A study of matn criticism amongst the Imamiyyah

[Abu_Zahra]

As salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

The latest post on IqraOnline is a translation of an excellent article by Shaykh Haidar Hubbullah briefly covering topics such as the contradiction of narrations against the Qur'an, tafsir of the Qur'an, up to which point and which extent legislation could be integrated outside of the Qur'an and other considerations when evaluating the content of a hadith

Link

[Cool]

"This topic returns to his analysis and understanding of what constitutes contradicting the Qurʾān, thereby extending the capacity to critique the Matn of various Ḥadīth according to this new viewpoint."

Anyone's inability to grasp the hidden (باطني) meanings of the verses of Quran & their تأويل can cause him to do "taqseer". And we should not consider the critique of any "muqassir" which is solely based on his ignorance or incapability.

قال الصادق عليه السلام: كتاب الله عز وجل على أربعة أشياء على العبارة، والإشارة، واللطائف، والحقائق، فالعبارة للعوام، والإشارة للخواص، واللطائف للأولياء، والحقائق للأنبياء

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1520_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٨٩/الصفحة_105

"But in fact, because the general image that is depicted to us by the Qurʾān in tens of verses regarding the Prophets and Saints is an image of mortal humans that live mortal lives, who do not know the secrets behind everything, and that they are capable of falling into transgression of God’s boundaries."

See the problem, if someone start criticizing hadith by looking at العبارة of Quran while having no grasp of الاشارة in there, how can we even consider his criticism & take him seriously? His criticism is obviously based on either his ignorance or either his incapability. Both of these limitations putting him in the level of العوام. 

 

[Abu_Zahra]

6 hours ago, Cool said:

"This topic returns to his analysis and understanding of what constitutes contradicting the Qurʾān, thereby extending the capacity to critique the Matn of various Ḥadīth according to this new viewpoint."

Anyone's inability to grasp the hidden (باطني) meanings of the verses of Quran & their تأويل can cause him to do "taqseer". And we should not consider the critique of any "muqassir" which is solely based on his ignorance or incapability.

قال الصادق عليه السلام: كتاب الله عز وجل على أربعة أشياء على العبارة، والإشارة، واللطائف، والحقائق، فالعبارة للعوام، والإشارة للخواص، واللطائف للأولياء، والحقائق للأنبياء

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1520_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٨٩/الصفحة_105

"But in fact, because the general image that is depicted to us by the Qurʾān in tens of verses regarding the Prophets and Saints is an image of mortal humans that live mortal lives, who do not know the secrets behind everything, and that they are capable of falling into transgression of God’s boundaries."

See the problem, if someone start criticizing hadith by looking at العبارة of Quran while having no grasp of الاشارة in there, how can we even consider his criticism & take him seriously? His criticism is obviously based on either his ignorance or either his incapability. Both of these limitations putting him in the level of العوام. 

 

The problem with the argument you are trying to make is that you end up overruling the Qur'an with hadith whereas the correct hierarchy, as per hadith itself, is Qur'an over hadith. If you argue that the Qur'an has actually not been understood and that it's real meaning is in the hadith then you end up with the same conundrum again which is that you end up taking these narrations which claim to explain the hidden aspects of the Quran and you use them to override clear verses.

This is also what the Sheikh touches upon when he describes the methodology of Sayed al Sistani and Sayed Fadlallah in his article. 

Edited February 5 by Abu_Zahra

[Cool]

14 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

The problem with the argument you are trying to make is that you end up overruling the Qur'an with hadith whereas the correct hierarchy, as per hadith itself, is Qur'an over hadith.

Am I really over-ruling the Quran with hadith? 

You again need to look at what I have said. I have given 4 things which holy Quran is based upon namely: 

1. Ibaraat

2. Isharaat.

3. Lata'if

4. Haqa'iq

And I have argued that if someone start criticizing the hadith by only looking at "ibaraat", his critique is not worthy to be taken seriously. 

Yes Prophet & Saint are mortal humans, who differs from that fact? But for the claim that "they do not know the secrets behind everything" as presented in the article by the name of late Ayatullah Fadlullah, I am wondering what understanding had he of the term "Imamin Mubeen"? And what understanding had he of the verse of Yaseen where it said:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ وَنَكْتُبُ مَا قَدَّمُوا وَآثَارَهُمْ ۚ وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ فِي إِمَامٍ مُبِينٍ {12}

[Shakir 36:12] Surely We give life to the dead, and We write down what they have sent before and their footprints, and We have recorded everything in a clear writing.

Yes, the Prophets & Imams do have the capabilities to fall into transgression, who differs from that? Allah has not made them robots obviously, but insisting that since they have these human capabilities therefore they must have sinned or transgressed at anywhere in their lives, this claim itself colliding with the verse of purification and other verses of Quran as well. 

So unfortunately, the level of late Ayatullah Fadlullah's critique stood at the level of "awam" (people) who throw criticism by viewing the "ibaraat only" with no understanding whatsoever of the "isharaat" which too are present in the Quran. 

Similar point is valid with the ta'weel aspect. You know what the verse of Quran said about the ta'veel?

وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۗ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ

So I do think my argument is valid and have enough weight to be taken seriously. 

[Cool]

"In my opinion, I do not negate the theory of Buṭūn al-Qurʾān (Revise my book: Dirāsāt fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī al-Muʿāṣir, Vol. 3, pg. 365-429), however I place the condition that the Buṭūn must be connected in some way to the apparent hermeneutical meanings of the text – in so that there would be a degree of correspondence between what the exoteric and esoteric layers of the Qurʾān are saying. However, if we were to accept this theory in the way it has popularly been accepted then it would not be possible to evaluate the truth of any Ḥadīth or to reject it on the basis of it contradicting the apparent primary linguistic meanings of the Qurʾān."

@Abu Zahra, here (in the underline part) the author is saying the same thing which I have said. It simply means that the "isharaat" must be somehow connected to the "ibaraat". 

If you contemplate on the four things mentioned in the hadith quoted by me earlier, you can realize that we may be wrong in our understanding of any verse of Quran, if we only look at the ibarat. There has to be an "isharah" in Quran which would confirm that our understanding is correct. 

What I think is that any critique on the matn of hadith would be considerable only when if it is based on ibaraat & isharaat both. Means the one who is criticizing the matn, should be elevated to the level of "khawas" and one can accept the critique by looking both the aspects mentioned in there (i.e., ibaraat & isharaat).  

[Ashvazdanghe]

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235081423-a-simple-question-regarding-translation-of-quran/#comment-3400144

[Abu_Zahra]

@Cool

Salaam alaikum and thanks for your reply. 

On 2/6/2023 at 4:41 AM, Cool said:

Am I really over-ruling the Quran with hadith?

If your interpretations are based on hadith, then yes. If they are not, then the situation is even worse because your are attempting to overrule the Qur'an purely through opinion. 

On 2/6/2023 at 4:41 AM, Cool said:

And I have argued that if someone start criticizing the hadith by only looking at "ibaraat", his critique is not worthy to be taken seriously. 

If the hadith contradicts a clear verse of the Quran, then for sure it will be rejected. This is quite a basic principle. 

18 hours ago, Cool said:

 

@Abu Zahra, here (in the underline part) the author is saying the same thing which I have said. It simply means that the "isharaat" must be somehow connected to the "ibaraat". 

Not exactly, because in the Sheikh's explanation the apparent and deeper meanings of the Qur'an are consistent with each other. Indeed this is why a clear verse of the Qur'an will always be the master because the deeper meanings will never contradict it and nor will an authentic hadith.

[Abu Nur]

8 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

Not exactly, because in the Sheikh's explanation the apparent and deeper meanings of the Qur'an are consistent with each other. Indeed this is why a clear verse of the Qur'an will always be the master because the deeper meanings will never contradict it and nor will an authentic hadith.

Salaam Aleikum,

This is something that have made me before very unease when reading some of the Baatini narrations of the interpretation of verses, then realized that the whole narration does not even sync with the apparent meaning.

[Abu_Zahra]

6 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Salaam Aleikum,

This is something that have made me before very unease when reading some of the Baatini narrations of the interpretation of verses, then realized that the whole narration does not even sync with the apparent meaning.

Wa alaikum as salam brother 

Alhamdulillah this is indeed why the Qur'an supercedes any other text. The clear and apparent meanings of the Qur'an cannot be wrong! 

[kadhim]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:59 PM, Abu_Zahra said:

As salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

The latest post on IqraOnline is a translation of an excellent article by Shaykh Haidar Hubbullah briefly covering topics such as the contradiction of narrations against the Qur'an, tafsir of the Qur'an, up to which point and which extent legislation could be integrated outside of the Qur'an and other considerations when evaluating the content of a hadith

Link

This Sheikh Hoballah fellow is becoming one of my favourites, at least among those who constrain themselves to work within the hawza system. They need about 100 copies of this guy (combined with a healthy dollop of generational turnover in the institution).

It’s a little mystifying that robust content-based criticism isn’t more widespread and mainstream. Having most of the criticism of authenticity and usefulness of hadith be predominantly centered on what is effectively metadata (I.e. the asaanid) rather than the actual contents always struck me as somewhat bizarre. 

[Cool]

5 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

If your interpretations are based on hadith, then yes. If they are not, then the situation is even worse because your are attempting to overrule the Qur'an purely through opinion. 

Alaikas-Salam!!

Well I am discussing the subject in light of hadith & the verses of Quran as you can see. No personal opinion is being projected by me.

5 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

If the hadith contradicts a clear verse of the Quran, then for sure it will be rejected. This is quite a basic principle. 

Yes, that's why we reject the ahadith mentioning the tehreef of the Quranic text. But isharaat & lata'if most often originates from the mutashabeh verses and non knows their interpretation except Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) as the verse of Aal e Imran mentions:

وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۗ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ

5 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

Indeed this is why a clear verse of the Qur'an will always be the master because the deeper meanings will never contradict it and nor will an authentic hadith.

So what would you say about the term like Imamin Mubeen? Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has mentioned Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as Imamin Mubeen and Qur'an is saying وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ فِي إِمَامٍ مُبِينٍ, this would mean what to you? 

And what would be your understanding of natiq & samit Quran? What is that "kitab" which speaks with truth? 

وَلَدَيْنَا كِتَابٌ يَنطِقُ بِالْحَقِّ 

And what about the verse which mentions Aliyyun Hakeem:

وَإِنَّهُ فِي أُمِّ الْكِتَابِ لَدَيْنَا لَعَلِيٌّ حَكِيمٌ

Where do we find the ta'veel & tafseer of these terminologies? 

5 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

because your are attempting to overrule the Qur'an purely through opinion. 

إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ

See what above verse is saying. Are you closing this door of "ta'qeloon" by putting a full stop on raising questions for contemplation & for getting to the deeper meanings? 

 

Edited February 8 by Cool

[Abu_Zahra]

5 hours ago, Cool said:

Well I am discussing the subject in light of hadith & the verses of Quran as you can see. No personal opinion is being projected by me.

This brings us back to my previous statement which is that the hadith cannot overrule the ayaat of the Quran.  As for the verses you presented, none of them are contradicting what the Sayyid has said.

 

5 hours ago, Cool said:

Yes, that's why we reject the ahadith mentioning the tehreef of the Quranic text. But isharaat & lata'if most often originates from the mutashabeh verses and non knows their interpretation except Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)

If nobody knows their interpretation, then nobody will be able to use them to overrule a clear verse of the Qur'an, bringing us once again back to the base situation which you were contesting in the first place!

5 hours ago, Cool said:

See what above verse is saying. Are you closing this door of "ta'qeloon" by putting a full stop on raising questions for contemplation & for getting to the deeper meanings? 

If you say that only the Ahlulbayt know the deeper meanings then you have already closed the door! 

If not, then the door is open but the interpretation will never supercede the clear verses of the Qur'an. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

1 hour ago, Abu_Zahra said:

If you say that only the Ahlulbayt know the deeper meanings then you have already closed the door! 

If not, then the door is open but the interpretation will never supercede the clear verses of the Qur'an. 

Salam beleiving to it doesn't clear the door because holy quran has multu layer meanings which as much as it becomes deeper so then fewer people can understand it's meaning which only Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) through having access to divine knowledge by permission of Allah  have total access to all layers of meanings of holy Quran so therefore people for understand deeper meaning of holy Quran must refer to Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) because base on narration from prophet Muhammad (pbu) holy Quran & Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) don't seperate from ach other but on the other hand understangin of meaning of holy Quran is vary based on level of knowledge & undertanding of people which for always for undertanding it always  they need guidance of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) as their mentors.

[Cool]

On 2/8/2023 at 10:18 AM, Abu_Zahra said:

If you say that only the Ahlulbayt know the deeper meanings then you have already closed the door! 

It is not me who is saying that, infact Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has said that categorically about the ta'veel of mutashabeh verses. 

I am again recalling your memory to four categories mentioned in the hadith quoted earlier i.e., awaam, khwaas, Awliya Allah & Prophets. Khawas has access to isharaat, awliya has access to lata'if and Prophets have access to haqa'iq. 

And when Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is mentioning someone as Imamin Mubeen, it means he is unveiling a haqeeqat. 

On 2/8/2023 at 10:18 AM, Abu_Zahra said:

As for the verses you presented, none of them are contradicting what the Sayyid has said.

I am focused on the critiques of late Ayatullah Fadlullah. It appears to me that his critique mentioned in your shared article doesn't posses any weight and is based on his inability to grasp the isharaat & lata'if present within the verses of Quran.

On 2/8/2023 at 10:18 AM, Abu_Zahra said:

If not, then the door is open but the interpretation will never supercede the clear verses of the Qur'an

If by clear verses, you means mohkamaat, then it is obvious. If by clear verses you means mohkamaat as well as mutashabihaat, then this itself contradicting some clear verses of Quran. 

Lastly, perhaps you are using "obligatory precaution" tool for not indulging in the discussions of the verses quoted by me mentioning "Imamin Mubeen" & "Natiq Kitab". 

For me, since the isharaat present in Quran, I have no doubt in understand and believing that Ali (عليه السلام) is Imamin Mubeen & Natiq Quran and I have no problem in understanding what is the meaning of وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ فِي إِمَامٍ مُبِينٍ

Wassalam!!

Edited February 9 by Cool

[Abu_Zahra]

4 hours ago, Cool said:

It is not me who is saying that, infact Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has said that categorically about the ta'veel of mutashabeh verses. 

Thanks for confirming. Therefore your attempt to counter Sayyid Fadlallah's position through the mutashabihaat  is invalid since you are not able to understand those ayaat.

4 hours ago, Cool said:

I am focused on the critiques of late Ayatullah Fadlullah. It appears to me that his critique mentioned in your shared article doesn't posses any weight and is based on his inability to grasp the isharaat & lata'if present within the verses of Quran.

If you are postulating that only the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) can grasp this level of understanding then your attempted argument above (which was anyway not substantiated) loses validity because you are trying to argue via verses which by your claim are outside of your understanding. 

 

[Cool]

22 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

Therefore your attempt to counter Sayyid Fadlallah's position through the mutashabihaat  is invalid since you are not able to understand those ayaat.

lol, I have understood those ayaat & ta'veel by means of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) & Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), as I am continuously pointing out the phrase "Imamin Mubeen" & Quran e Natiq". Had there been no words of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Imams of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), none would be able to disclose the meaning of these terms. 

On the other hand, late Syed Fadlullah seems to be ignorant of these terms or either he has rejected the ahadith explaining these terms out of [deleted by Haji]

22 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

If you are postulating that only the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) can grasp this level of understanding then your attempted argument above (which was anyway not substantiated) loses validity because you are trying to argue via verses which by your claim are outside of your understanding. 

lol, 

إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا جَمْعَهُ وَقُرْآنَهُ {17}

[Shakir 75:17] Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it.

ثُمَّ إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا بَيَانَهُ {19}

[Shakir 75:19] Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it.

هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِنْ كَانُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ {2}

[Shakir 62:2] He it is Who raised among the inhabitants of Mecca an Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His communications and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, although they were before certainly in clear error,

Those who know are obliged to teach as well. Those who don't know are obliged to ask from those who know. 

So again, you come back to Quran with a hadith to confirm its validity or authenticity. Ibaraat alone won't help you to understand the meaning of any verse until you reach to the level of "Ulil Albaab" or in other words "khawas" who have discovered the "isharaat" in Quran. So allow me to present you few verses which points out the "isharaat":

وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ ۚ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ ۚ مِلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ۚ هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَفِي هَٰذَا لِيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا شُهَدَاءَ عَلَى النَّاسِ ۚ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِاللَّهِ هُوَ مَوْلَاكُمْ ۖ فَنِعْمَ الْمَوْلَىٰ وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ {78}

[Shakir 22:78] And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Messenger may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!

وَإِذِ ابْتَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ ۖ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا ۖ قَالَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي ۖ قَالَ لَا يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ {124}

[Shakir 2:124] And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.

رَبَّنَا وَاجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ لَكَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِنَا أُمَّةً مُسْلِمَةً لَكَ وَأَرِنَا مَنَاسِكَنَا وَتُبْ عَلَيْنَا ۖ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ {128}

[Shakir 2:128] Our Lord! and make us both submissive to Thee and (raise) from our offspring a nation submitting to Thee, and show us our ways of devotion and turn to us (mercifully), surely Thou art the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

[kadhim]

1 hour ago, Cool said:

lol, I have understood those ayaat & ta'veel by means of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) & Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), as I am continuously pointing out the phrase "Imamin Mubeen" & Quran e Natiq". Had there been no words of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Imams of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), none would be able to disclose the meaning of these terms. 

On the other hand, late Syed Fadlullah seems to be ignorant of these terms or either he has rejected the ahadith explaining these terms out of ignorance or any intellectual incapability. 

Well, Fadlallah’s response, as I understand it, would be to observe the following:

‘To accept this hidden meaning of superhuman knowledge of the imams, based on this ambiguous Quran verse as interpreted by those hadith, you would need to downplay quite a few much clearer Quran passages emphasizing the relative normalness of prophets and such figures in terms of their capabilities and knowledge. Therefore those hadith are problematic as tested against the Quran.’

I mean, you can accept Fadlallah’s perspective or not, but suggesting he was just ignorant of those hadith texts is odd in the context of this conversation and suggests to me you’re not really understanding his argument very well. 

 

[Abu Hadi]

4 hours ago, Cool said:

lol, I have understood those ayaat & ta'veel by means of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) & Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), as I am continuously pointing out the phrase "Imamin Mubeen" & Quran e Natiq". Had there been no words of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Imams of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), none would be able to disclose the meaning of these terms. 

On the other hand, late Syed Fadlullah seems to be ignorant of these terms or either he has rejected the ahadith explaining these terms out of [deleted by Haji]

 

Salam. I believe it is incorrect and not keeping with good Aklaq to speculate regarding what Ayat Fadlallah(رضي الله عنه) was and was not ignorant of. He wrote 10s of books and was highly respected by (almost all) Shia as a Marjaa Taqleed (Jurist worthy of emulation). Just because he didn't explicitly state his position via a via on this doesn't mean he was ignorant of it. Most people are aware of many things which they never repeat in speech or writing. People usually only do this when they feel there is a reason to do it.

You can accept his position or not accept it. If you don't accept it, you can present evidence to the contrary and people can either accept your counter argument or not, but we should stay away from speculation, and especially since he is no longer alive and able to respond. 

Edited February 10 by Abu Hadi

[Cool]

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

but suggesting he was just ignorant of those hadith texts is odd in the context of this conversation

 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

Salam. I believe it is incorrect and not keeping with good Aklaq to speculate regarding what Ayat Fadlallah(رضي الله عنه) was and was not ignorant of. He wrote 10s of books and was highly respected by (almost all) Shia as a Marjaa Taqleed (Jurist worthy of emulation). Just because he didn't explicitly state his position via a via on this doesn't mean he was ignorant of it.

Alaikas Salam Brothers!!

Brother Kadhim, the context of this conversation is the article which has evaluated the methodology of late Ayatullah Fadlullah's critiques on the matn of hadith. 

Let me quote from that articles few sentences:

"al-Sayyid Faḍlallah rejected the notions proposed by streams of Imāmī thought which claim that the Prophets and Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt have knowledge of the unseen (ʿIlm al-Ghayb), and that they are the Mediums of Divine Emanation (Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī)"

Now I will not hesitate to call this rejection as someone's ignorance. By saying someone ignorant doesn't necessarily mean to insult him, ignorant means "someone who lacks knowledge or understanding". This rejection is also an evidence of doing "taqseer" to the status of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) & Imams of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). A muqassir must be someone who lacks knowledge and if someone do the taqseer willfully with complete knowledge, then he is something else, I don't want to use those words for Late Ayatullah Fadlullah. 

So you are allowing him to say some people as ghali or kafir or even worst while no one can say him muqassir or ignorant just because he was a marja e taqleed and have written few books for expressing his lack if knowledge, may I ask why?

The two things (mentioned as notions above) which he rejected are not just baseless notions, we have a strong base for such beliefs in Quran. 

Therefore I have respectfully put late Fadlullah at the level of "awaam" (common people), his critiques and his methodology are not worthy to be taken seriously. 

According to the article, he also rejected the concept of "insaan e kamil":

"or that the Imams are a manifestation of al-Insān al-Kāmil"

This is nothing but plain ignorance (lack of knowledge), I don't know how he became marja e taqleed with such a famine of knowledge.

[kadhim]

1 hour ago, Cool said:

 

Alaikas Salam Brothers!!

Brother Kadhim, the context of this conversation is the article which has evaluated the methodology of late Ayatullah Fadlullah's critiques on the matn of hadith. 

Let me quote from that articles few sentences:

"al-Sayyid Faḍlallah rejected the notions proposed by streams of Imāmī thought which claim that the Prophets and Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt have knowledge of the unseen (ʿIlm al-Ghayb), and that they are the Mediums of Divine Emanation (Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī)"

Now I will not hesitate to call this rejection as someone's ignorance. By saying someone ignorant doesn't necessarily mean to insult him, ignorant means "someone who lacks knowledge or understanding". This rejection is also an evidence of doing "taqseer" to the status of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) & Imams of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). A muqassir must be someone who lacks knowledge and if someone do the taqseer willfully with complete knowledge, then he is something else, I don't want to use those words for Late Ayatullah Fadlullah. 

So you are allowing him to say some people as ghali or kafir or even worst while no one can say him muqassir or ignorant just because he was a marja e taqleed and have written few books for expressing his lack if knowledge, may I ask why?

The two things (mentioned as notions above) which he rejected are not just baseless notions, we have a strong base for such beliefs in Quran. 

Therefore I have respectfully put late Fadlullah at the level of "awaam" (common people), his critiques and his methodology are not worthy to be taken seriously. 

According to the article, he also rejected the concept of "insaan e kamil":

"or that the Imams are a manifestation of al-Insān al-Kāmil"

This is nothing but plain ignorance (lack of knowledge), I don't know how he became marja e taqleed with such a famine of knowledge.

You’re not responding to the actual argument here. You’re making it out as if Fadlallah just chose to ignore those narrations because he felt like it. That’s not a truthful way to describe it. Fadlallah downplayed narrations such as this narrations saying “imamul mubeen” is about the imams because there are lots of clear Quran passages saying prophets and messengers and such are just regular people and not superhumans. 

[Cool]

13 minutes ago, kadhim said:

because there are lots of clear Quran passages saying prophets and messengers and such are just regular people and not superhumans. 

Just quoting few verses here so that you may see whom you are saying  "the regular people"

وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ ۚ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ ۚ مِلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ۚ هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَفِي هَٰذَا لِيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا شُهَدَاءَ عَلَى النَّاسِ ۚ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِاللَّهِ هُوَ مَوْلَاكُمْ ۖ فَنِعْمَ الْمَوْلَىٰ وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ {78}

[Shakir 22:78] And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Messenger may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!

The address here in this profound verse is with Imams directly.

Tell me brother how many regular people are appointed as witness over people? And how many regular people are remain witness even after their departure from this world? 

Even a "regular person" like Prophet Jesus (who cured the blinds, made the dead alive) was a witness till when he was here in this world:

وَكُنتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَّا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ 

5:117) I was a witness of them so long as I was among them,

But 22:78 mentioning Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as witness even after his departure from this world.

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ {107}

[Shakir 21:107] And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.

This is one of the example of Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī. And I can keep quoting clear verses which remain unclear to late Fadlullah (may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) have mercy on his soul).

 

 

[Cool]

16 minutes ago, Cool said:

Tell me brother how many regular people are appointed as witness over people?

And also tell me how can a "regular person" become witness over 8 billion people? This looks "regular" to you?

[kadhim]

21 minutes ago, Cool said:

Just quoting few verses here so that you may see whom you are saying  "the regular people"

وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ ۚ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ ۚ مِلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ۚ هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَفِي هَٰذَا لِيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا شُهَدَاءَ عَلَى النَّاسِ ۚ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِاللَّهِ هُوَ مَوْلَاكُمْ ۖ فَنِعْمَ الْمَوْلَىٰ وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ {78}

[Shakir 22:78] And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Messenger may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!

The address here in this profound verse is with Imams directly.

Tell me brother how many regular people are appointed as witness over people? And how many regular people are remain witness even after their departure from this world? 

Even a "regular person" like Prophet Jesus (who cured the blinds, made the dead alive) was a witness till when he was here in this world:

وَكُنتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَّا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ 

5:117) I was a witness of them so long as I was among them,

But 22:78 mentioning Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as witness even after his departure from this world.

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ {107}

[Shakir 21:107] And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.

This is one of the example of Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī. And I can keep quoting clear verses which remain unclear to late Fadlullah (may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) have mercy on his soul).

 

 

Listen man. Do you want to have a rational conversation here, or you want to play stupid word games. Do I really need to spell it out here that “regular person” is in relation to the present context, about notions of superhuman knowledge of everything? And obviously not about moral character? 

So do I take it you don’t have an actual response to the substance of it, then?

[Cool]

2 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Do I really need to spell it out here that “regular person” is in relation to the present context, about notions of superhuman knowledge of everything? And obviously not about moral character? 

Please read the verse 22:78 first and then get back to me to explain which thing looks "moral" to you out of those 3 questions I have asked you in relation to that verse?

[kadhim]

4 minutes ago, Cool said:

Please read the verse 22:78 first and then get back to me to explain which thing looks "moral" to you out of those 3 questions I have asked you in relation to that verse?

Looks like the answer to my last question is “no.”

[Cool]

 

2 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Looks like the answer to my last question is “no.”

I think I need to spell it out that the verse 22:78 is pointing clearly towards the wilayat e takwiniyyah which late Ayatullah Fadlullah has rejected. 

Imagine your Imam of time being witness over 8 billion people. And Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who passed away from this world 1400 years ago (approx) is witness over Imam of time. 

Ahhh these are moral characters, they must be a witness without knowledge, and because everything remains before their moral characters all the time, therefore they don't have access to unseen.

[Abu_Zahra]

10 hours ago, Cool said:

lol, I have understood those ayaat & ta'veel by means of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) & Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), as I am continuously pointing out the phrase "Imamin Mubeen" & Quran e Natiq". Had there been no words of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Imams of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), none would be able to disclose the meaning of these terms. 

On the other hand, late Syed Fadlullah seems to be ignorant of these terms or either he has rejected the ahadith explaining these terms out of [deleted by Haji]

Thanks for your confirmation.  So this brings us back to square one: essentially you are overruling verses of the Qur'an with hadith.

 

[VoidVortex]

5 hours ago, Cool said:

 

So you are allowing him to say some people as ghali or kafir or even worst while no one can say him muqassir or ignorant just because he was a marja e taqleed and have written few books for expressing his lack if knowledge, may I ask why?

Sheikh Fadllalah disagreeing with the concept of insan kamil or the concepts mentioned does not mean he considers those who believe in it to be kafir. Do scholars start takfiring each other once they starts differing in the definition of what is ghuluw?

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 2/10/2023 at 8:57 PM, Cool said:

"al-Sayyid Faḍlallah rejected the notions proposed by streams of Imāmī thought which claim that the Prophets and Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt have knowledge of the unseen (ʿIlm al-Ghayb), and that they are the Mediums of Divine Emanation (Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī)"

Salam rejection of al-Sayyid Faḍlallah about "knowledge of the unseen (ʿIlm al-Ghayb), and that they are the Mediums of Divine Emanation (Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī)"" has been about rejection of wrong interpretations of Ghulats(exaggerators) which according their wrong idea they have beleieved that infallible Imams (عليه السلام) have  independent ʿIlm al-Ghayb & Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī from Allah but on the other hand he has accepted their dependence to Allah in learning & knowing of ʿIlm al-Ghayb & being Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī by permision of Allah.

On 2/10/2023 at 11:02 PM, kadhim said:

You’re not responding to the actual argument here. You’re making it out as if Fadlallah just chose to ignore those narrations because he felt like it. That’s not a truthful way to describe it. Fadlallah downplayed narrations such as this narrations saying “imamul mubeen” is about the imams because there are lots of clear Quran passages saying prophets and messengers and such are just regular people and not superhumans. 

As uusal you have wrong interpretaion from such matters which nobody has mentioned them as superhumans but on the other hand they have been regular people in apperance & way of life but on the other hand they have been superior to anyone in divine knowledge & spirituality by will of Allah due to their infallibility which even superhuman physiacl strength of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in battle of Khaibar has been related to his divine knowledge & spirituality not his aaprant physical body which according tonarration from Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) an infallible Imam deosn't has full knowledge of knowledge of unseen but on the other hand when he wwant to learn anything so then he learns it from divine source of knowledge so theefore although of being apparent regular human they have been superhumans in divine knowledge & spirituality by will of Allah.

Quote

In this regard it is narrated from Imam Sadiq that he stated: “When an Imam wills to know something, Allah will teach him.” [7]

 [7] Adopted from: The Imams’ Supernatural Knowledge of their Martyrdoms, Question 579 (website: 631).

 

Did the Imams have knowledge of the unseen?

question

Did the Imams (the Ahlul-Bayt) have knowledge of the unseen?

Concise answer

According to Quranic teachings, complete knowledge of the unseen only belongs to Allah, and it is Him that knows everything about this world. Some of Allah’s special servants are informed of secrets and knowledge and other impalpable things, they see the unseen and hear what cannot be heard through Allah’s teaching and training and based on the spiritual capability and capacity that they express from themselves. This is a gift that Allah grants to the chosen ones, like the prophets and His apostles.  This is why we find that the prophets would speak of revelation (which is an issue related to the unseen) or other issues related to the unseen and foretold the events of the future and these events would take place in exactly the form they had explained. Moreover, knowing that after the prophet, the imams are responsible of guiding man in all physical and spiritual fields, it is necessary for them to know about many issues related to the unseen. Therefore, on certain occasions where it is necessary for them to know about the unseen and they ask for it, Allah grants them the required knowledge.

Detailed Answer

Quote

allocating knowledge of the unseen to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) doesn’t mean that others can't learn of some of these secrets as a result of their worthiness and through Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) teaching. This is a blessing that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bestows upon certain chosen servants of His, such as the prophets and apostles. This is why we see the prophets speaking of revelation, which is considered of the unseen, or we see them foretelling future incidents that actually do take place at the time they have predicted.

 

Quote

Some have denied the imams’ unlimited knowledge, which would include their knowledge to the place and time of their martyrdom. However, the majority of Shi’a scholars argue relying on the Almighty’s words in the Quran: “Allah will not acquaint you with the Unseen (in order to tell the believers from the hypocrites, because this is against Allah’s custom), but Allah chooses from His apostles whomever He wishes (and informs them of some of the secrets that are needed for the position of leadership)” [3] and “Knower of the Unseen, He does not disclose His Unseen to anyone, except to an apostle He approves of. Then He dispatches a sentinel before and behind him” [4] , that the special servants of Allah can be informed of the Gheib on occasions which this knowledge is necessary. This meaning is also indicated in the ahadith of the imams. Imam Sadiq says in this regard: “When an imam wills to know something, Allah will teach him.” [5]

 

Therefore, according to these verses and ahadith and knowing that the prophets are responsible for guiding man in all spiritual and physical fields, they must possess a great amount of knowledge so that they can discharge their duty correctly, and the situation is similar to the imams that are the successors of the prophets. Therefore, they too have knowledge of the Gheib in a vast and unconditional form. [6]

In this regard it is narrated from Imam Sadiq that he stated: “When an Imam wills to know something, Allah will teach him.” [7]

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa3259

[Abu_Zahra]

7 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

On 2/10/2023 at 6:27 PM, Cool said:

"al-Sayyid Faḍlallah rejected the notions proposed by streams of Imāmī thought which claim that the Prophets and Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt have knowledge of the unseen (ʿIlm al-Ghayb), and that they are the Mediums of Divine Emanation (Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī)"

Expand  

Salam rejection of al-Sayyid Faḍlallah about "knowledge of the unseen (ʿIlm al-Ghayb), and that they are the Mediums of Divine Emanation (Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī)"" has been about rejection of wrong interpretations of Ghulats(exaggerators) which according their wrong idea they have beleieved that infallible Imams (عليه السلام) have  independent ʿIlm al-Ghayb & Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī from Allah but on the other hand he has accepted their dependence to Allah in learning & knowing of ʿIlm al-Ghayb & being Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī by permision of Allah.

This is untrue brother. You will need to prove that Sayyid Fadlallah stated this and that the ghulat believed what you have claimed. Nobody claims that the aimmah (عليه السلام) act indepently from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), not even the ghulat. 

For that matter, even the mushrikeen of Quraysh didn't believe their idols to be independent of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

[Cool]

On 2/11/2023 at 1:57 AM, Abu_Zahra said:

essentially you are overruling verses of the Qur'an with hadith.

Strange indeed, Infact it is you who are trying to block each & every explanation/interpretation of "mutashabeh verses" given by the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). 

So Prophet Ibrahim's (عليه السلام) intention & sound is not required for making those birds alive which he slaughtered. 

Jesus a s intention & call not required for making the dead alive. He hasn't created anything even if he is saying in the clear verse of Quran  أَنِّي أَخْلُقُ لَكُم & 

فَأَنفُخُ فِيهِ فَيَكُونُ طَيْرًا & وَأُحْيِـي الْمَوْتَى 

With some knowledge of the book, Asif bin Barqiyyah was able to bring throne of Queen within the blink of an eye but this cannot be done by the one who is known to have the complete knowledge of the book. Ot perhaps you have doubts on the very phrase "و من عنده علم الكتاب" present in chapter 13. 

I can express my sympathy to all those who remain incapable to grasp these "isharaat" & "lata'if". 

Wassalam!!

 

[Cool]

19 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

but on the other hand he has accepted their dependence to Allah in learning & knowing of ʿIlm al-Ghayb & being Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī by permision of Allah.

Salam!

Brother if it is the case, I have no problem with Ayatullah Fadlullah's opinion. But unfortunately, it appears that he did have some sort of famine of knowledge as he also rejected the concept of "insaan e kamil". 

So the late Ayatullah believed that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has obligated us to follow the "naqis insaan" if there are no "kamil insaan" for him. Please note that as per our viewpoint, kamil insaan are those whom shaytan cannot misguide neither the "kamil insaan" misguide humanity for they are appointed & protected by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for this task. 

If Islam is deen e kamil, quran is kitab e kamil, then the heart on which this book revealed and the person who brought this religion, is nothing but "insaan e kamil". And his status of "insaan e kamil" is a prerequisite if we keep in view the divine justice. 

Wassalam!!

[Cool]

On 2/11/2023 at 3:54 AM, VoidVortex said:

Sheikh Fadllalah disagreeing with the concept of insan kamil or the concepts mentioned does not mean he considers those who believe in it to be kafir.

Whatever he believed, I am not interested in knowing that as his famine of knowledge became apparent to me the moment I knew that there is no insaan e kamil for him, there are no personalities who are supposed to be the Wāsiṭat al-Fayḍ al-Ilāhī and that the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) don't have access to knowledge of unseen. 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

22 minutes ago, Cool said:

Salam!

Brother if it is the case, I have no problem with Ayatullah Fadlullah's opinion. But unfortunately, it appears that he did have some sort of famine of knowledge as he also rejected the concept of "insaan e kamil". 

So the late Ayatullah believed that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has obligated us to follow the "naqis insaan" if there are no "kamil insaan" for him. Please note that as per our viewpoint, kamil insaan are those whom shaytan cannot misguide neither the "kamil insaan" misguide humanity for they are appointed & protected by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for this task. 

If Islam is deen e kamil, quran is kitab e kamil, then the heart on which this book revealed and the person who brought this religion, is nothing but "insaan e kamil". And his status of "insaan e kamil" is a prerequisite if we keep in view the divine justice. 

Wassalam!!

Salam you totally misundertood point of "Insaan Kamil" which all shia marjas including Ayatullah Fadlullah  believe to following Imam Mahdi (aj) as "Insaan Kamil" who has full authority from allah as his caliph on earth which as Shaytan can't misguide inafallible Imam which is now Imam Mahdi (aj) which he guides & fixes errors of his deputies from fallible humans which in Arabic "Insaan Kamil"  &  "kamil insaan" are different from each other which   "Insaan Kamil"  is infallible likewise Imam Mahdi (aj) but on the on the other hand  "kamil insaan" is about fellible humans who follow way of Quran & ahlubayt (عليه السلام) so therefore Shaytan cannot misguide them too .

Quote

When you recite the Quran, seek the protection of Allah against the outcast Satan. (98) Indeed he does not have any authority over those who have faith and put their trust in their Lord. (99) His authority is only over those who befriend him and those who make him a partner [of Allah]. (100)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/16:99

Quote

He said, ‘My Lord! As You have consigned me to perversity, I will surely glamorize [evil] for them on the earth, and I will surely pervert them, all (39) except Your dedicated servants among them.’ (40) He said, ‘This is the path [leading] straight to Me. (41) Indeed, as for My servants you do not have any authority over them, except the perverse who follow you, (42)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/15:40

 

[Cool]

8 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

which   "Insaan Kamil"  is infallible likewise Imam Mahdi (aj) but on the on the other hand  "kamil insaan" is about fellible humans who follow way of Quran & ahlubayt (عليه السلام) so therefore Shaytan cannot misguide them too .

Brother, I have made it clear

43 minutes ago, Cool said:

Please note that as per our viewpoint, kamil insaan are those whom shaytan cannot misguide neither the "kamil insaan" misguide humanity for they are appointed & protected by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for this task. 

I do have used the term "kamil insaan here" but that doen't mean I am pointing towards those who are not the chosen ones of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).