Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Brother Taha, if you don't mind. :)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I know that you've mentioned certain opinions of scholars and 'authenticated' ahadith from the 'shia' side, to 'refute' the 'commonly' held views (with regards to particular issues) of the shias.

Unfortunatley i didn't keep record of these, and the threads now are all over the place.

I was wondering whether you can post some of them over here, so that i could have them verified and/or explained (or then refuted :)) ...

Now that you've 'absconded' ^_^ , i am going to bombard you with questions :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Advanced Member

Bro.. :(

I'd rather not do it that way.

For one thing, it's difficult to sum up *everything* and just paste it all into a post.

And anyways, I have voiced my concerns here publicly, one-by-one in different threads, and I never hid what I believed in. So maybe there's an indication. : )

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Uffo.. ok FINE. I'll post some here. : P

1) [edit: I have removed #1. I was asked about my feelings, and so I presented my subjective thoughts, which some people took offence to. For more peaceful dialogue, insha Allah, I have removed it]

2) Many of the past scholars beleived in tahreef, and they are not condemned by contemporary scholars. They are, in fact, highly respected and their books are treasured. Also, most of the contemporary scholars believe in 'tahreef bit-tarteeb' which is tahreef in the arrangement of the Quran (e.g. Syed Seestani, Syed Ali Milani, the Ahlul-Bayt World Assembly). Many shia members here also believe in this tahreef.

For example, here are the words of Faidh Al-Kashani:

والمستفاد من هذه الأخبار وغيرها من الروايات من طريق أهل البيت عليهم السلام أن القرآن الذي بين أظهرنا ليس بتمامه كما أنزل على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بل منه ماهو خلاف ما أنزل الله ، ومنه ما هو مغير محرف ، وأنه قد حذف منه أشياء كثيرة منها اسم علي عليه السلام ، في كثير من المواضع ، ومنها لفظة آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم غير مرة ، ومنها أسماء المنافقين في مواضعها ، ومنها غير ذلك ، وأنه ليس أيضا على الترتبيب المرضي عند الله ، وعند رسول صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم واما اعتقاد مشايخنا (ره) في ذلك فالظاهر من ثقة الاسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني طاب ثراه أنه كان يعتقد التحريف والنقصان في القرآن لأنه روى روايات في هذا المعنى في كتابه الكافي ولم يتعرض لقدح فيها مع أنه ذكر في أول الكتاب أنه كان يثق بما رواه فيه

And the words of At-Tabarsi:

إن الكناية عن أسماء أصحاب الجرائر العظيمة من المنافقين في القرآن ، ليست من فعله تعالى ، وإنها من فعل المغيرين والمبدلين الذين جعلوا القرآن عضين ، واعتاضوا الدنيا من الدين

3) The shia system of hadith is just... ... HMM

There seems to be no methodology adapted. Many a time, sahih ahadith are discarded because they go against 'common' practices/beliefs. Many (MOST) a time, weak ahadith are simply picked out of hadith books and are accepted.

Here are the words of Hurr Al-Amili, in Wasa'il Ash-Shi'a, 30:260-61:

ويلزم بطلان الإجماع ، الذي علم دخول المعصوم فيه ـ أيضا ـ كما تقدم .

واللوازم باطلة ، وكذا الملزوم .

بل يستلزم ضعف الأحاديث كلها ، عند التحقيق ، لأن الصحيح ـ عندهم ـ : « ما رواه العدل ، الإماميّ ، الضابط ، في جميع الطبقات » .

ولم ينصوا على عدالة أحد من الرواة ، إلا نادراً ، وإنما نصوا على التوثيق ، وهو لايستلزم العدالة ، قطعا ، بل بينهما عموم من وجه ، كما صرح به الشهيد الثاني ، وغيره .

ودعوى بعض المتأخرين : أن « الثقة » بمعنى « العدل ، الضابط » .

ممنوعة ، وهو مطالب بدليلها .

وكيف ؟ وهم مصرحون بخلافها ، حيث يوثقون من يعتقدون فسقه ، وكفره ، وفساد مذهبه ؟ !

وإنما المراد بالثقة : من يوثق بخبره ، ويؤمن منه الكذب عادة ، والتتبع شاهد به ، وقد صرح بذلك جماعة من المتقدمين ، والمتأخرين .

ومن معلوم ـ الذي لاريب فيه ، عند منصف ـ : أن الثقة تجامع الفسق ، بل الكفر .

وأصحاب الاصطلاح الجديد قد اشترطوا ـ في الراوي ـ العدالة فيلزم من ذلك ضعف جميع أحاديثنا ، لعدم العلم بعدالة أحد منهم ؛ إلا نادرا .

ففي إحداث هذا الاصطلاح غفلة ، من جهات متعددة ، كما ترى .

وكذلك كون الراوي ضعيفا في الحديث لا يستلزم الفسق ، بل يجتمع مع العدالة ، فإن العدل ، الكثير السهو ، ضعيف في الحديث ، والثقة ، والضعف غاية ما يمكن معرفته من أحوال الرواة .

ومن هنا يظهر فساد خيال من ظن أن آية ( إن جائكم فاسق بنبأ ) [ الآية (6) من سورة الحجرات (49) ] تشعر بصحة الاصطلاح الجديد .

مضافا إلى كون دلالتها بالمفهوم الضعيف ، المختلف في حجيته .

ويبقى خبر مجهول الفسق :

فان أجابوا : بأصالة العدالة .

أجبنا : بأنه خلاف مذهبهم ، ولم يذهب إليه منهم إلا القليل .

ومع ذلك : يلزمهم الحكم بعدالة المجهولين ، والمهملين ، وهم لا يقولون به .

ويبقى اشتراط العدالة بغير فائدة .

الخامس عشر :

أنه لو لم يجز لنا قبول شهادتهم في صحة أحاديث كتبهم ، وثبوتها ، ونقلها من الأصول الصحيحة ، والكتب المعتمدة ، وقيام القرائن على ثبوتها ، لما جاز لنا قبول شهادتهم في مدح الرواة ، وتوثيقهم .

فلا يبقى حديث ، صحيح ، ولاحسن ، ولاموثق ، بل يبقى جميع أحاديث كتب الشيعة ضعيفة

He is clear in point out that weakness and the 'fakeness' of the system, and that it was created as a defense reaction at the criticism of the sunnis that they have no system, and that if the system was actually applied, only a handful of ahadith would prove to be sahih, hasan or muwathaq.

And here are the words of Ayatullah Brujerdi (Taraif al-Maqal 2:380):

أخبار المحمدين بصحة ما في كتبهم جميعا في حيز المنع ، سيما مع ملاحظة إدراجهم الضعاف فيها بل هي أكثر ، ولعل الصحيح المعتبر المدرج في تلك الكتب كالشعرة البيضاء في البقرة السوداء

which rougly translates to: "To believe in the authenticity of the narrations reported by the Muhammads is impossible, especially with the reports of weak narrators among them. Rather, the weak are far more (than the authentic), whereas the authentic ones in those books are like the white hair on a black cow."

4) The ghulat tendencies of the contemporary Ithna 'Asharis!! :( There are many beliefs and practices among the current shias, that the earlier shias woulda found, just.. :blink:. For example tatbir (hitting your head with a sword), adding the wilayah to the adhan believing it to be wajib (Shirazi and another ayatollah whose name I do not recall), etc..

Look at what Allamah Ja'far Subhani says in his Kulliyat Fi 'Ilm ar-Rijal:

وقد عرفت أن التضعيف بين القدماء لأجل العقيدة لا يوجب سلب الوثوق عن الراوي، لأن أكثر ما رآه القدماء غلوا أصبح في زماننا من الضروريات في دين الإمامية

Which roughly translates to: "You've known that the mechanism of weakening based on the Creed among the early scholars does not necessarily deprive the narrator of his trustworthiness. This is because what the early scholars have considered exteremism (Ghuluw) [in the past] became in our contemporary time an indispensible part of Imamiyah religion". Trust me, there are many practices/beliefs of the shias that others just can't belieeeeve. Even I couldn't, as a shia.

For example, matam was unanimously considered forbidden in the earlier generations, but now it is seen as one of the 'best deeds' and the rewards promised for it are quite grand indeed.

e.g. Sheikh Mufid considered it haram, and declared that it was an ijma' (a concensus of the scholars of his time) that it was haram. Look at what Ayatollah Muhammad Al-Husaini Ash-Shirazi said in Al-Fiqh (15:253): لكن عن الشيخ في المبسوط ابن حمزة بالتحريم مطلقاً

As one last example, I will present the words of Sheikh Saduq, who was vehemently against the practice of adding the wilayah in the adhan, firmly calling it the practice of the ghulat (extremists) and the mufawwadah.

"The mufawwidah, may God curse them, have forged traditions and have inserted additions to the adhan. Thus, some of them add Muhammad and the house of Muhammad are the best of creation, twice. And in some of their quotations, after I witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God, I witness that Ali is the wali of God, twice. Some of them state, instead of that, I bear witness that Ali is truly the Commander of the Faithful, twice. There is no doubt that Ali is the wali of God, that he is truly the Commander of the Faithful and that Muhammad and his house are the best of creation, but all this is not in the original adhan. I have mentioned this so that those who are suspected of tafwid and who with deception include themselves in our community may be made known." (Man la yaduruh al-faqih, 1/188-189)

5) The misrepresentations and misquotations by shias: This is something that I find both the shias and salafis do. They incorrectly cite and misrepresent texts from the opposite side. My first disappointment was with Teejani, who has just too many lies, misquotations and misrepresentations. Sadly, I do not see him condemned or rebuked by the shia scholars for this. His books are, on the other hand, listed on all the major shia websites. My second gripe was with "A Shi'ite Encyclopedia" which again contains way too many misquotations and misrepresentations. The works of scholars should not be like this. They should present the TRUTH, and if it is not on their side, they should refrain from presenting it at all, as opposed to manipulating it.

My last, and major, gripe was with scholars like Syed Ali Al-Milani, who is a teacher at Qum, and his books are filled with lies and misrepresentations. Anyone who is curious, should go to http://www.aqaed.com and download his books. Everytime you see a reference, check it up. You will be disappointed. I certainly was... given that it wasn't an 'e-shia' doing this, but a respected scholar.

6) The 'evolution' of shi'ism: What shi'ism is today is different from what shi'ism was right after the ghaybah. And what shi'ism was then, was different from the shi'ism of the early salaf. Shi'ism (in its present form) did not crystallize until very late, and if I may be bold enough to say this - it still has not crystallized. So what shias beleive today, may very well be discarded tomorrow.

The very concept of the shias regarding imamate, has changed. To me, this includes infallibility, the limitation to the number '12', their obedience being absolute, etc.

For example, Muhammad Abdullah ibn Yafur, a prominent scholar of Kufa (Najashi 213, Kashhi 162), who was very close to imam Ja'far (Kulayni 6:464 and Kashhi 10) was praised highly by the imams. Imam Ja'far was completely satisfied with him (ibid 246, 249, 250). But Ibn Yafur simply considered the imams to be 'ulema abrar atqiya' - pious God-fearing scholars. And as Syed Al-Badri argued, there is a different between a 'alim and a rabbani. It is interesting to note that a number of anti-ghulat showed up at Ibn Yafur's funeral, showing the popularity of the idea in the early shia community. These shias were labeled by the extremists as muqassireen, shia murijites, or having sunni inclinations.

Another famous scholar, Ibn Qiba Ar-Razi held the same view (Naqd Kitab Al-Ishha 34). He was a figure so high in the shia community that Najashi, Tusi and Hilli put his name in the beginning of the list of authorities of the shia school, who agreement was essential for ijma' (concensus) for any religious question (Shafi 1:127 and 2:323). Interestingly, Ibn Qiba maintained that what happened at saqeefah was merely an error, and did not even reach the level of fisq, let alone kufr or nifaq.

As for the beleifs of the Mufawwidah, there were mass-adopted after the death of imam Ridha (a). And yet, the scholars of Qum STILL did not beleive any of these lies and forgeries. In fact, they began to label anyone who attributed supernatural qualities to the imams as ghulat and would expel them (Majlisi 52:89). (Interestingly, many shias today do not have a problem believing the imams teleported because they were made of light). Many hadith transmitters were banished because of their reporting of ahadith that were pro-ghulat and pro-mufawwidah. Haqaid al-Iman 150-51 attributed this opinion to many early imamites and says that many of them did not believe in the imams' ismah (Abu Ali 45:346, bahrul-Uloom 3:220)

These, and many internal and external contradictions continued to the time of imam Asakari (a). I have raised some concerns in my "The Twelve Imams" thread, and other threads, as well.

It seems that the early stages of the shia imami school were very tubulent, with history and hadith being recorded much later, and being reviewed and reinterpreted even later. We do not have any relics of 'ithna ashari shia' beliefs from the early times. On the other hand, the abundant relics that we do have, point in the other direction.

I hope no one took any offence, as none was intended.

I was asked to present my points, and that is all I did.

ws

Edited by tahasyed
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
(salam)

Uffo.. ok FINE. I'll post some here. : P

1) The fact that the 'general message' of the Quran seems soooo different from the 'general message' of shi'ism.

e.g. Quran: Believe in Allah, the Prophet, do good deeds, pray, don't wrong others, believe in al-qiyamah, etc..

Shi'ism: Believe in wilayal, the infallibility of the ahlul-bayt, the universe being created for them, loving them and cursing their enemies.

Yes, these are the 'general messages' of the two.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah)

(salam)

When people firstly told me that tahasyed has left shiism, I said why when was he a shia in the first place, all your posts were reminiscient of one, salmany.

It is evident with your post that you have no idea of what shiism is about. The main belief in shiism is Tawhid, it is everything. Shiism is all about tawhid, but don't confine tawhid to believing that Allah is one and he has no partners. Tawhid is believing that Allah is the one deity and to love whom HE loves, and hate whom HE hates and to submit wilfully to HIS command.

Iblis is so similar to the bakris in the sense he believed in Allah and worshipped him, but when Allah asked Iblis to prostrate to Adam (as) Iblis refused because his opinion of worshipping and believing differed to what Allah willed us to do. The same goes for the bakris, Allah says so clearly in the Quran to follow "ulul amr" and "al saadiqeen" and that your "wali" is the one who gave alms in his rukuu.Yet the bakris say there should be no connection with Allah even though Allah says in the Quran "wa ibtaghu ilahi al waseelah", that your connection to ALALH is direct. Islam or shiism is all about obediance, whilst bakrism in its many forms is all about conjecture.

2) Many of the past scholars beleived in tahreef, and they are not condemned by contemporary scholars. They are, in fact, highly respected and their books are treasured. Also, most of the contemporary scholars believe in 'tahreef bit-tarteeb' which is tahreef in the arrangement of the Quran (e.g. Syed Seestani, Syed Ali Milani, the Ahlul-Bayt World Assembly). Many shia members here also believe in this tahreef.

For example, here are the words of Faidh Al-Kashani:

والمستفاد من هذه الأخبار وغيرها من الروايات من طريق أهل البيت عليهم السلام أن القرآن الذي بين أظهرنا ليس بتمامه كما أنزل على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بل منه ماهو خلاف ما أنزل الله ،  ومنه ما هو مغير محرف ،  وأنه قد حذف منه أشياء كثيرة منها اسم علي عليه السلام ،  في كثير من المواضع ، ومنها لفظة آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم غير مرة ،  ومنها أسماء المنافقين في مواضعها ،  ومنها غير ذلك ،  وأنه ليس أيضا على الترتبيب المرضي عند الله ،  وعند رسول صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم واما اعتقاد مشايخنا (ره) في ذلك فالظاهر من ثقة الاسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني طاب ثراه أنه كان يعتقد التحريف والنقصان في القرآن لأنه روى روايات في هذا المعنى في كتابه الكافي ولم يتعرض لقدح فيها مع أنه ذكر في أول الكتاب أنه كان يثق بما رواه فيه

And the words of At-Tabarsi:

إن الكناية عن أسماء أصحاب الجرائر العظيمة من المنافقين في القرآن ،  ليست من فعله تعالى ،  وإنها من فعل المغيرين والمبدلين الذين جعلوا القرآن عضين ،  واعتاضوا الدنيا من الدين

Clean out your own backyard before you speak, Ayesha herself spoke about missing verses which were eaten by her pet, and Omar spoke about missing verses with regard to lashing.

I like my posts to be short.

Wassalaam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I like my posts to be short too.

Since I do not see any point being made in your post, I hope you (or someone else) can actually answer the concerns, rather than throw back stones at our house. Fine, 'glass house', if it makes you happy. :)

ws

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^

(salam

Reply to what? Accusations, you began by making false statements. What is shiism generally about? You deliberately failed to mention Tawhid, Adalat , Nabuwaat or day of Judgement, What did you expect? Someone to reply and to say "you know what you've got shiism down to the core. it is alien from islam." I gave you the right answer, you came out with lies, I gave you truths. Life is tough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Reply to what? Accusations, you began by making false statements. What is shiism generally about? You deliberately failed to mention Tawhid, Adalat , Nabuwaat or day of Judgement, What did you expect? Someone to reply and to say "you know what you've got shiism down to the core. it is alien from islam." I gave you the right answer, you came out with lies, I gave you truths. Life is tough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about this:

Since you don't like me, and I don't like your post, we don't waste the other people's time. :)

Anyone who has the answers to my questions, is more than welcome to reply.

And YES #1 is subjective. The brother asked me why, and I gave him my 'why'.

#2, 3 and 4 are still pending for replies.

And please, let us not waste each others' and others' time, insha Allah, abulhujjah. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

i would venture to say that bro taha knows more about shiism then some of the shias here since he was one always questioning and researching.

and i guess he hit some aspect of what shiism seems like since u went on and mentioned that shiism is about loving Allah and who He loves and hating who He hates. i never ever grew up learning that to love Allah we had to hate who He hated, infact I never learned Allah hated anyone. surely we learned things which would displease Allah and ppl in past/present who dont follow him and will go to hell but this no wonder sounds diff and alien.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
i would venture to say that bro taha knows more about shiism then some of the shias here since he was one always questioning and researching.

and i guess he hit some aspect of what shiism seems like since u went on and mentioned that shiism is about loving Allah and who He loves and hating who He hates. i never ever grew up learning that to love Allah we had to hate who He hated, infact I never learned Allah hated anyone. surely we learned things which would displease Allah and ppl in past/present who dont follow him and will go to hell but this no wonder sounds  diff and alien.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah)

(salam)

Well the Quran has many references of Allah not loving people and not loving means hating or am I wrong?

Wassalaam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

salam

i've come to the realization that no matter how much we argue/discuss/converse on sunni islam and shia islam...we will remain how we are...nothing much really changes...i've reached the conclusion that since everyone else's akherat is with them...and they are content in how they are following islam...let them be...more power to them...we all will always claim that what we believe/know is right...and it will always remain so...implicit thought processes(psychologically speaking)...we will all be accounted for on the Day of Judgement...then we will know who was right and who wasn't...and that's that...until then...we should each be concerned with our own akherat...live so that we can be with the Imam when he comes...inshAllah...

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Dear Brother Tahasyed,

I share some of your concerns while on the other hand, I see unnecessary confusion in some of your points (probably after over reading from contradictory shiite scholars - indeed over reading do sometimes bring unwarranted digestion worries!). I will attempt some quick replies while warning you that the practice of Islam (whether shia or sunni) has not remained unaldulterated or uncorrupted over 14 centuries. Man is a born corrupter and falsifier!!

And if you have now re-entered the sunni fray, allow me to caution you (as I was once a sunni who have tasted all the four flavours) that in whatever school of thought (madhab) you are in, the islam may appear milky!! However sunnism (in whatever variant) has only the colour and texture of milk but not the taste (after having been heavily diluted with water!). My point is: Spirituality has long left the body of sunnism!

1) The fact that the 'general message' of the Quran seems soooo different from the 'general message' of shi'ism.

You mistake the path for the destination!! Allah (swt) has made it clear that He (swt) has no need of our good deeds, worship etc nor does He will any wrong to His creation (3:108, 4:40, 17:71, 21:47, 22:10, 26:209, 40:31, 41:46, 45:22, 50:29, 64:11 )!!

He has only prescribed means and ways to purify ourselves so as to aspire to the highest rank in the pecking order amongst His creatures and the creation!

Therefore, there are no contradictions between shia Islam and the Quranic edicts (if you were to look from the perspective of "set objectives"!)

2) Many of the past scholars beleived in tahreef, and they are not condemned by contemporary scholars.

To date, I have no anwer to that!!

3) The shia system of hadith is just... ... HMM

There seems to be no methodology adapted. Many a time, sahih ahadith are discarded because they go against 'common' practices/beliefs.

The so called Sahih hadith (Bukhari , Muslim etc) are also coming under much scrutiny by many sunni scholars! Many sunnis use the theory of "chinese whispers" to reject most hadiths!! So you could also say that the sahih hadiths (compiled by Bukhari & Muslim) are just ....HMM! :)

4) The ghulat tendencies of the contemporary Ithna 'Asharis!! :( There are many beliefs and practices among the current shias, that the earlier shias woulda found, just.. :blink:. For example tatbir (hitting your head with a sword),

The sunni/sufi equivalent is "RIFAI" which I have practised extensively (albeit with no blood effusion but then the principle is the same).

The Holy prophet (pbuh) practised "Cupping" (on his jugular veins, upper part of the back and sometimes on the middle of his head) with the tip of an arrow every 17th, 19th and 21th of any month (including Ramadan and even while in the state of "Ihram" (Bukhari Vol 7 Chpt 11 & 14; Tirmidhi)

adding the wilayah to the adhan believing it to be wajib (Shirazi and another ayatollah whose name I do not recall), etc..

I agree ! Unfortunately, no adhan is authentic (neither the sunni nor the shia adhan) which must certainly prompt oneself to ask the following question:

Which sect or school of thought in Islam is authentic?

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

^

WTW!?!,

no adhan is authentic (neither the sunni nor the shia adhan) which must certainly prompt oneself to ask the following question:

Which sect or school of thought in Islam is authentic?

I bet you think that was a valid deduction, how does adhan authenticity have anything to do with madhhab authenticity?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I bet you think that was a valid deduction, how does adhan authenticity have anything to do with madhhab authenticity?

(salam)

Brother,

You are right! Adhan and madhab authenticity is not related!

However, the point I want to emphasize is : If adhan over the years have undergone modification, then each and every sect or school of thought has probably been tampered with! (a lure the followers could not have resisted)!

Even then, I firmly believe that shia Islam is more authentic when compared to the other diluted brands (that are being marketed as "Pure Nectar" when they are, in fact, mere canned drinks!) although I do not preclude that corruption have flourished throughout the body of Islam!

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

(salam)

Though i think i shouldn't post in here i do it for some rational reason, don't get offended.

Islam is one religion yet Muslim are fairly one, we have same book that is Book of Allah al Quran al Karim yet our interpretations are different, forget about difference they are contradictory.

I am fed-up of the pseudo plaster which most Muslims ( 99%) do to hide the cracks in their practises and madhabs.

They know they are contradictory on the base on one and same source Qur'an thus they plaster their act by saying: Differences between ulemas are a blessing for Ummah. haaahhaha i'm just mad to hear this :cry:

That's why i prefer everything to be a personal affair of individual Muslim except the UN-DISPUTED ones.

One thing, Brother Taha is much knowledgeable on Shia issues than most of the Shias themselves, this is a fact. Secondly, his grasp on Hadiths is very fine and filtered!

Allahu Aaalim wal Hadi.

Wassalam

Mazher's

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Personally, I think every person has the right to choose how to worship Allah subhanahu wa Ta3alah and choice what he thinks is the right path.

The major Flaw i see whit Shiasim is that they dont read their Mathhab books to really understand what is in it. Why Sunnis Critizise them for allowing such books to be published in the first place. As for their justification that they dont have Sahih Books similar to what Sunnis have, and every person has the right to read a hadeeth and compare it to Quran, and then decide whether this hadeeth is acceptable or not is a crime in itself. Lots of ignorant people read those books and dont have the ability to do this comparison

When a Sunni Quotes something from a Shia book they will give the excuse that they dont consider their books to be Sahih, and if he Qoutes from A Sunni Book they come Back with the excuse that they only accept Quotes from their books !!!

So both ways you wil end up with a lose=lose situation.

So what Are Sunnis sopposed to do ??? review Shia books and Filter it down to what is supposed to be Sahih and drop the rest.

It should be the Duty of your Ulamaa in the Hawzat so Shia Muslims could really understand the true and pure Islam when it comes to Aqaeed and Tawheed.

May Allah open your hearts to the Truth.

Fe Aman Allah ta3alah

Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is: Spirituality has long left the body of sunnism!

Do you believe it was there is the first place ? Didn't you believe that all these Sufi saints were actually Shia ?

I agree ! Unfortunately, no adhan is authentic (neither the sunni nor the shia adhan) which must certainly prompt oneself to ask the following question:

Which sect or school of thought in Islam is authentic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow... no adhan is authentic..

I dont' know, but for some reason shias use some type of tactic whenever they answer a question. They don't get to point right away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

asalamu alaykum

i just came back from umra and asked the shaikh who accompanied us about , the tahrif in quran , he said that its not the quran itself , but the meanings .. . . . and about ahadith , i asked about books like usool al kafi , bihar al anwar etc.. he said theese books have many unauthentic hadiths , and many authentic ones , and many which seem to be refuted at first look due to weird meanings , some are true but the way we look at it nowadays is wrong and if you study the history of that time , it would be perfectly fine ... but our modern society... ( he said something like that )

anyways i was assured by many shaikhs that the tahriff was not in the quran meaning the words , just the meanings and im not sure about that order thing , ....

and meccawi , its only the way you look at the hadiths which make it wrong , there are many un authentic hadiths in those books and no we dont have sahihs , which is better , as we can compare each hadith to the quran ... BUT sunnis having sahihs , the sahihs contradict quran , and give wrong and bad things , now you have no answer to those ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

Personally, I think every person has the right to choose how to worship Allah subhanahu wa Ta3alah and choice what he thinks is the right path.

The major Flaw i see whit Shiasim is that they dont read their Mathhab books to really understand what is in it. Why Sunnis Critizise them for allowing such books to be published in the first place. As for their justification that they dont have Sahih Books similar to what Sunnis have, and every person has the right to read a hadeeth and compare it to Quran, and then decide whether this hadeeth is acceptable or not is a crime in itself. Lots of ignorant people read those books and dont have the ability to do this comparison

When a Sunni Quotes something from a Shia book they will give the excuse that they dont consider their books to be Sahih, and if he Qoutes from A Sunni Book they come Back with the excuse that they only accept Quotes from their books !!!

So both ways you wil end up with a lose=lose situation.

So what Are Sunnis sopposed to do ??? review Shia books and Filter it down to what is supposed to be Sahih and drop the rest.

It should be the Duty of your Ulamaa in the Hawzat so Shia Muslims could really understand the true and pure Islam when it comes to Aqaeed and Tawheed.

May Allah open your hearts to the Truth.

Fe Aman Allah ta3alah

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(salam)

yah i believe Shiaism is more based on history. Its really don't touch religious laws that much. However, in this current time the Sunnis are have gotten very weak in history too (incl myself).

Link to post
Share on other sites
and meccawi , its only the way you look at the hadiths which make it wrong , there are many un authentic hadiths in those books and no we dont have sahihs , which is better , as we can compare each hadith to the quran ... BUT sunnis having sahihs , the sahihs contradict quran , and give wrong and bad things , now you have no answer to those ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think shia scholars should have the prerogative to do that and anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
How about this:

Since you don't like me, and I don't like your post, we don't waste the other people's time. :)

Anyone who has the answers to my questions, is more than welcome to reply.

And YES #1 is subjective. The brother asked me why, and I gave him my 'why'.

#2, 3 and 4 are still pending for replies.

And please, let us not waste each others' and others' time, insha Allah, abulhujjah. :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there is no need for this 3ammo. Abdul had a point. you gave an unjest and a rather harsh description of shiism. this is unlike you. the core of shiism is the same as sunnism. yes the practices of some of the commoners might give the impression that you had described. But a man Like Taha does not base his opinion on commoners practices.

as matter of fact i find the oness of Allah stronger with shiism then with sunnism, but the that is another subject.

salam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

asalamu alaykum

which shia scholar is this ? maybe its a sunni pretending to be a shia , how can u tell ...

shadatain

here read this

Question : Is it permissible to recite the third Shahadat (i.e. Ashhadu anna alian waliullah) in tashahhud?

§ Answer : No, it is not permissible, as a measure of obligatory precaution, to recite Shahadat Salesa in Tashahhud

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index...lang=ara∂=1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

My dear (almost shia) brother,

Do you believe it was there is the first place ?  Didn't you believe that all these Sufi saints were actually Shia ?

Indeed! But I was being diplomatic! You will find out that once you start trying your hand at spirituality (by attempting to subdue your ego and devoting more time to prayer, social activities vis a vis the down troden etc) you immediately find yourself on the frontier of sunnism (as sunnism is only about rites)!

Take your case: Are you happy with the religiousness of your sunni friends, neighbours , relatives and especially sunni girls?

Are you interested in marrying a sunni girl whose (main) interest consist of shopping, travelling, TV serials and Revlon? :)

Wow... no adhan is authentic..

Indeed! Even the (sunni) Jummah Khutbah has been tampered with!!

It seems that the only authentic and unfalsified relic is the Holy Quran! (unless you can name another!)

I dont' know, but for some reason shias use some type of tactic whenever they answer a question. They don't get to point right away.

Let's face it brother!! This sunni-shia forum should be re-named "The Gladiators Arena"! We all come here for the excitement and the adrenaline surge (with little intent on real debate). Everyone is trying to prove the other one wrong! The reality is that each sect is carrying within itself positive aspects as well as inner distortions and corruptions! (although Shia Islam is evidently closer to "Pure" Islam - this is at least my opinion)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam) Brother Taha,

I'm very happy for you Ma'shallah that Allah has guided you to the right path. The path of our beloved Nabi (pbuh) , The Ahle bait and the Sahaba (ra). Akhi, do not worry about people's criticism just stand steady and Allah swt will help you because you stand corrected.

In the end, many Congratulations to you for accepting the correct deen e Islam.

w'salam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Bismillah

Assalam o Alaikum

Brother Taha, the domain in which you deals is little different of mine.

Any how, let me also shed my views about the issues that you raised (with Allah's Help. Insha-Allah).

(salam)

2) Many of the past scholars beleived in tahreef, and they are not condemned by contemporary scholars. They are, in fact, highly respected and their books are treasured. Also, most of the contemporary scholars believe in 'tahreef bit-tarteeb' which is tahreef in the arrangement of the Quran (e.g. Syed Seestani, Syed Ali Milani, the Ahlul-Bayt World Assembly). Many shia members here also believe in this tahreef.

For example, here are the words of Faidh Al-Kashani:

والمستفاد من هذه الأخبار وغيرها من الروايات من طريق أهل البيت عليهم السلام أن القرآن الذي بين أظهرنا ليس بتمامه كما أنزل على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بل منه ماهو خلاف ما أنزل الله ،  ومنه ما هو مغير محرف ،  وأنه قد حذف منه أشياء كثيرة منها اسم علي عليه السلام ،  في كثير من المواضع ، ومنها لفظة آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم غير مرة ،  ومنها أسماء المنافقين في مواضعها ،  ومنها غير ذلك ،  وأنه ليس أيضا على الترتبيب المرضي عند الله ،  وعند رسول صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم واما اعتقاد مشايخنا (ره) في ذلك فالظاهر من ثقة الاسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني طاب ثراه أنه كان يعتقد التحريف والنقصان في القرآن لأنه روى روايات في هذا المعنى في كتابه الكافي ولم يتعرض لقدح فيها مع أنه ذكر في أول الكتاب أنه كان يثق بما رواه فيه

And the words of At-Tabarsi:

إن الكناية عن أسماء أصحاب الجرائر العظيمة من المنافقين في القرآن ،  ليست من فعله تعالى ،  وإنها من فعل المغيرين والمبدلين الذين جعلوا القرآن عضين ،  واعتاضوا الدنيا من الدين

My Comments:

* Firstly, Shia Ulama doesn't consider one to be Kaffir who doesn't believe in completeness of Quran. This is a fiqh Issue.

* It is a proved fact that not only some Shia Scholars believed in Tehrif, but the first one who doubted it, were Sahaba themselves. (and Shia Scholars not even deem those Sahaba to be Kuffar for believing in Tehrif).

* Therefore, things are only seen as "Difference of Opinion". Present Shia Scholars differ with their particular opinion about Quran and deem that they made mistake in this field. But this doesn't mean that either such person should be declared Kafir or to discard whole of his work and knowledge.

* If some one today demands that such scholars should be condemned by present Shia Scholars, then it is a useless demand (in my humble opinion), and it is completely enough to differ only with their views about particular case of Quran.

The Present Order of Verses in Quran

* Again I see it is heighly strict demand to condemn such people who believe that present Quran is not in proper order and one may make mistake while reading it as verses of 2 incidents is found in one verse.... etc.

* Even if I have to choose on the bases of evidences that I have seen, then I will choose this option.

[Remember there are so many Sunni Sahih Ahadith on this Issue from Bukhari and Muslim and other too. And if today any Sunni claims that present Quranic Order has been set by Allah, then:

1) He is lying and saying this thing against the STANDARDS that are set by Sunni Islam to judge the things. And I deem it only to be Munafiqat. They either have to accept the non-proper arrangement of Quran, or to throw whole of their "Hadith" System in to Dustbin.

But what to do of "Hypocrary" which has kept them on still adhering to these 2 Opposite Things and at the same time bashing Shia Islam.

* In brief brother Taha, let's say I can give you the Right of differing with me on this Issue of arrangement of Quran. But is it really so difficult for you to give the same right to me to differ with you on this Issue?

3) The shia system of hadith is just... ... HMM

There seems to be no methodology adapted. Many a time, sahih ahadith are discarded because they go against 'common' practices/beliefs. Many (MOST) a time, weak ahadith are simply picked out of hadith books and are accepted.

Here are the words of Hurr Al-Amili, in Wasa'il Ash-Shi'a, 30:260-61:

ويلزم بطلان الإجماع ، الذي علم دخول المعصوم فيه ـ أيضا ـ كما تقدم .

واللوازم باطلة ، وكذا الملزوم .

بل يستلزم ضعف الأحاديث كلها ، عند التحقيق ، لأن الصحيح ـ عندهم ـ : « ما رواه العدل ، الإماميّ ، الضابط ، في جميع الطبقات » .

ولم ينصوا على عدالة أحد من الرواة ، إلا نادراً ، وإنما نصوا على التوثيق ، وهو لايستلزم العدالة ، قطعا ، بل بينهما عموم من وجه ، كما صرح به الشهيد الثاني ، وغيره .

ودعوى بعض المتأخرين : أن « الثقة » بمعنى « العدل ، الضابط » .

ممنوعة ، وهو مطالب بدليلها .

وكيف ؟ وهم مصرحون بخلافها ، حيث يوثقون من يعتقدون فسقه ، وكفره ، وفساد مذهبه ؟ !

وإنما المراد بالثقة : من يوثق بخبره ، ويؤمن منه الكذب عادة ، والتتبع شاهد به ، وقد صرح بذلك جماعة من المتقدمين ، والمتأخرين .

ومن معلوم ـ الذي لاريب فيه ، عند منصف ـ : أن الثقة تجامع الفسق ، بل الكفر .

وأصحاب الاصطلاح الجديد قد اشترطوا ـ في الراوي ـ العدالة فيلزم من ذلك ضعف جميع أحاديثنا ، لعدم العلم بعدالة أحد منهم ؛ إلا نادرا .

ففي إحداث هذا الاصطلاح غفلة ، من جهات متعددة ، كما ترى .

وكذلك كون الراوي ضعيفا في الحديث لا يستلزم الفسق ، بل يجتمع مع العدالة ، فإن العدل ، الكثير السهو ، ضعيف في الحديث ، والثقة ، والضعف غاية ما يمكن معرفته من أحوال الرواة .

ومن هنا يظهر فساد خيال من ظن أن آية ( إن جائكم فاسق بنبأ ) [ الآية (6) من سورة الحجرات (49) ] تشعر بصحة الاصطلاح الجديد .

مضافا إلى كون دلالتها بالمفهوم الضعيف ، المختلف في حجيته .

ويبقى خبر مجهول الفسق :

فان أجابوا : بأصالة العدالة .

أجبنا : بأنه خلاف مذهبهم ، ولم يذهب إليه منهم إلا القليل .

ومع ذلك : يلزمهم الحكم بعدالة المجهولين ، والمهملين ، وهم لا يقولون به .

ويبقى اشتراط العدالة بغير فائدة .

الخامس عشر :

أنه لو لم يجز لنا قبول شهادتهم في صحة أحاديث كتبهم ، وثبوتها ، ونقلها من الأصول الصحيحة ، والكتب المعتمدة ، وقيام القرائن على ثبوتها ، لما جاز لنا قبول شهادتهم في مدح الرواة ، وتوثيقهم .

فلا يبقى حديث ، صحيح ، ولاحسن ، ولاموثق ، بل يبقى جميع أحاديث كتب الشيعة ضعيفة

He is clear in point out that weakness and the 'fakeness' of the system, and that it was created as a defense reaction at the criticism of the sunnis that they have no system, and that if the system was actually applied, only a handful of ahadith would prove to be sahih, hasan or muwathaq.

As far as I remember, Bukhari had 700,000 Ahadith in front of him and he chose not even 4 thousand (if repetition is omitted). While Imam Muslim had 900,000 Ahadith.

And here are the words of Ayatullah Brujerdi (Taraif al-Maqal 2:380):

أخبار المحمدين بصحة ما في كتبهم جميعا في حيز المنع ، سيما مع ملاحظة إدراجهم الضعاف فيها بل هي أكثر ، ولعل الصحيح المعتبر المدرج في تلك الكتب كالشعرة البيضاء في البقرة السوداء 

which rougly translates to: "To believe in the authenticity of the narrations reported by the Muhammads is impossible, especially with the reports of weak narrators among them. Rather, the weak are far more (than the authentic), whereas the authentic ones in those books are like the white hair on a black cow."

I thought on this Issue for long time. And I would request you to please not judge Shia Hadith System on the bases of Rules of Sunni Hadith System.

From Aima (as), there exists no concrete hadith which uses the name of "Sahih Hadith", or only taking "Sahih Hadith". But always main emphesis was on "Tawattur" or "That Hadith, that was famous among Shia Population".

Therefore, the term "Sahih Hadith" has very less significance to me, but indeed there are other Standards which are much important than this.

Brother Taha, I think we have to discuss on this Issue once again in depth. (Please see the next post Insha-Allah).

4) The ghulat tendencies of the contemporary Ithna 'Asharis!! :( There are many beliefs and practices among the current shias, that the earlier shias woulda found, just.. :blink:. For example tatbir (hitting your head with a sword), adding the wilayah to the adhan believing it to be wajib (Shirazi and another ayatollah whose name I do not recall), etc..

Look at what Allamah Ja'far Subhani says in his Kulliyat Fi 'Ilm ar-Rijal:

وقد عرفت أن التضعيف بين القدماء لأجل العقيدة لا يوجب سلب الوثوق عن الراوي، لأن أكثر ما رآه القدماء غلوا أصبح في زماننا من الضروريات في دين الإمامية

Which roughly translates to: "You've known that the mechanism of weakening based on the Creed among the early scholars does not necessarily deprive the narrator of his trustworthiness. This is because what the early scholars have considered exteremism (Ghuluw) [in the past] became in our contemporary time an indispensible part of Imamiyah religion". Trust me, there are many practices/beliefs of the shias that others just can't belieeeeve. Even I couldn't, as a shia.

For example, matam was unanimously considered forbidden in the earlier generations, but now it is seen as one of the 'best deeds' and the rewards promised for it are quite grand indeed.

e.g. Sheikh Mufid considered it haram, and declared that it was an ijma' (a concensus of the scholars of his time) that it was haram. Look at what Ayatollah Muhammad Al-Husaini Ash-Shirazi said in Al-Fiqh (15:253): لكن عن الشيخ في المبسوط ابن حمزة بالتحريم مطلقاً

As one last example, I will present the words of Sheikh Saduq, who was vehemently against the practice of adding the wilayah in the adhan, firmly calling it the practice of the ghulat (extremists) and the mufawwadah.

"The mufawwidah, may God curse them, have forged traditions and have inserted additions to the adhan. Thus, some of them add Muhammad and the house of Muhammad are the best of creation, twice.  And in some of their quotations, after I witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God, I witness that Ali is the wali of God, twice.  Some of them state, instead of that, I bear witness that Ali is truly the Commander of the Faithful, twice.  There is no doubt that Ali is the wali of God, that he is truly the Commander of the Faithful and that Muhammad and his house are the best of creation, but all this is not in the original adhan.  I have mentioned this so that those who are suspected of tafwid and who with deception include themselves in our community may be made known." (Man la yaduruh al-faqih, 1/188-189)

ws

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brother Taha,

First thing you have to accept that Matam of later Shia Generations (if it is really an innovation of later Generations) has nothing to do with Real Shia Aqeedah (i.e. Matam is a practice "Faroo-e-Deen" and there may be right or wrong views about this issue among Shia Nation itself)

But important ISSUE is of taking "Ali's" name in Kalima and Adhan.

Sheikh Mufid wrote that SIGN of Muffawiddah is this that they have have forged traditions and have inserted additions to the adhan.

But if you look closely, then you will find about present situation that:

1. Shia Maraja (like Ayatullah Seestani) doesn't believe in these FORGED traditons that taking name of Ali (as) is obligatory in Kalima and Adhan.

2. But if they have allowed it, then it is on the OTHER Bases. If you really want to understand these Bases, then read the following.

* What is Kalima of Islam according to Shias?

Answer is Kalima of Islam is only "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad (saw) is his Prophet". Any person taking these 2 testimonies, is considered MUSLIM from Shias.

* Is it allowed to declare other Testimonies along with "Kalima of Islam"?

Answer is YES, one is allowed to add any other Testimony (which is proved from Quran and Sunnah) after reciting "Kalima of Islam"

i.e. one can also add "I belive in KUTB, ANGELS, Judgementday etc.

These extra statements are known as "Kalimas of IMAN" (and not Kalima of Islam).

Same is true with "Aliyan Walli Allah". We believe it be a part of our Iman that Rasool (saw) appointed Ali (as) as his Wali in Ghadeer and declare it openly (but not on bases of fabricated Ahadith or as Obligation), but as Tabarruk and propagating the Truth.

Same is true with Adhan that we believe that it is allowed to add such type of "Adhkar" in Adhan and Salat.

Now opponents criticize us for this, but look at the following Sunni Ahadith too:

Saheeh al Bukharee, Kitab al Salat Volume 1, Book 12, Number 764:

Narrated Rifa'a bin Rafi Az-Zuraqi:

One day we were praying behind the Prophet. When he raised his head from bowing, he said, "Sami'a-l-lahu Liman hamida." A man behind him said, "Rabbana walaka-l hamd hamdan Kathiran taiyiban mubarakan fihi" (O our Lord! All the praises are for You, many good and blessed praises). When the Prophet completed the prayer, he asked, "Who has said these words?" The man replied, "I." The Prophet said, "I saw over thirty angels competing to write it first." Prophet rose (from bowing) and stood straight till all the vertebrae of his spinal column came to a natural position.

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani in Fathul Bari, in his commentary of this Hadeeth, said:

"….the Hadeeth indicates the permissibility of initiating new expressions of dhikr in the prayer other than the ones related through Hadeeth texts, as long as they do not contradict those conveyed by the Hadeeth"

In brief, today if Shia Maraja Karam allow reciting Ali (as) name in Kalims or Adhan then it is due to this fact that such "Adhkar" are allowed according to Shia Fiqh, and not on the bases of some fabricated Ahadith on this Issue.

Hope this clearifies the difference between Muffawiddah and present day Shia Maraja Karam.

Was Salam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
(salam)

Uffo.. ok FINE. I'll post some here. : P

1) [edit: I have removed #1. I was asked about my feelings, and so I presented my subjective thoughts, which some people took offence to. For more peaceful dialogue, insha Allah, I have removed it]

2) Many of the past scholars beleived in tahreef, and they are not condemned by contemporary scholars. They are, in fact, highly respected and their books are treasured. Also, most of the contemporary scholars believe in 'tahreef bit-tarteeb' which is tahreef in the arrangement of the Quran (e.g. Syed Seestani, Syed Ali Milani, the Ahlul-Bayt World Assembly). Many shia members here also believe in this tahreef.

For example, here are the words of Faidh Al-Kashani:

والمستفاد من هذه الأخبار وغيرها من الروايات من طريق أهل البيت عليهم السلام أن القرآن الذي بين أظهرنا ليس بتمامه كما أنزل على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بل منه ماهو خلاف ما أنزل الله ،  ومنه ما هو مغير محرف ،  وأنه قد حذف منه أشياء كثيرة منها اسم علي عليه السلام ،  في كثير من المواضع ، ومنها لفظة آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم غير مرة ،  ومنها أسماء المنافقين في مواضعها ،  ومنها غير ذلك ،  وأنه ليس أيضا على الترتبيب المرضي عند الله ،  وعند رسول صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم واما اعتقاد مشايخنا (ره) في ذلك فالظاهر من ثقة الاسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني طاب ثراه أنه كان يعتقد التحريف والنقصان في القرآن لأنه روى روايات في هذا المعنى في كتابه الكافي ولم يتعرض لقدح فيها مع أنه ذكر في أول الكتاب أنه كان يثق بما رواه فيه

And the words of At-Tabarsi:

إن الكناية عن أسماء أصحاب الجرائر العظيمة من المنافقين في القرآن ،  ليست من فعله تعالى ،  وإنها من فعل المغيرين والمبدلين الذين جعلوا القرآن عضين ،  واعتاضوا الدنيا من الدين

3) The shia system of hadith is just... ... HMM

There seems to be no methodology adapted. Many a time, sahih ahadith are discarded because they go against 'common' practices/beliefs. Many (MOST) a time, weak ahadith are simply picked out of hadith books and are accepted.

Here are the words of Hurr Al-Amili, in Wasa'il Ash-Shi'a, 30:260-61:

ويلزم بطلان الإجماع ، الذي علم دخول المعصوم فيه ـ أيضا ـ كما تقدم .

واللوازم باطلة ، وكذا الملزوم .

بل يستلزم ضعف الأحاديث كلها ، عند التحقيق ، لأن الصحيح ـ عندهم ـ : « ما رواه العدل ، الإماميّ ، الضابط ، في جميع الطبقات » .

ولم ينصوا على عدالة أحد من الرواة ، إلا نادراً ، وإنما نصوا على التوثيق ، وهو لايستلزم العدالة ، قطعا ، بل بينهما عموم من وجه ، كما صرح به الشهيد الثاني ، وغيره .

ودعوى بعض المتأخرين : أن « الثقة » بمعنى « العدل ، الضابط » .

ممنوعة ، وهو مطالب بدليلها .

وكيف ؟ وهم مصرحون بخلافها ، حيث يوثقون من يعتقدون فسقه ، وكفره ، وفساد مذهبه ؟ !

وإنما المراد بالثقة : من يوثق بخبره ، ويؤمن منه الكذب عادة ، والتتبع شاهد به ، وقد صرح بذلك جماعة من المتقدمين ، والمتأخرين .

ومن معلوم ـ الذي لاريب فيه ، عند منصف ـ : أن الثقة تجامع الفسق ، بل الكفر .

وأصحاب الاصطلاح الجديد قد اشترطوا ـ في الراوي ـ العدالة فيلزم من ذلك ضعف جميع أحاديثنا ، لعدم العلم بعدالة أحد منهم ؛ إلا نادرا .

ففي إحداث هذا الاصطلاح غفلة ، من جهات متعددة ، كما ترى .

وكذلك كون الراوي ضعيفا في الحديث لا يستلزم الفسق ، بل يجتمع مع العدالة ، فإن العدل ، الكثير السهو ، ضعيف في الحديث ، والثقة ، والضعف غاية ما يمكن معرفته من أحوال الرواة .

ومن هنا يظهر فساد خيال من ظن أن آية ( إن جائكم فاسق بنبأ ) [ الآية (6) من سورة الحجرات (49) ] تشعر بصحة الاصطلاح الجديد .

مضافا إلى كون دلالتها بالمفهوم الضعيف ، المختلف في حجيته .

ويبقى خبر مجهول الفسق :

فان أجابوا : بأصالة العدالة .

أجبنا : بأنه خلاف مذهبهم ، ولم يذهب إليه منهم إلا القليل .

ومع ذلك : يلزمهم الحكم بعدالة المجهولين ، والمهملين ، وهم لا يقولون به .

ويبقى اشتراط العدالة بغير فائدة .

الخامس عشر :

أنه لو لم يجز لنا قبول شهادتهم في صحة أحاديث كتبهم ، وثبوتها ، ونقلها من الأصول الصحيحة ، والكتب المعتمدة ، وقيام القرائن على ثبوتها ، لما جاز لنا قبول شهادتهم في مدح الرواة ، وتوثيقهم .

فلا يبقى حديث ، صحيح ، ولاحسن ، ولاموثق ، بل يبقى جميع أحاديث كتب الشيعة ضعيفة

He is clear in point out that weakness and the 'fakeness' of the system, and that it was created as a defense reaction at the criticism of the sunnis that they have no system, and that if the system was actually applied, only a handful of ahadith would prove to be sahih, hasan or muwathaq.

And here are the words of Ayatullah Brujerdi (Taraif al-Maqal 2:380):

أخبار المحمدين بصحة ما في كتبهم جميعا في حيز المنع ، سيما مع ملاحظة إدراجهم الضعاف فيها بل هي أكثر ، ولعل الصحيح المعتبر المدرج في تلك الكتب كالشعرة البيضاء في البقرة السوداء 

which rougly translates to: "To believe in the authenticity of the narrations reported by the Muhammads is impossible, especially with the reports of weak narrators among them. Rather, the weak are far more (than the authentic), whereas the authentic ones in those books are like the white hair on a black cow."

4) The ghulat tendencies of the contemporary Ithna 'Asharis!! :( There are many beliefs and practices among the current shias, that the earlier shias woulda found, just.. :blink:. For example tatbir (hitting your head with a sword), adding the wilayah to the adhan believing it to be wajib (Shirazi and another ayatollah whose name I do not recall), etc..

Look at what Allamah Ja'far Subhani says in his Kulliyat Fi 'Ilm ar-Rijal:

وقد عرفت أن التضعيف بين القدماء لأجل العقيدة لا يوجب سلب الوثوق عن الراوي، لأن أكثر ما رآه القدماء غلوا أصبح في زماننا من الضروريات في دين الإمامية

Which roughly translates to: "You've known that the mechanism of weakening based on the Creed among the early scholars does not necessarily deprive the narrator of his trustworthiness. This is because what the early scholars have considered exteremism (Ghuluw) [in the past] became in our contemporary time an indispensible part of Imamiyah religion". Trust me, there are many practices/beliefs of the shias that others just can't belieeeeve. Even I couldn't, as a shia.

For example, matam was unanimously considered forbidden in the earlier generations, but now it is seen as one of the 'best deeds' and the rewards promised for it are quite grand indeed.

e.g. Sheikh Mufid considered it haram, and declared that it was an ijma' (a concensus of the scholars of his time) that it was haram. Look at what Ayatollah Muhammad Al-Husaini Ash-Shirazi said in Al-Fiqh (15:253): لكن عن الشيخ في المبسوط ابن حمزة بالتحريم مطلقاً

As one last example, I will present the words of Sheikh Saduq, who was vehemently against the practice of adding the wilayah in the adhan, firmly calling it the practice of the ghulat (extremists) and the mufawwadah.

"The mufawwidah, may God curse them, have forged traditions and have inserted additions to the adhan. Thus, some of them add Muhammad and the house of Muhammad are the best of creation, twice.  And in some of their quotations, after I witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God, I witness that Ali is the wali of God, twice.  Some of them state, instead of that, I bear witness that Ali is truly the Commander of the Faithful, twice.  There is no doubt that Ali is the wali of God, that he is truly the Commander of the Faithful and that Muhammad and his house are the best of creation, but all this is not in the original adhan.  I have mentioned this so that those who are suspected of tafwid and who with deception include themselves in our community may be made known." (Man la yaduruh al-faqih, 1/188-189)

ws

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(salam)

thank u for ur post...before I try to add my understanding to ur post, I would like to know ur beliefe?could u explain me ur beliefe plz?...Which mazhab do u belong to?...R u shia and does not understand the above concept? or r u sunni and do not understand the above?

Insha'Allah I will look forward to chat to u.

tc

(salam)

Edited by Ali-raza
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Uffo.. ok FINE. I'll post some here. : P

1) [edit: I have removed #1. I was asked about my feelings, and so I presented my subjective thoughts, which some people took offence to. For more peaceful dialogue, insha Allah, I have removed it]

2) Many of the past scholars beleived in tahreef, and they are not condemned by contemporary scholars. They are, in fact, highly respected and their books are treasured. Also, most of the contemporary scholars believe in 'tahreef bit-tarteeb' which is tahreef in the arrangement of the Quran (e.g. Syed Seestani, Syed Ali Milani, the Ahlul-Bayt World Assembly). Many shia members here also believe in this tahreef.

For example, here are the words of Faidh Al-Kashani:

والمستفاد من هذه الأخبار وغيرها من الروايات من طريق أهل البيت عليهم السلام أن القرآن الذي بين أظهرنا ليس بتمامه كما أنزل على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بل منه ماهو خلاف ما أنزل الله ،  ومنه ما هو مغير محرف ،  وأنه قد حذف منه أشياء كثيرة منها اسم علي عليه السلام ،  في كثير من المواضع ، ومنها لفظة آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم غير مرة ،  ومنها أسماء المنافقين في مواضعها ،  ومنها غير ذلك ،  وأنه ليس أيضا على الترتبيب المرضي عند الله ،  وعند رسول صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم واما اعتقاد مشايخنا (ره) في ذلك فالظاهر من ثقة الاسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني طاب ثراه أنه كان يعتقد التحريف والنقصان في القرآن لأنه روى روايات في هذا المعنى في كتابه الكافي ولم يتعرض لقدح فيها مع أنه ذكر في أول الكتاب أنه كان يثق بما رواه فيه

And the words of At-Tabarsi:

إن الكناية عن أسماء أصحاب الجرائر العظيمة من المنافقين في القرآن ،  ليست من فعله تعالى ،  وإنها من فعل المغيرين والمبدلين الذين جعلوا القرآن عضين ،  واعتاضوا الدنيا من الدين

3) The shia system of hadith is just... ... HMM

There seems to be no methodology adapted. Many a time, sahih ahadith are discarded because they go against 'common' practices/beliefs. Many (MOST) a time, weak ahadith are simply picked out of hadith books and are accepted.

Here are the words of Hurr Al-Amili, in Wasa'il Ash-Shi'a, 30:260-61:

ويلزم بطلان الإجماع ، الذي علم دخول المعصوم فيه ـ أيضا ـ كما تقدم .

واللوازم باطلة ، وكذا الملزوم .

بل يستلزم ضعف الأحاديث كلها ، عند التحقيق ، لأن الصحيح ـ عندهم ـ : « ما رواه العدل ، الإماميّ ، الضابط ، في جميع الطبقات » .

ولم ينصوا على عدالة أحد من الرواة ، إلا نادراً ، وإنما نصوا على التوثيق ، وهو لايستلزم العدالة ، قطعا ، بل بينهما عموم من وجه ، كما صرح به الشهيد الثاني ، وغيره .

ودعوى بعض المتأخرين : أن « الثقة » بمعنى « العدل ، الضابط » .

ممنوعة ، وهو مطالب بدليلها .

وكيف ؟ وهم مصرحون بخلافها ، حيث يوثقون من يعتقدون فسقه ، وكفره ، وفساد مذهبه ؟ !

وإنما المراد بالثقة : من يوثق بخبره ، ويؤمن منه الكذب عادة ، والتتبع شاهد به ، وقد صرح بذلك جماعة من المتقدمين ، والمتأخرين .

ومن معلوم ـ الذي لاريب فيه ، عند منصف ـ : أن الثقة تجامع الفسق ، بل الكفر .

وأصحاب الاصطلاح الجديد قد اشترطوا ـ في الراوي ـ العدالة فيلزم من ذلك ضعف جميع أحاديثنا ، لعدم العلم بعدالة أحد منهم ؛ إلا نادرا .

ففي إحداث هذا الاصطلاح غفلة ، من جهات متعددة ، كما ترى .

وكذلك كون الراوي ضعيفا في الحديث لا يستلزم الفسق ، بل يجتمع مع العدالة ، فإن العدل ، الكثير السهو ، ضعيف في الحديث ، والثقة ، والضعف غاية ما يمكن معرفته من أحوال الرواة .

ومن هنا يظهر فساد خيال من ظن أن آية ( إن جائكم فاسق بنبأ ) [ الآية (6) من سورة الحجرات (49) ] تشعر بصحة الاصطلاح الجديد .

مضافا إلى كون دلالتها بالمفهوم الضعيف ، المختلف في حجيته .

ويبقى خبر مجهول الفسق :

فان أجابوا : بأصالة العدالة .

أجبنا : بأنه خلاف مذهبهم ، ولم يذهب إليه منهم إلا القليل .

ومع ذلك : يلزمهم الحكم بعدالة المجهولين ، والمهملين ، وهم لا يقولون به .

ويبقى اشتراط العدالة بغير فائدة .

الخامس عشر :

أنه لو لم يجز لنا قبول شهادتهم في صحة أحاديث كتبهم ، وثبوتها ، ونقلها من الأصول الصحيحة ، والكتب المعتمدة ، وقيام القرائن على ثبوتها ، لما جاز لنا قبول شهادتهم في مدح الرواة ، وتوثيقهم .

فلا يبقى حديث ، صحيح ، ولاحسن ، ولاموثق ، بل يبقى جميع أحاديث كتب الشيعة ضعيفة

He is clear in point out that weakness and the 'fakeness' of the system, and that it was created as a defense reaction at the criticism of the sunnis that they have no system, and that if the system was actually applied, only a handful of ahadith would prove to be sahih, hasan or muwathaq.

And here are the words of Ayatullah Brujerdi (Taraif al-Maqal 2:380):

أخبار المحمدين بصحة ما في كتبهم جميعا في حيز المنع ، سيما مع ملاحظة إدراجهم الضعاف فيها بل هي أكثر ، ولعل الصحيح المعتبر المدرج في تلك الكتب كالشعرة البيضاء في البقرة السوداء

which rougly translates to: "To believe in the authenticity of the narrations reported by the Muhammads is impossible, especially with the reports of weak narrators among them. Rather, the weak are far more (than the authentic), whereas the authentic ones in those books are like the white hair on a black cow."

4) The ghulat tendencies of the contemporary Ithna 'Asharis!! sad.gif There are many beliefs and practices among the current shias, that the earlier shias woulda found, just.. blink.gif. For example tatbir (hitting your head with a sword), adding the wilayah to the adhan believing it to be wajib (Shirazi and another ayatollah whose name I do not recall), etc..

Look at what Allamah Ja'far Subhani says in his Kulliyat Fi 'Ilm ar-Rijal:

وقد عرفت أن التضعيف بين القدماء لأجل العقيدة لا يوجب سلب الوثوق عن الراوي، لأن أكثر ما رآه القدماء غلوا أصبح في زماننا من الضروريات في دين الإمامية

Which roughly translates to: "You've known that the mechanism of weakening based on the Creed among the early scholars does not necessarily deprive the narrator of his trustworthiness. This is because what the early scholars have considered exteremism (Ghuluw) [in the past] became in our contemporary time an indispensible part of Imamiyah religion". Trust me, there are many practices/beliefs of the shias that others just can't belieeeeve. Even I couldn't, as a shia.

For example, matam was unanimously considered forbidden in the earlier generations, but now it is seen as one of the 'best deeds' and the rewards promised for it are quite grand indeed.

e.g. Sheikh Mufid considered it haram, and declared that it was an ijma' (a concensus of the scholars of his time) that it was haram. Look at what Ayatollah Muhammad Al-Husaini Ash-Shirazi said in Al-Fiqh (15:253): لكن عن الشيخ في المبسوط ابن حمزة بالتحريم مطلقاً

As one last example, I will present the words of Sheikh Saduq, who was vehemently against the practice of adding the wilayah in the adhan, firmly calling it the practice of the ghulat (extremists) and the mufawwadah.

"The mufawwidah, may God curse them, have forged traditions and have inserted additions to the adhan. Thus, some of them add Muhammad and the house of Muhammad are the best of creation, twice.  And in some of their quotations, after I witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God, I witness that Ali is the wali of God, twice.  Some of them state, instead of that, I bear witness that Ali is truly the Commander of the Faithful, twice.  There is no doubt that Ali is the wali of God, that he is truly the Commander of the Faithful and that Muhammad and his house are the best of creation, but all this is not in the original adhan.  I have mentioned this so that those who are suspected of tafwid and who with deception include themselves in our community may be made known." (Man la yaduruh al-faqih, 1/188-189)

I will just add two more points to my initial list:

4) The misrepresentations and misquotations by shias: This is something that I find both the shias and salafis do. They incorrectly cite and misrepresent texts from the opposite side. My first disappointment was with Teejani, who has just too many lies, misquotations and misrepresentations. Sadly, I do not see him condemned or rebuked by the shia scholars for this. His books are, on the other hand, listed on all the major shia websites. My second gripe was with "A Shi'ite Encyclopedia" which again contains way too many misquotations and misrepresentations. The works of scholars should not be like this. They should present the TRUTH, and if it is not on their side, they should refrain from presenting it at all, as opposed to manipulating it.

My last, and major, gripe was with scholars like Syed Ali Al-Milani, who is a teacher at Qum, and his books are filled with lies and misrepresentations. Anyone who is curious, should go to http://www.aqaed.com and download his books. Everytime you see a reference, check it up. You will be disappointed. I certainly was... given that it wasn't an 'e-shia' doing this, but a respected scholar.

5) The evolution of shi'ism: What shi'ism is today is different from what shi'ism was right after the ghaybah. And what shi'ism was then, was different from the shi'ism of the early salaf. Shi'ism (in its present form) did not crystallize until very late, and if I may be bold enough to say this - it still has not crystallized. So what shias beleive today, may very well be discarded tomorrow.

The very concept of the shias regarding imamate, has changed. To me, this includes infallibility, the limitation to the number '12', their obedience being absolute, etc.

For example, Muhammad Abdullah ibn Yafur, a prominent scholar of Kufa (Najashi 213, Kashhi 162), who was very close to imam Ja'far (Kulayni 6:464 and Kashhi 10) was praised highly by the imams. Imam Ja'far was completely satisfied with him (ibid 246, 249, 250). But Ibn Yafur simply considered the imams to be 'ulema abrar atqiya' - pious God-fearing scholars. And as Syed Al-Badri argued, there is a different between a 'alim and a rabbani. It is interesting to note that a number of anti-ghulat showed up at Ibn Yafur's funeral, showing the popularity of the idea in the early shia community. These shias were labeled by the extremists as muqassireen, shia murijites, or having sunni inclinations.

Another famous scholar, Ibn Qiba Ar-Razi held the same view (Naqd Kitab Al-Ishha 34). He was a figure so high in the shia community that Najashi, Tusi and Hilli put his name in the beginning of the list of authorities of the shia school, who agreement was essential for ijma' (concensus) for any religious question (Shafi 1:127 and 2:323). Interestingly, Ibn Qiba maintained that what happened at saqeefah was merely an error, and did not even reach the level of fisq, let alone kufr or nifaq.

As for the beleifs of the Mufawwidah, there were mass-adopted after the death of imam Ridha (a). And yet, the scholars of Qum STILL did not beleive any of these lies and forgeries. In fact, they began to label anyone who attributed supernatural qualities to the imams as ghulat and would expel them (Majlisi 52:89). (Interestingly, many shias today do not have a problem believing the imams teleported because they were made of light). Many hadith transmitters were banished because of their reporting of ahadith that were pro-ghulat and pro-mufawwidah. Haqaid al-Iman 150-51 attributed this opinion to many early imamites and says that many of them did not believe in the imams' ismah (Abu Ali 45:346, bahrul-Uloom 3:220)

These, and many internal and external contradictions continued to the time of imam Asakari (a). I have raised some concerns in my "The Twelve Imams" thread, and other threads, as well.

It seems that the early stages of the shia imami school were very tubulent, with history and hadith being recorded much later, and being reviewed and reinterpreted even later. We do not have any relics of 'ithna ashari shia' beliefs from the early times. On the other hand, the abundant relics that we do have, point in the other direction.

Bismillah - Subhanallah, Walhamdulillah, Walaailaaha Illallah, Wallahu AKbar, Walaahawla Walaakuwwata Illa Billahil 3aliyil-3atheem.

May Allah Keep Us Steadfast!

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...