder to assure protection. And thats one of Miracles of Allah Almighty.

How is Allah protecting it if He allowed the companions to remove verses that deal with wilaya?

And what good is it for the message of the Qur’an to reach everyone if the message is no longer the true one?

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

And you have to derive meanings by using Quran and hadith both, not only Quran. So tbere is no chance meanings would change. Indeed its in protection of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

So what do you do with the narrations they tell you to refer back to the Qur’an? Interpret them to mean refer back the Qur’an and other hadiths?

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

We cannot use one ayah, without Tafseer of Imams and just by using commentary of fallible scholors, we cannot reject a 100s of authentic narrations.

We don’t have reliable reports from the Imams for every ayah. I’m not sure which 100s of authentic reports you are referring to.

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

In correct.  There is ijma on accuracy of "hadiths" transmitted by them. You can check it out.

So in that case do you accept a mursal report from one of them?

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Ok. Lets believe he was Ghali. But ghuluw is in terms of Aqeedah.

And in Usool Al Hadith, a hadith of someome who has corrupted belief system is "موثق" like people from Waqafi sect, Sunni sect etc. So why soo much issues with Shias just because of ghuluw?

Because of the severity win which ghuluw has been criticised by the Imams. And also because you don’t accept hadiths from someone with a deviant aqeedah when the narrations they are transmitting reinforce their deviance. So for example you wouldn’t accept a hadith indicating that there were only 7 Imams from a Waqifi. So if someone who has been accused of ghuluw (and also being da`if, let’s not forget about that), narrates strange hadiths like the one you provided then you have to consider the strong possibility that their ghali beliefs might be a factor.

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

You need to look what you are doing. You are throwing away a bunch of narrations like this. We already have alot of weak narrations and thats enough.

Because they don’t make any sense. And why would having weak narrations be a factor. We know that the ghulat having been fabricating narrations since at least the time of Imam al-Baqir (عليه السلام), if not Imam Ali (عليه السلام). So obviously at this point in time we are going to have many fabricated narrations in our books.

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

And its in hadiths, i think, but i will confirm first.

What? That later Shias scholars are more reliable in beliefs than early ones?

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

There aren’t that many that could be considered Sahih. In fact, I think there may only be one, and then that has been challenged. In any case it doesn’t matter. If it’s a choice between the Qur’an and narrations, I’m picking the Qur’an.

This is going to be my last reply since i don't want to repeat 

There are many authentic narrations. And even if you consider many weak, you'll still be left with saheeh traditions on tehreef which will make others "weak" authentic by giving them support.

You are choosing between:

1. Qias on Ayah of Quran against authentic hadiths

Vs

2. Interpretation of Ayah in light of authentic hadiths.

So in the end you're choosing to Reject a bunch of authentic traditions by labeling them as "contradictory " traditions.

1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Lol. Parts of an ayah can be lost, but the Qur’an isn’t corrupted? Taking a word out of any sentence can completely change the meaning. So how would it not be corrupted, especially if as you say they were ‘removed’ by the companions. That’s corruption in anyone’s mind.

Yes taking a word out can change meaning but For Quran, its guarded by Allah and you'll not be able to do anything that destroy its meaning. And thats what protection is.

1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

How is Allah protecting it if He allowed the companions to remove verses that deal with wilaya?

And what good is it for the message of the Qur’an to reach everyone if the message is no longer the true one?

He is protecting it by sending the same message parallel to Quran. Through Ahlebait as said by Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in. Mutawatir hadith of Ghadeer-e-khum.

As for 2nd paragraph, you seem to be writing questions without thinking. Thus its my last reply to you. The message has indeed reached you, so how dare you say message of Allah hasn't reached us? And when did i say something can be added to Quran? The only case in which the received message would not be true is if something was added to Quran but it isn't possible as confirmed by Mutawatir hadith of Thaqalayn.

1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

So in that case do you accept a mursal report from one of them?

Not me, classical scholors did. Why are you innovating Usool e hadith.  You are just like Salafi sect who innovated Usool-e-hadith of their own.

1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Because of the severity win which ghuluw has been criticised by the Imams. And also because you don’t accept hadiths from someone with a deviant aqeedah when the narrations they are transmitting reinforce their deviance. So for example you wouldn’t accept a hadith indicating that there were only 7 Imams from a Waqifi. So if someone who has been accused of ghuluw (and also being da`if, let’s not forget about that), narrates strange hadiths like the one you provided then you have to consider the strong possibility that their ghali beliefs might be a factor.

My dear brother 

It clearly tells that you did even bother to read about the basic gradings of hadith.

If one is found lying, and its proven, then all tawtheeq is rendered void.

But if one is honest in hadith transmission, and has corrupted belief system, then such a hadith is موثق not weak. It entirely depends upon which narrator you are talking about.

If you are talking about Muhamamd bin Fudail, then you've lied that he used to fabricate because he was a ghali, and you know accusing someone of something without an evidence has strict punishment in Islam. And secondly,  the law you quoted, that when some reliable person transmit something that supports his innovation, we reject it. Where did you get this? From salafis? Wake up before its late.

Plus Muhammad Bin Fudail isn't weak dude. He was called weak due to Ghuluw and that is nothing. Classical scholors held some strange beliefs as well.

And the narration i am talking about, its found in all of our major books like Al-Kafi, Basair Al Darajaat, Amali e Tusi, Bihaar ect.

Even in books of Ahle-Sunnah like Tafseer-e-Thalabi, You should be ashamed of calling yourself a shia dude seriously. 

And according to Allamah Syed Imtiaz Abbas Kazmi, he gave a reference of a book of some famous ayatullah who ghathered 500 chains for this hadith only and yet you are calling it weak?

 

So now you are rejecting hadith because? It doesnt make sense? Do you even know what are you saying? May Allah guide you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Honestly, talking to you people is a waste of time.

Quran is the greater of Thaqlayn according to Rasoolallah. The Quran was the Imam of the Imams. Yet you get triggered when someone minimizes the Imams, but you have no problem minimizing the Quran. This akhbaari manhaj is a strange thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

Ya Ali
Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali  Ya Ali

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, 786:) said:

Quran is the greater of Thaqlayn according to Rasoolallah. The Quran was the Imam of the Imams. Yet you get triggered when someone minimizes the Imams, but you have no problem minimizing the Quran. This akhbaari manhaj is a strange thing.

Can you share narrations from Shia Books that say Quran is greater than Thaqalayn?

Go ahead.

You really have weird beliefs like Quran was Imam of imams.

Actaully Verses were revealed upon action of Imams (عليه السلام) like 5:55 ect.

No one is minimizing Quran here. Whats the point of writing this message?

My mention of hadith of Thaqalyn was because i wanted to establish that Quran and Ahlebait are two sources of guidance. If you hold fast to them you'll never go astray and that is only possible if there are no additions in the Book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
55 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Can you share narrations from Shia Books that say Quran is greater than Thaqalayn?

Go ahead.

You really have weird beliefs like Quran was Imam of imams.

Actaully Verses were revealed upon action of Imams (عليه السلام) like 5:55 ect.

No one is minimizing Quran here. Whats the point of writing this message?

My mention of hadith of Thaqalyn was because i wanted to establish that Quran and Ahlebait are two sources of guidance. If you hold fast to them you'll never go astray and that is only possible if there are no additions in the Book.

Read through this thread there are several narrations shared that say the Qur'an is weightier than the Ahl al-Bayt

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
18 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Honestly, talking to you people is a waste of time.

Humble yourself brother 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Any Muslim that proceeds to say Muhammad (saws) is better than an Ul Al Azam (5 greatest prophets Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad) is doing innovation (bidah).

 

Quote

 "The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him by his Lord, and so do the believers. Each one of them believes in God, His angels, His books, and His messengers. We make no distinction between any of His messengers. And they say, ‘We hear and we obey. Grant us forgiveness, Our Lord; to You we shall all return" [2: 285].

 "Those who deny God and His messengers, and want to make a distinction between belief in God and belief in His messengers, and say: 'We believe in some but we deny others,' and want to pursue a path in between - those, in truth, are unbelievers" [4: 150 - 151].

And then there's this beautiful verse about Jesus (saws) showing his supreme presitige as an example as to why we don't make comparisons between prophets.

 

Quote

"Those are the Messengers! We have exalted some of them above others. To some God spoke directly, and some He raised in rank. We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit" [2: 253].

Notice how the word "some" even in Arabic means more than the singular form which is why the Quran itself denies Muhammad (saws) being better than Jesus (saws) let alone their grandfather Abraham (saws).

 

Another point I would like to stress is that nowhere in the Quran does it say Muhammad (saws) family is superior over previous holy families such as Jesus (saws) and Abraham (saws), but they are chosen to be followed by Allah in the Quran without distinction.

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...