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

“The city of knowledge” hadith

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

If someone doesn't want to believe a hadith and insists on weakening it. There is not much you can do. If you bring the opinion of a Sunni scholar they will say we don't follow him and our scholar.....weakened hadith because of this or that reason.

Present hadiths they all have to accept. Eg Ghadir, Harun to Musa. 

If they then interpret it to mean something less. No point continuing the discussion as they are set on their ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
4 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

This is not how discourse works.

وعليكم السلام

Not sure what you mean by that, I think the brother gave a good reply.

If they say it's weak according to their standards how do you expect them to accept it? Also, have you taken the time to research the matter yourself?

Anyway, the late brother Toyib Olawuyi wrote some excellent books on these types of discussions.

Perhaps you can start with this one

https://www.al-islam.org/ali-best-sahabah-toyib-olawuyi

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
8 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

Not sure what you mean by that, I think the brother gave a good reply.

If they say it's weak according to their standards how do you expect them to accept it? Also, have you taken the time to research the matter yourself?

Anyway, the late brother Toyib Olawuyi wrote some excellent books on these types of discussions.

Perhaps you can start with this one

https://www.al-islam.org/ali-best-sahabah-toyib-olawuyi

But do their books really say that? This is my inquiry. They seem to quote different scholars saying “Dhaeef” “Mutawatir” etc., yet how truthful are these labels? Why have these labels been given? Based on what criteria? Some say, “well a certain person in the link isn’t truthful”, according to which Sunni scholar? 

This is my question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

But do their books really say that? This is my inquiry. They seem to quote different scholars saying “Dhaeef” “Mutawatir” etc., yet how truthful are these labels? Why have these labels been given? Based on what criteria? Some say, “well a certain person in the link isn’t truthful”, according to which Sunni scholar? 

This is my question.

Ok I understand I'm going to go a little off topic. And write a long post (sorry)

Sunni beleive they have a completely objective hadith system.

The main problem is that the system isn't objective eg like maths.

Otherwise there would be uniformity on all the hadith they agree on.

So unless a person is genuinely seeking the truth they will cherry pick an opinion that suits them. And since Sunni are so vast in both theology and episitmology they will find an excuse. A salafi will go to the extent of forming there own rijal opinions if they need. Claiming they follow no one blindly and they are following the objective hadith system.

Going back to the the genuine person. If they are genuine then there are stronger hadith like Ghadir, two weighty things etc.

Which goes back to my original point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

السلام عليكم إخوان

Firstly, the following Sunni scholars weakened the hadeeth:

1) Al-Bukhari, 2) Al Shawkani, 3) al-Daraqutni, 4) ibn Ma'een (who is known as being lenient in grading hadeeth), 5) al-Tirmidhi (also lenient) , 6) al Uqayli, 7) ibn al-Arabi, 8) ibn Taymiyyah and 9) al-Dhahabi and 10) Al-Albani.  Some of them graded it as being fabricated, والله أعلم.  I am not sure of any reputable Sunni scholar strengthened this hadeeth except al-Hakim, but his Mustadrak is considered to actually have around 30% weak ahadeeth, and even ahadeeth found in Bukhari and Muslim despite it supposedly being a Mustadrak of those two books!  Therefore, his authentication can't be taken into account when faced with all those other authorities.

Secondly, even if the hadeeth was strong, the Sunni scholars, except for the Hanbali and Salafis, don't accept solitary reports as a source for aqeedah.  So you can only really use this hadeeth on Salafis since no one else will base their aqeedah on it, and as we see, both ibn Tamiyyah and al-Albani, as well as all the Salafi polemicists I've seen view this hadeeth as weak if not downright fabricated.

Thirdly, the ahadeeth that Shi'as use for evidence for the concept of Imamism are not, such as the ones @Ali bin Husseinis referencing, explicit at all in proving Imamism, as the Muslims who quoted these ahadeeth never understood them as such.  Even al-Hakim, who we are going on the assumption strengthened this hadeeth, as still a card carrying Sunni.  Had these evidences actually been explicit, then the Shi'as themselves would agree to what they indicate.  Instead, we have at least three different Shi'a sects around today that operate as different religions, not to mention the countless of Shi'a branches throughout history, who didn't agree on what these ahadeeth indicate. 

Fourthly, 

2 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Sunni beleive they have a completely objective hadith system.

The main problem is that the system isn't objective eg like maths.

 I think impartial would be a better term than objective.  Since Ilm al-Hadeeth is a study of history, it can never been a 100% science, but a person can be impartial in affirming and weakening ahadeeth.  Therefore, it is only natural that people differ, much like they differ over which historical events they believe happened and which ones didn't.  The claim that non-Shi'as make, is that their hadeeth system is based on corroborated reports coming from a variety of different narrators, i.e. you find every single kind of Islamic sect being represented in a book like Sahih al-Bukhari or Muslim.  The claim is that Shia reports, whether they come from Zaydi or 12er sources, are not corroborated and are limited to reports that come only from Shi'as.  Then, these reports are graded, by 12ers at least, based on what makes sense with their theology, making their system seriously flawed in the eyes of everyone who is not them, which I think you would agree on.  The problem is, I'm not sure why the Zaydi hadeeth science would be any more reliable.

بارك الله فيكم

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
38 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

The problem is, I'm not sure why the Zaydi hadeeth science would be any more reliable.

بارك الله فيكم

Hmmm from a Sunni perspective it's not reliable. Zaidi put ijma of Ahlulbayt above any singular narrated hadith 

And the basic aqeeda is based on mutawatir hadith. Eg Ghadir, to weighty things. 

Some *"Zaidi" scholars in the past have not included Imamat in as an essential point of aqeeda as they feel although there is  evidence for the Imamat of Ali it's not explicit enough to call it aqeeda.

*There is a claim they are not true zaidi but Imamat leaning mutazila.

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
30 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Secondly, even if the hadeeth was strong, the Sunni scholars, except for the Hanbali and Salafis, don't accept solitary reports as a source for aqeedah.  

Now if you agree that singular narrated hadith is not used for aqeeda. Then you would agree the succesion of Abu bakar is not aqeeda ( seems obvious) so then the logical conclusion is the stance that Imam Ali should have been Caliph by merit or otherwise should be accepted by Sunni as a plausible alternative.

 

But ofcourse you don't feel that way and you will defend the caliphate as aqeeda in every way except giving it the label aqeeda.

 

I feel Zaidi scholar are the most genuine in using evidence as objective as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Hmmm from a Sunni perspective it's not reliable. Zaidi put ijma of Ahlulbayt above any singular narrated hadith 

How can it be Ijmaa' of Ahl al-Bayt if most Ahl al-Bayt scholars are not Shi'i, let alone Zaydi?

9 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Now if you agree that singular narrated hadith is not used for aqeeda. Then you would agree the succesion of Abu bakar is not aqeeda ( seems obvious)

Of course...

9 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

so then the logical conclusion is the stance that Imam Ali should have been Caliph by merit or otherwise should be accepted by Sunni as a plausible alternative.

Of course he could have been, but I don't agree with the highlighted part.  Some of the Sahaba stated the Zayd ibn al-Haaritha رضي الله عنه (I think its ok to make Du'a for him, excuse me mods if this is not allowed) would've been the Khalifa after رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم, so there are definitely a lot of possibilities on who could've have succeeded.  Heck, even Abu Bakr himself stated he wasn't the most qualified.

9 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

But ofcourse you don't feel that way and you will defend the caliphate as aqeeda in every way except giving it the label aqeeda.

أحسن الله إليك أخي, but I don't know why you make that assumption.  Who should've been the successor of رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم is not a point of contention in the Sunni schools or really, any non-Shi'a understanding of Islam.  I am not sure why you made this assumption.

9 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

I feel Zaidi scholar are the most genuine in using evidence as objective as possible.

You haven't really gave us any reason why that is to be honest

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

Ijma part is tricky as you are right, so ill rephrase it those Ahlulbayt who reached the position of Imamat (still sounds kind of cyclic) but you don't require ijma to agree with Zaidi aqeeda that requires Qur'an and *Mutawatir hadith. The ijma part is based on those who fall into Zaidiyya but only really concerns fiqh and history. (Still might sound cyclic) 

But basically the ijma has no bearing on aqeeda. But the aqeeda has bearing on who qualifies to be within the ijma for fiqh. 

The last part is subjective it's why i put "feel" my perspective is that if a layman so no point expanding to much on it. 

* I know we will disagree on the interpretation/ use of those hadith.

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

.  I am not sure why you made this assumption.

 

Just based on previous interaction with most Sunni (so I apologise for the assumption). Some  Sunni scholars I've spoken to actually we're very accomodating of my views and always happy to discuss. 

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

 

so there are definitely a lot of possibilities on who could've have succeeded.  Heck, even Abu Bakr himself stated he wasn't the most qualified.

 

This is a rare opinion among Sunni you would agree ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

  

14 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Ijma part is tricky as you are right, so ill rephrase it those Ahlulbayt who reached the position of Imamat (still sounds kind of cyclic) but you don't require ijma to agree with Zaidi aqeeda that requires Qur'an and *Mutawatir hadith. The ijma part is based on those who fall into Zaidiyya but only really concerns fiqh and history.

So its not an Ijmaa of any one except Zaydi scholars.  Therefore, unless there is reason to believe those Zaydi scholars are more knowledgeable than the rest of the Ummah, or an explicit evidence from the Qur'an that we should follow them, then there would be no reason to give their Ijmaa any more weight then say, the Ijmaa of the Hanafis or the 12ers.

14 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

... Zaidi aqeeda that requires Qur'an and *Mutawatir hadith.

Which Mutawatir ahadeeth do you think support the Zaydi aqeedah?

11 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Just based on previous interaction with most Sunni (so I apologise for the assumption). Some  Sunni scholars I've spoken to actually we're very accomodating of my views and always happy to discuss. 

I would think you would know that the issue of who should've succeeded رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم isn't an issue of aqeedah for Ahl as-Sunnah considering you do so much research and speak to so many Sunnis.

8 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

This is a rare opinion among Sunni you would agree ?

No, Sunnis have a consensus that Abu Bakr is the greatest of the Sahaba, they don't have an issue of aqeedah regarding who should have succeeded رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.  Here is what Abu Bakr said after he became the Khalifah:

I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right. Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery. The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God wills; and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God wills. Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger. But if I disobey God and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience. Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you. (Al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah 6:305, 306)

بارك الله فيك

Edited by Cyrax
Grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
21 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

  

1)Which Mutawatir ahadeeth do you think support the Zaydi aqeedah?

2)I would think you would know that the issue of who should've succeeded رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم isn't an issue of aqeedah for Ahl as-Sunnah 

1) Ghadir is enough but we both know the back and forth arguments so no pint getting into it.

2) I'd did state that you don't call it aqeeda but in all intents and purposes defend the position as if it were. 

As in If you are adamant (100%) that Abu bakar is the best of the sahaba then you don't really accept that any one else should/could be succesor of the Prophet based on merit ? Otherwise technically I could say I'm Sunni but don't accept the Caliphate of Abu bakar as I believe Ali was more worthy and the Prophet implied it ?

Or am I missing something ?

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

 then there would be no reason to give their Ijmaa any more weight then say, the Ijmaa of the Hanafis or the 12ers.

 

You would only give weight to ijma of Hanafi if you were Sunni, and that ijma is not based on any explicit hadith.

(You asked about authenticity of Zaidi hadith which I stated were not authentic for you neither is the ijma). 

So it comes down to who you follow based on aqeeda and how to get to aqeeda. 

12er beleive in infallibility for all 12 so it's not about ijma.

Both Zaidi and 12er will use hadith if 2 weighty things to support their claim of following Ahlulbayt. (Differing on the who and how)

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

  

15 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

1) Ghadir is enough but we both know the back and forth arguments so no pint getting into it.

Sunnis, 12ers, Ismailis, and Zaydis have different interpretations of what this hadeeth means; heck even you yourself said:

1 hour ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Some *"Zaidi" scholars in the past have not included Imamat in as an essential point of aqeeda as they feel although there is  evidence for the Imamat of Ali it's not explicit enough to call it aqeeda.

*There is a claim they are not true zaidi but Imamat leaning mutazila.

So therefore, this hadeeth is not explicit in supporting Zaydi aqeedah, or any aqeedah for that matter.

15 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

2) I'd did state that you don't call it aqeeda but in all intents and purposes defend the position as if it were. 

Which I didn't, بارك الله فيكم.

15 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

As in If you are adamant (100%) that Abu bakar is the best of the sahaba then you don't really accept that any one else could be succesor of the Prophet based on merit ? Otherwise technically I could say I'm Sunni but don't accept the Caliphate of Abu bakar as I believe Ali was more worthy and the Prophet implied it ?

Or am I missing something ?

You can believe anything you want about who has more merit in being a political leader, but that doesn't have any bearing on who is greater in the eyes of Allah.  Abu Bakr can beat the best Sahabi or the worst Sahabi, it doesn't really have any bearing on who is a better leader.  I'd give some examples, but I don't want to ruffle any feathers; but to keep it "in-house", I'd say Omar was a better Caliph than Abu Bakr, but Abu Bakr is better than Omar as a Muslim.

11 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

You would only give weight to ijma of Hanafi if you were Sunni

I am Sunni, and the only weight I'd give to an Ijmaa of Hanafis is that this is an Ijmaa on what their school teaches.  The only time Ijmaa counts for Sunnis is when it is an Ijmaa of ALL Sunnis, which would include the scholars of Ahl al-Bayt, who are mostly non-Shi'as.

11 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

and that ijma is not based on any explicit hadith. 

12er beleive in infallibility for all 12 so it's not about ijma.

Both Zaidi and 12er will use hadith if 2 weighty things to support their claim of following Ahlulbayt. (Differing on the who and how)

If it was explicit, then there wouldn't any difference between the Shi'as regarding what the Hadeeth of Ghadeer Khum means:

1) Not explicit in the concept of infallibility.

2) Not explicit in terms of who succeeds Imam Ali عليه السلام, both which are different between the various Shi'a sects, not just Zayi and 12er.

3) Not explicit in choosing Imam Ali عليه السلام as his khalifa (consensus of all non-Shi'a Muslims).

We could go on an on, but we should come to the following conclusions:

1) Zaydis cannot claim consensus of Ahl al-Bayt.

2) Hadeeth Ghadeer is not explicit about any theological issues.

والله تعالى أعلى وأعلم

Edited by Cyrax
I can't write a post without making mistakes, ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
25 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

 

We could go on an on, but we should come to the following conclusions:

1) Zaydis cannot claim consensus of Ahl al-Bayt.

2) Hadeeth Ghadeer is not explicit about any theological issues.

والله تعالى أعلى وأعلم

1)  This is a point if discussion for Shia. Between Sunni Shia the real point of discussion is Succession (see point 2) and if Ahlulbayt are the path to the sunnah. But Sunni deny hadith of to weighty things even commands one to follow Ahlulbayt. 

2) I'd argue it points to succesion of Imam Ali implicit or explicit and this beleif is not truly accepted by any Sunni even from the implicit stance. (also they are a very small minority) I used the words "essential part" of aqeeda as sometimes people differ on what are fundamentals of madhab (aqeeda looser sense) and fundamentals of faith (aqeeda in a stricter sense) Thats why the Imamat leaning mutazila are still counted as Shia maybe not Zaidi 

Your opinion regarding Abu bakar and Umar excludes Imam Ali in both political leadership and rightousnous. So you can't really claim Imam Ali as a succesor is plausible (its just lip service)

 

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

1)  This is a point if discussion for Shia. Between Sunni Shia the real point of discussion is Succession (see point 2) and if Ahlulbayt are the path to the sunnah. But Sunni deny hadith of to weighty things even commands one to follow Ahlulbayt. 

Hadeeth Thaqalayn is not explicit either since the Sunni version mentions to take care of Ahl al-Bayt, and not to follow them exclusively.  Even if it did, the hadeeth wouldn't imply following ONLY Ali عليه السلام, and then ONLY Hassan عليه السلام and so on.  I'd argue that even the Shi'i version of the hadeeth isn't explicit to proves Imamism.

I find it interesting that you so quickly moved on from Hadeeth Ghadeer.  None of these ahadeeth, or hadeeth al-Kisaa, or Hadeeth Harun to Moosa are in any way explicit since Shi'as disagree one what these ahadeeth actually mean.

6 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

2) I'd argue it points to succesion of Imam Ali implicit or explicit and this beleif is not truly accepted by any Sunni even from the implicit stance. Thats why the Imamat leaning mutazila are still counted as Shia maybe not Zaidi (also they are a very small minority) 

I'm not sure what this means to be honest and how it address either point...  It still stands, the ahadeeth Shi'as use to prove Imamate are not explicit, and the Zaydis cannot claim the Ijmaa, or even the majority, or even the MAJORITY of Shi'a leaning Ahl al-Bayt.  Most Ahl al-Bayt are Sunnis, and most Shi'i Ahl al-Bayt are not Zaydi.

8 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Your opinion regarding Abu bakar and Umar excludes Imam Ali in both political leadership and rightousnous. So you can't really claim Imam Ali as a succesor is plausible (its just lip service)

I don't get it, I think Imam Ali عليه السلام is a very plausible successor to رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.  I think he's the most knowledgeable faqeeh of the Sahaba.  But I don't think he's infallible, and I don't think that Allah or his Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم asked me to follow him exclusively.  However, he could've just easily been the Khalifa, just as Zayd could've succeeded the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and Abu Ubayda could've succeeded Omar if they didn't die before they got a chance.

Ali عليه السلام could've easily been the Khalifa after the death of Omar as well since he was part of the committee to choose the next Khalifa.  Further proof that there isn't a issue of aqeedah among non-Shi'as regarding who should've succeeded رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم, or else Abu Bakr would've just chosen Omar without consulting first, and Omar would've chosen Uthman without ordering a committee.

بارك الله فيك

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

 Thats why the Imamat leaning mutazila are still counted as Shia maybe not Zaidi 

I'd argue you are very close to being Shia with that view. I'm not sure how many Sunni scholars would agree with you.

I think you might be cyraxi Muslim :grin:

I'm not going to go into infallibility as that's a big topic on its own.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

I'd argue you are very close to being Shia with that view. I'm not sure how many Sunni scholars would agree with you.

I think you might be cyraxi Muslim :grin:

I'm not going to go into infallibility as that's a big topic on its own.

 

What were you quoting بارك الله فيك, it looks like you quoted yourself by accident 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

I'm not sure what this means to be honest and how it address either point...  It still stands, the ahadeeth Shi'as use to prove Imamate are not explicit, .

Most Shia including myself and our scholars beleive it to be explicit.

I merely pointed out the mutazila fringe view to give a fuller picture of the differing views. 

 

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Most Shia including myself and our scholars beleive it to be explicit.

They agree that it is explicit in choosing Ali عليه السلام as a successor, but not in regards to what that actually means as I mentioned:

53 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

1) Not explicit in the concept of infallibility.

2) Not explicit in terms of who succeeds Imam Ali عليه السلام, both which are different between the various Shi'a sects, not just Zayi and 12er.

 

4 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Sorry your bit about Imam Ali being a plausible leader and the most knowledgeable.

Strange, but this is a very famous Sunni belief:

https://sunnah.com/urn/1251540

The Messenger of Allah said: The most merciful of my Ummah towards my Ummah is Abu Bakr; the one who adheres most sternly to the religion of Allah is 'Umar; the most sincere of them in shyness and modesty is 'Uthman; the best judge is 'Ali bin Abu Talib; the best in reciting the Book of Allah is Ubayy bin Ka'b; the most knowledgeable of what is lawful and unlawful is Mu'adh bin Jabal; and the most knowledgeable of the rules of inheritance (Fara'id) is Zaid bin Thabit. And every nation has a trustworthy guardian, and the trustworthy guardian of this Ummah is Abu 'Ubaidah bin Jarrah."

Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Strange, but this is a very famous Sunni belief

I'm aware you have this hadith  but it's not really used for supporting Imam Ali succesion by Sunni scholars.

Do you also  believe he was the best on the battlefield ?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

From SHeikh Google (the first Sunni website that came up):

 

The authenticity of the above Hadith has been severely debated among the Muhaddithun. Many have dismissed the authenticity completely and some have declared the Hadith authentic.

(Sunan Tirmidhi, Hadith: 3723 and Mustadrak Hakim, vol.3 pg. 127)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al ‘Asqalani (rahimahullah) when asked regarding the authenticity of the Hadith, stated that the Hadith is not authentic (sahih) nor is it fabricated (mawdu‘), rather it is sound(hasan).

Hafiz ‘Alaee, ‘Allamah Sakhawi, ‘Allamah Suyuti and Imam Zurqani (rahimahumallah) have also agreed that the Hadith is sound.

(Refer: Al La-Alil Manthurah, Hadith: 113-117, Al Maqasidul Hasanah, Hadith: 189, Mukhtasarul Maqasid, Hadith: 170, Ad Durarul Muntathirah, Hadith: 38, Al La-Alil Masnu’ah, vol. 1 pgs. 302-308, Tanzihush Shari’ah, vol. 1 pg. 377, Al Asrarul Marfu’ah, Hadith: 71, and Kashful Khafa, vol. 1 pg. 184)

In short, according to numerous latter day Muhaddithun, the Hadith is sound and suitable to quote.

https://hadithanswers.com/meaning-and-authenticity-of-the-hadith-i-am-the-city-of-knowledge-and-ali-is-its-gate/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare

https://www.al-islam.org/tahrif/cityofknowledge/

Quote
T a h r i f
Investigating Distortions
in Islamic Texts

The Sahih of al-Tirmidhi and the hadith,
"I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate".

Synopsis:

The well-known and reliable hadith of the Prophet - "I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate" is not present in the current editions of the Sahih (alternatively called Jami` or Sunan) of al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 AH).  This book is one of the Sihah Sittah or Six Authentic hadith books for the Ahl al-Sunnah.

This case study will investigate the allegation that this hadith was included by al-Tirmidhi and used to be in his Sahih till it mysteriously disappeared at some stage in history.

Important: The purpose of this discussion is not to prove the reliability of the hadith.  That has already been shown in several detailed works.  For example, see the three volumes 10, 11 and 12 of Nafahat al-Azhar fi Khulasat 'Abaqat al-Anwar dedicated to this hadith that show its tawatur. Therefore, for the purpose of this discussion, adverse comments on the strength of the hadith by some of the scholars below will be ignored. 

Click on fullsheet.jpg below to see full scanned image of page and links to biographical information about author
In addition to the libraries indicated, try the Guide to Online Libraries to locate these texts elsewhere in the world
Source of the Allegation

[Nafahat al-Azhar fi Khulasat 'Abaqat al-'Anwar, Sayyid Hamid Husayn Lakhnawi, translated into Arabic by Sayyid 'Ali al-Husayni al-Milani, Qum, vol. 12, p. 124]
 

The Evidence

Al-Tirmidhi lived between the years 209 AH and 279 AH.  Several authors of books of hadith, sirah, history and kalam who came after him acknowledged that he has quoted this hadith - in the exact wording stated above - in his Sahih.  However, the current editions of the Sahih only have the hadith 'I am the house of wisdom and 'Ali is its door'.  This hadith can be seen in the extract below:
 

Sahih (or Jami` or Sunan), al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 AH), p. 141
[Harvard]
[London]
fullsheet.jpg
dar-al-hikmah.gif

Those who say al-Tirmidhi had quoted the 'city of knowledge' hadith

Please note that the following list is only some of those sources of the Ahl al-Sunnah that quote the "city of knowledge" hadith mentioning al-Tirmidhi as one of its narrators.  It does not include the multitude of other sources that narrate this hadith without mentioning al-Tirmidhi's name.
 

Ta'rikh al-Khulafa', Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), p. 170
[Harvard]
[London]
fullsheet.jpg
suyuti.gif
"... al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim has quoted on the authority of 'Ali who said: The Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, said: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'..."

This hadith is indeed present with the exact stated wording in al-Hakim's Mustadrak `ala al-Sahihayn, vol. 3, pp. 126-7.
 

Al-Durar al-muntatharah fi al-ahadith al-mushtahirah, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), p. 23
[London]
[Harvard]
[Ohio state University]
fullsheet.jpg
durar.gif

 

And similarly:
 

Jawahir al-`Iqdayn, Nur al-Din 'Ali al-Samhudi (d. 911 AH), manuscript
Al-Tirmidhi has narrated from 'Ali with a raised chain of narration: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'.
 
Al-La'ali al-Masnu`ah, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), vol. 1, p. 332
[Cambridge]
[Oxford]

and

Al-Nukat al-badi`at `ala al-mawdu`at, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), manuscript

"Hadith 'Taa' 'Kaaf': 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate', it is mentioned from the hadith of 'Ali and Ibn 'Abbas.  I say: The hadith from 'Ali has been narrated from al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim, whereas the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas has been quoted by al-Hakim and al-Tabarani..."
 
Nawaqid al-Rawafid, Mirza Makhdum `Abbas b. Mu`in al-Din al-Jurjani (d. 988 AH), manuscript [I.O., Delhi Arabic MS. 972]
"The Messenger of God, peace and blessing on him, said: I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate.  Al-Tirmidhi has narrated it." 
 
Al-Lama`at fi Sharh al-Mishkat, Shaykh `Abd al-Haqq al-Dihlawi (d. 1052 AH), chapter of the merits of  'Ali
[California]
[Yale]
"Know that the famous version of the hadith in this meaning is: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'. The critics have spoken about it, and its origin is from Abu al-Salt [al-Harawi] who was a Shi'i and he has been spoken about (i.e. criticised).  This hadith has been considered sahih by al-Hakim, and al-Tirmidhi has considered it hasan..."
 
Taysir al-Matalib al-Saniyyah (on margin of al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyyah, Nur al-Din al-Shabramalasi (d. unknown), manuscript [while mentioning names of the Prophet i.e. madinatul 'ilm]
"... al-Tirmidhi and others have narrated with a raised chain of narration: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate..."
 
Al-Nibras li kashf al-'iltibas al-waqi` fi al-'asas, Ibrahim b. Hasan al-Kurdi al-Kawrani al-Shafi`i (d. 1101 AH), manuscript
".. and he was the gate of the city of his [i.e. Prophet's] knowledge according to the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'.  It  was narrated by al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-'Awsat on the authority of Jabir b. 'Abd Allah, and al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim on the authority of 'Ali."
 
Sharh al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyyah, Muhammad b. `Abd al-Baqi al-'Azhari al-Zurqani al-Maliki (d. 1122 AH), vol. 3, p. 143 [while explaining names of Prophet i.e. madinat al-'ilm]
[Chicago]
[California
[Oxford]
"Madinat al-'ilm: as in what the Messenger of God, peace and blessings on him and his progeny, said: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'.  It was narrated by al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim and he considered it sahih as did others [transmitting] on the authority of 'Ali."
 
Dhakhirat al-Ma'al fi Sharh `Aqd Jawahir al-La'al, Shihab al-Din Ahmad b. `Abd al-Qadir al-`Ujayli al-Shafi`i (d. 13th century AH), manuscript
"Al-Tirmidhi narrated that he, peace and blessing on him, said: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate...'"
 
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani (d. 652 AH), vol. 4, p. 138
[London]
[Cambridge]
fullsheet.jpg
minhaj.gif

Although Ibn Taymiyyah does not consider the hadith reliable - and his view is thoroughly refuted in Nafahat al-'Azhar (vol. 12, p. 132) - he is still aware that al-Tirmidhi has narrated it in the words of "city of knowledge".  If he believed that this hadith was absent from the Sahih then he would not have lost the opportunity to say so to strengthen the position of his argument.
 
 

Al-Sirah (Subul al-huda wa al-rashad), Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Salihi al-Shami (d. 942 AH), v. 1, p. 631
[Penn]
[London]
fullsheet.jpg
subul.gif

 

The modern editor of Subul al-Huda, Dr. Mustafa `Abd al-Wahid, explains in a footnote that the text of this hadith in al-Tirmidhi is "I am the house of wisdom....".

Ibn al-'Athir can also be seen ascribing the 'city of knowledge' version to al-Tirmidhi:
 

Jami` al-'usul fi ahaditrh al-Rasul, Ibn al-'Athir (d. 606 AH), vol. 9, p.473
[Library of Congress]
[London]
[Harvard]
[Cambridge]
fullsheet.jpg
athir.gif

As in the case of Subul al-Huda above, the modern editor of Ibn al-'Athir's book, `Abd al-Qadir al-'Arna'ut, in a footnote to this entry says that the wording of this hadith according to al-Tirmidhi was "I am the house of wisdom (dar al-hikmah) and 'Ali is its door." 

This implies that a leading scholar such as Ibn al-'Athir either considered the two ahadith to be identical, or mistakenly attributed the wrong version to al-Tirmidhi.  It could also mean that al-Tirmidhi quoted this hadith in some other work of his, other than his Sahih (also called Jami`).

A more likely  possibility is that Ibn al-'Athir knew the "city of knowledge" version to be in al-Tirmidhi's Sahih but al-'Arna'ut had to offer the explanation because he could not locate the hadith in it.

Could these authors not have considered the 'city of knowledge' to be the same as the 'house of wisdom' version?

Firstly, the traditionists (muhaddithun) are well-known for their precision when dealing with ahadith with similar but unidentical texts (mutun).  Indeed, the classical scholars considered even identical traditions with different chains of narration to be unique.

Secondly, there is clear evidence that both the 'city of knowledge' and 'house of wisdom' versions were existent in al-Tirmidhi's work.
 

Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami al-Makki (d. 974 AH), p. 122 (p. 73, older editions)
[Yale]
[London ]
fullsheet.jpg
sawaiq.gif
"... al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim on the authority of 'Ali who said: The Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, said: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'.... and in another [narration] recorded by al-Tirmidhi on the authority of 'Ali, 'I am the house of wisdom and 'Ali is its door'..."
 
'Is`af al-Raghibin (margin of Nur al-'Absar), Muhammad b. `Ali al-Sabban al-Misri (d. 1206 AH), p. 156
[London]

isaf-b.giffullsheet.jpgisaf.giffullsheet.jpg

"... al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim on the authority of 'Ali who said: The Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, said: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'.... and in another [narration] recorded by al-Tirmidhi on the authority of 'Ali, 'I am the house of wisdom and 'Ali is its door'..."
 
Al-`Iqd al-Nabawi wa al-sirr al-Mustafawi, Shaykh b. `Abdallah al-`Idrus al-Yamani (d. 990 AH), manuscript
"Al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in his al-Awsat have quoted on the authority of Jabir b. 'Abdallah, and al-Tabarani, al-Hakim, and al-'Uqayli in his al-Du'afa, and Ibn 'Adi on the authority of Ibn 'Umar, and al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim on the authority of 'Ali: The Messenger of God, peace and blessings upon him, said: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'.  And in a narration: 'so who desires knowledge should come through the gate'.  In another [narration] from al-Tirmidhi on the authority of 'Ali: 'I am the house of wisdom and 'Ali is its gate'."

Could Ibn al-'Athir or the other authors not be quoting from another work by al-Tirmidhi?

This is not possible for two reasons:

Ibn al-'Athir's  Jami' al-'usul is based on the ahadith in only six texts, the Muwatta'  of Malik, Sahih of al-Bukhari, Sahih of Muslim, Jami` of al-Tirmidhi, Sunan of al-Nasa'i, and Sunan of Abu Dawud. (See Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, M. M. Azami, p. 112).

There are other quotations that prove that al-Tirmidhi had the 'city of knowledge' hadith in his Sahih/Jami` (see below). 
 
 

Al-Mirqat fi Sharh al-Mishkat, `Ali al-Qari (d. 1014 AH), vol. 5, p. 571
[Harvard]
[Chicago]
[California
"Hadith of  'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate' was narrated by al-Hakim in [the chapter of] "al-Manaqib" in his al-Mustadrak from Ibn 'Abbas.  He [i.e. al-Hakim] said: Sahih. He was followed by al-Dhahabi .....  al-Daraqutni said: Proven (thabit), and al-Tirmidhi narrated it in [the chapter of] "al-Manaqib" in his al-Jami'....
 
Matalib al-Sa'ul, Muhammad b. Talha al-Shafi`i (d. 652 AH), p. 35 and p. 61
[Chicago]
[Cambridge]
".. The Messenger of God , peace and blessings upon him, said for him [i.e. 'Ali] as al-Tirmidhi has reported in his Sahih with a chain of narration to him: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'."
 
Anza` al-batin, Muhammad b. Talha al-Shafi`i (d. 652 AH), part 4 and part 6
"...the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, said, in the [wording] of what al-Tirmidhi has quoted in his Sahih with his chain to him (the Prophet): 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'."
 
Ibtal Nahj al-batil, Fadl Allah Ibn Ruzbahan al-Khunji al-Shirazi al-Shafi`i (d. 924 AH), manuscript [I.O., Delhi Arabic MS. 792]

This book was written as a response to Kashf al-Haqq wa Nahj al-Sidq by Allamah al-Hilli (d. 726 AH), a famous Shi'a scholar.  This response was itself fully refuted by another Shi'ah scholar Qadi Nur Allah Shustari (d. 1019 AH) in his Ihqaq al-Haqq (Tehran, 1273AH/1856-7CE).

Ibn Ruzbahan writes:

"With regards to what the author [i.e. al-Hilli] has mentioned pertaining to the knowledge of Amir al-Mu'minin, there is no doubt that he was one of the scholars of the ummah, and the people are dependent towards him for this, and how could it not be so?  He was the executor (wasiyy) of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, in the communication of sciences and the wonderful truths of  knowledge, so no one disputes this.  And as to what has been mentioned from the Sahih of al-Tirmidhi, it is sahih.

It is interesting to note that Ibn Ruzbahan was responding to the following passage from Allamah al-Hilli's book:

"Nineteen: In the Musnad of Ahmad b. Hanbal and the Sahih of Muslim: 'There was not one Companion of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings upon him, who said "Ask me" except 'Ali b. Abi Talib'.  The Messenger of God, peace and blessings upon him, said: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'.
If Ibn Ruzbahan believed that the hadith had been incorrectly attributed to al-Tirmidhi by Allamah al-Hilli, there is no doubt that he would have grasped the opportunity to score a polemical goal over his opponent by making this fact known.   On the contrary he clearly acknowledges its presence in al-Tirmidhi's Sahih and even mentions his own opinion regarding the strength of the narration as being of the sahih category.
 
Al-Fawatih - Sharh Diwan `Ali, Kamal al-Din Husayn b. Mu`in al-Din al-Yazdi al-Maybudi (d. unknown), p. 3
[Harvard]

He verified the hadith of "city of knowldge" where he mentioned it on the authority of the Sahih of al-Tirmidhi with the words: 'I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate'.

 
The Conclusion

All the examples given above clearly prove that the 'city of knowledge' hadith  used to co-exist with the 'house of wisdom' one in the Sahih/Jami`/Sunan of al-Tirmidhi and that many notable Sunni scholars mentioned above are a witness to this fact.

On the internet, sometimes links are not working so I pasted the actual text above. 

-----

Second. Jami` at-Tirmidhi » Chapters on Virtues - كتاب المناقب عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

Quote

Narrated 'Ali:

that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

"I am the house of wisdom, and 'Ali is its door."

حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُمَرَ بْنِ الرُّومِيِّ، حَدَّثَنَا شَرِيكٌ، عَنْ سَلَمَةَ بْنِ كُهَيْلٍ، عَنْ سُوَيْدِ بْنِ غَفَلَةَ، عَنِ الصُّنَابِحِيِّ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، رضى الله عنه قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ أَنَا دَارُ الْحِكْمَةِ وَعَلِيٌّ بَابُهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ غَرِيبٌ مُنْكَرٌ ‏.‏ وَرَوَى بَعْضُهُمْ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ عَنْ شَرِيكٍ وَلَمْ يَذْكُرُوا فِيهِ عَنِ الصُّنَابِحِيِّ وَلاَ نَعْرِفُ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ عَنْ وَاحِدٍ مِنَ الثِّقَاتِ عَنْ شَرِيكٍ ‏.‏ وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ‏.‏

Grade: Da'if (Darussalam)

English translation : Vol. 1, Book 46, Hadith 3723

Arabic reference : Book 49, Hadith 4089

https://sunnah.com/urn/736030

-----

Above is what is available to layman. Honestly, we do not have the ability to go beyond that.

Trust your Accredited scholars. Go to the local Islamic center speak to the Scholar, This is not a matter of Taqlid, however these scholars do have knowledge so email/visit or have someone who is going to Ziyarat ask them the question. 

Just as an fyi. You do enter the City to enter the house. Knowledge leads to wisdom. Its a prerequisite. 

Sometimes it is not the question of the narrator/text - is it possible. 

The first one never claimed, the second put up the first as leader so he acknowledge he is not. If that was the best product of Islam as they say. 

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings

https://www.al-islam.org/voice-human-justice-sautul-adalatil-insaniyah-george-jordac/un-charter-human-rights

As a layman, an Overall take on the situation, based on what we understand from the Book of Allah(عزّ وجلّ), Hadith and Events/ life after Muhammad al-Mustafa(peace be upon him and his pure progeny) connecting all the dots. 

So, considering All other evidence - Yes, Imam Ali(عليه السلام) the most Knowledgeable after Muhammad al-Mustafa(peace be upon him and his pure progeny).

But they might argue- you did not answer the Structured Question. I do not have that ability, as i am not learned like most layman in Sciences of these things( which are subjective to begin with) . However I do have some intellect. to decipher information on a collective basis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

I'm aware you have this hadith  but it's not really used for supporting Imam Ali succesion by Sunni scholars.

Why would they?  They don't believe that Imam Ali عليه السلام should've been the Khalifa after رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.  However, it is used as evidence that Imam Ali عليه السلام is at least the best judge of the Sahaba.  It is also used as evidence that Abu Bakr was the most merciful of the Ummah, the most stern is Omar, Othman has the most Hayaa', Ubay is the best Qur'an reciter, etc.  It shows that different Sahaba have different merits.

16 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Do you also  believe he was the best on the battlefield ?

I don't have a "belief" about that, I've never thought about it before you asked.  In fact, I'm not sure how I can do research on this to show that he was or wasn't.  My initial thought is that in the Battle of Badr, when Hamza, Ubaydah and Ali عليهم السلام dueled the Utba, his brother and son, Hamza killed two of them while Ali killed one of them عليهما السلام.  When Hind asked Wahshi to exact revenge for the death of her father, uncle and brother, she asked him to killed Hamza, and not Ali عليهما السلام.

So I'm not sure what I think about who the best Muslim soldier was, but I certainly don't have a "belief" about it.  بارك الله فيك

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

Why would they?  They don't believe that Imam Ali عليه السلام should've been the Khalifa 

This is the whole issue we are discussing. I stated that Sunni do not see Imam Ali as an alternative or possiblity for caliph ahead of Abu bakar.

You then stated several possibilities Including Ali. And then refferanced his knowledge.

It looks like we are going in circles.

I believe my initial point stands. Regardless of nas or merit you don't accept Imam Ali as a viable alternative (and its just lip service when you say you do). This merry go round conversation is my evidence. You can disagree I'll let the 3rd observer judge for themselves.

 

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
31 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

This is the whole issue we are discussing. I stated that Sunni do not see Imam Ali as an alternative or possiblity for caliph ahead of Abu bakar.

You then stated several possibilities Including Ali. And then refferanced his knowledge.

It looks like we are going in circles.

I believe my initial point stands. Regardless of nas or merit you don't accept Imam Ali as a viable alternative (and its just lip service when you say you do). This merry go round conversation is my evidence. You can disagree I'll let the 3rd observer judge for themselves.

 

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

I think we need to start over, أخي.

1) I sincerely believe that Imam Ali عليه السلام, amongst others were all viable options to be the Khalifa after رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم and, after reading your post several times, I am failing to see why you see it as me paying "lip service."  I am not a Sunni politician with a sizeable Shi'a constituency to need to do that, I have no dog in the fight.

2) Your issue is not with Sunnis, your issue is with all non-Shi'i Muslims; which includes Sufi, Salafi, Ash'ari, Madhabi, La Madhabi, Conservatives, Liberal, even "Imami Leaning Mu'tazilis."  No matter who you bring your proof to, they will agree that there isn't anything in Hadeeth Ghadeer, al-Manzilah, Kisaa or the City of Knowledge that is explicit in proving political or religious successorship, or even that it shows that Imam Ali عليه السلام was superior to all the other Sahaba.  As far as infallibility, I say those reports are EXPLICIT (especially the Ghadeer and the Manzilah Ahadeeth) that Imam Ali عليه السلام was NOT infallible, والله أعلم.

3) We seem to have stopped discussing the issue of the Ijmaa' of the Zaydi Ahl Al-Bayt.  I would love for us to go back to that discussion: why is the Ijmaa of the Zaydi Ahl Al-Bayt given more weight than, say, an Ijmaa of Sunni Ahl Al-Bayt or even 12ers.

4) I take it you were satisfied with my answer about my "belief" regarding who the best Sahabi Soldier?

Lets إن شاء الله keep this discussion going, بارك الله فيكم.  I think it has been very productive...

والله تعالى أعلى وأعلم

وصلى الله وسلم على سيدنا محمد وآله

 

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

 

3) We seem to have stopped discussing the issue of the Ijmaa' of the Zaydi Ahl Al-Bayt.  I would love for us to go back to that discussion: why is the Ijmaa of the Zaydi Ahl Al-Bayt given more weight than, say, an Ijmaa of Sunni Ahl Al-Bayt or even 12ers.

 

I think this is worth discussing.

For arguments sake lets say we should follow Ahlulbayt .

Ahlubayt are not inffalible you would agree. (Exception being Ali Hassan and Hussain for Zaidi)

So firstly you would agree we should follow those of knowledge (scholars)

Therefore it becomes dependant on a criteria of inclusion. As in if you are Ahlulbayt and say you become Ismali Or are  Sunni Ahlulbayt but have not studied deen. Etc it's pointless including it as part of Ahlulbayt scholarly opinion.

It would make sense those who are Ahlulbayt and knowledgeable would have a sound aqeeda.

So if you as an individual find Sunni aqeeda to be correct. Then it's little point in following Zaidi Ahlulbayt. 

So it comes back to aqeeda and the episitmology.

12er are different they believe in 12 infallible Imams so the opinion of a non Syed or Syed scholars holds the same weight as long as they reffer to the infallibles

 Ijma is normally important in those issues that can be traced back to Qur'an or mass transmitted hadith.

Examples of Ijma of Ahlulbayt in Zaidi are Sadl, washing feet, prohibition of mutah. 

things they differ on for example the return of Nabi Isa. 

Hope this clears it up.

 

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

I think this is worth discussing.

بإذن الله

18 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

For arguments sake lets say we should follow Ahlulbayt .

Just to be clear, we both believe in following Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام, its just our difference is a) who is Ahl al-Bayt and b) should we follow them exclusively.

19 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Ahlubayt are not inffalible you would agree. (Exception being Ali Hassan and Hussain for Zaidi)

I'm with ya so far...

21 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

So firstly you would agree we should follow those of knowledge (scholars)

Therefore it becomes dependant on a criteria of inclusion. As in if you are Ahlulbayt and say you become Ismali Or are  Sunni Ahlulbayt but have not studied deen. Etc it's pointless including it as part of Ahlulbayt scholarly opinion.

Yes, but the point I was making, أحسن الله إليك, is that the MAJORITY of Ahl al Bayt scholars are Sunnis, and the majority of the Shi'i ones are 12ers and not Zaidi.  Therefore, the claim you made earlier that...

On 2/24/2021 at 1:54 PM, Ali bin Hussein said:

...Zaidi put ijma of Ahlulbayt above any singular narrated hadith 

This is why I wanted to have this discussion.  My point has been, that the Zaydi claim to this Ijmaa cannot be true, unless they mean Ijmaa within their own madhhab.  If that is what they mean, then why is their Ijmaa any more valuable then the Ijmaa of Sunni Ahl al-Bayt scholars or 12er ones?

25 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

It would make sense those who are Ahlulbayt and knowledgeable would have a sound aqeeda.

So if you as an individual find Sunni aqeeda to be correct. Then it's little point in following Zaidi Ahlulbayt. 

So it comes back to aqeeda and the episitmology.

So its basically whether you agree with the Mu'taziliah or not?  The 12ers also agree with the Mu'tazilah, so do the "Imami leaning" ones.  I don't think I understand what you are trying to say, بارك الله فيك.

27 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Examples of Ijma of Ahlulbayt in Zaidi are Sadl, washing feet, prohibition of mutah. 

That's fine, but thats like saying the Ijmaa of the Hanbalis is washing feet and prohibition of mutah; that doesn't prove anything, nor does it show why those opinions mean anything.  All it shows is that the Hanbalis have a consensus on those issues within their Madhhab.  The majority of Ahl al-Bayt scholars are sunni, and therefore we would imagine the majority of them practice Qabd, while the majority of 12er Ahl al-Bayt scholars are going to claim consensus on the permissibility of Mut'ah.

إن شاء الله I was able to convey what I was trying to across to you.

والله تعالى أعلى وأعلم

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

5 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

 

1)Yes, but the point I was making, أحسن الله إليك, is that the MAJORITY of Ahl al Bayt scholars are Sunnis, 

2) they mean Ijmaa within their own madhhab.  If that is what they mean, then why is their Ijmaa any more valuable then the Ijmaa of Sunni Ahl al-Bayt scholars or 12er ones?

3)So its basically whether you agree with the Mu'taziliah or not The 12ers also agree with the Mu'tazilah, so do the "Imami leaning" ones.  I don't think I understand what you are trying to say, بارك الله فيك.

4)That's fine, but thats like saying the Ijmaa of the Hanbalis 

1) Majority is not really a good argument as its dependant on who is in power. And those that are in line with said power will end up having more numbers.

Eg many Zaidi Imams revolted and were killed. Or the fact that majority Shia were once zaidi (idrisid empire)

2) I did mean ijma within a madhab I was trying to convey how Zaidi rulings work in relation to hadith. 

3) Yes but for example if you add a invovation and then go as far as say its aqeeda you can't ignorecit. 

Eg a Sunni scholar is Ahlulbayt but then insists that beleif in return of Dhul qarnain is aqeeda and that he is Alexander the Great. You go through and see he has no evidence. He no longer can be taken as someone of sound knowledge.

4) Well for Sunni in contrast to Zaidi ijma of Ahlulbayt doesn't hold any great value. Let's say for example all Sunni Ahlulbayt scholars agreed that folding hand is forbidden. Sunni would give prefferance to those hadith with authentic chains.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

We all agree follow Ahlulbayt

So why should you follow Zaidi Ahlulbayt

Well I claim 

Zaidi aqeeda can be prooven through Qur'an and mutawatir.

The article of aqeeda that Sunni can't accept is Succession of Imam Ali

So if I am right we are left with very general Shia.

Now you look at all the groups of Shia and see where the aqeeda differs. And for me I cant accept those points that go beyond Zaidi aqeeda. (Like Sunni feel about Shia and mutazila.)

So for me Zaidi aqeeda is perfect so I can't follow any other Ahlulbayt who differ from my aqeeda.

Within Zaidi there is strict criteria for who can be an Imam so if someone is Ahlulbayt, Zaidi in aqeeda and knowledgeable and claims to be an Imam if he fails in any article of the other criteria (eg he is a proven coward) then he can no longer be classed as an Imam and he is no longer part of the ijma.

Now beyond that I'm a layman so I'm happy to follow rulings blindly.

 

This is my linear thought process regarding aqeeda.

But not everyone will get to the same conclusion by the same route

and people can also follow the same route but get different conclusion.

May I ask what's you school of theology and fiqh and how you reached your conclusion.

Btw sorry to all for hijacking this thread. It was not my intention with my first post.

.

 

 

 

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
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...