Shirk by Al-Suyuti???

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

That's not just my view, I can quote Shia scholars and linguists saying the same. In this sense Al Dhahabi sinned (at most) and his sin may or may not be punished (up to God) so we call him and all humanity sinners (not innovators). To call him an innovator he needs to do a lot more than that (otherwise all humanity are innovators).

Remember, while an Innovation may or may not be punished, some major innovations or a group of smaller ones can lead eventually the innovator outside the folds and into lasting hellfire.

Weird. So apparently if someone is completely a Salafi with the exception of saying "I believe Ali is of greater status than Abu Bakr and Umar" he will be considered a mubtadi by your rijal scholars but apparently Al-Dhahabi isn't. Strange wallahi.

[Hani]

Weird. So apparently if someone is completely a Salafi with the exception of saying "I believe Ali is of greater status than Abu Bakr and Umar" he will be considered a mubtadi by your rijal scholars but apparently Al-Dhahabi isn't. Strange wallahi.

This is an advanced social topic that scholars discussed but isn't usually talked about among laypeople. "Labeling" has a linguistic history related to social taboos and norms. Again, the simplest example is that you can say we all commit evil acts, yet we're not all known or labeled as "evil" BUT some of us ARE RIGHTFULLY LABELED as such, this is because their evil acts overcame their general decency so society shuns and labels.

In Islam, innovations are the same, we literally all have some innovations here or there, no scholar without an odd opinion (justified or not), however when we throw a label at someone as innovator is usually when they crossed the lines with the number or severity of innovations. To me preferring Mu`awiyah to Abu Bakr is a misguided opinion that can easily be disproved but not an innovation since Abu Bakr's superiority over all humanity is not established with explicit proof. We have a narration from `Ali saying ABu Bakr is the best of this nation after Muhammad (saw) but we don't have a narration from the Prophet (saw) himself.

In relation to this, we see sometimes that individuals with an agenda or simply lack of tolerance will condemn a person for any slip, in fact some are just waiting for others to slip to condemn them, this is un-Islamic and the Prophet (saw) warned us of this behavior.

Be REALLY careful with early Rijali opinions, they were VERY sensitive to any ideas they viewed as innovations, many were falsely labeled as Shia, Qadariyyah or Nawasib for the smallest reasons. This is a double edged sword, since when they say a person is Thiqah that means he really is a Thiqah because many of them would cross you out of their list for a minor misconduct.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Weird. So apparently if someone is completely a Salafi with the exception of saying "I believe Ali is of greater status than Abu Bakr and Umar" he will be considered a mubtadi by your rijal scholars but apparently Al-Dhahabi isn't. Strange wallahi.

This is an advanced social topic that scholars discussed but isn't usually talked about among laypeople. "Labeling" has a linguistic history related to social taboos and norms. Again, the simplest example is that you can say we all commit evil acts, yet we're not all known or labeled as "evil" BUT some of us ARE RIGHTFULLY LABELED as such, this is because their evil acts overcame their general decency so society shuns and labels.

In Islam, innovations are the same, we literally all have some innovations here or there, no scholar without an odd opinion (justified or not), however when we throw a label at someone as innovator is usually when they crossed the lines with the number or severity of innovations. To me preferring Mu`awiyah to Abu Bakr is a misguided opinion that can easily be disproved but not an innovation since Abu Bakr's superiority over all humanity is not established with explicit proof. We have a narration from `Ali saying ABu Bakr is the best of this nation after Muhammad (saw) but we don't have a narration from the Prophet (saw) himself.

In relation to this, we see sometimes that individuals with an agenda or simply lack of tolerance will condemn a person for any slip, in fact some are just waiting for others to slip to condemn them, this is un-Islamic and the Prophet (saw) warned us of this behavior.

Be REALLY careful with early Rijali opinions, they were VERY sensitive to any ideas they viewed as innovations, many were falsely labeled as Shia, Qadariyyah or Nawasib for the smallest reasons. This is a double edged sword, since when they say a person is Thiqah that means he really is a Thiqah because many of them would cross you out of their list for a minor misconduct.

Thank you I have not seen someone coming from an angle like you. So if I ask your opinion, if someone who in your opinion has a correct aqeeda with the exception of favoring Ali over Abu Bakr, he would not be an innovator to you?

[Hani]

Thank you I have not seen someone coming from an angle like you. So if I ask your opinion, if someone who in your opinion has a correct aqeeda with the exception of favoring Ali over Abu Bakr, he would not be an innovator to you?

Not at all, I don't see any Qur'anic verse saying Abu Bakr is greater than `Ali nor a reliable prophetic-Hadith to that effect. We push people to read and learn, the more people learn, the more enlightened their opinions will be and the more tolerant they become.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Thank you I have not seen someone coming from an angle like you. So if I ask your opinion, if someone who in your opinion has a correct aqeeda with the exception of favoring Ali over Abu Bakr, he would not be an innovator to you?

Not at all, I don't see any Qur'anic verse saying Abu Bakr is greater than `Ali nor a reliable prophetic-Hadith to that effect. We push people to read and learn, the more people learn, the more enlightened their opinions will be and the more tolerant they become.

I am happy you are consistent. But many Sunnis and especially Salafis would call someone who believes Ali is better, an innovator. I would like to see them justify this.

[Hani]

I am happy you are consistent. But many Sunnis and especially Salafis would call someone who believes Ali is better, an innovator. I would like to see them justify this.

Most Salafis don't read and are not open to different views due to this. Also most Sunnies online don't even know the correct definition of "innovation". If you follow their opinions then putting the Qur'an into a CD would be an innovation.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I am happy you are consistent. But many Sunnis and especially Salafis would call someone who believes Ali is better, an innovator. I would like to see them justify this.

Most Salafis don't read and are not open to different views due to this. Also most Sunnies online don't even know the correct definition of "innovation". If you follow their opinions then putting the Qur'an into a CD would be an innovation.

I recognise that, but it's not only average laymen who say this, it is knowledgable people. So I want to see how they react.

But I am glad you are consistent. This is the first differing view. But something makes me think if you were a rijali scholar in the early days and this was your view, then a lot of people would be taken off the mubtadi list.

[ANTI-MAJOS - Kas-SAHEL!]

Salam,

A very relevant comment I wish to make: It is possible to find innovations among random Sunni scholars. However, the issue is that the Twelver sect COMBINES most of the innovations in one belief system. For instance, you can find Ibn Taymiyyah or Suyuti or whoever holding beliefs that some of the modern-day Salafis may disagree with, such as "can the dead hear?" or "can we build a Masjid on top of a grave?" or "is tawassul better than regular dua?" or "can we build a golden shrine on top of a grave?" etc... You can still make an excuse for the said scholar especially if he gave a sound explanation. However, I would like to stress that the issue with the Twelver sect is that it COMBINES ALL of these innovations and incorporates them into one belief system: They'll say the saints/imams can hear and answer anywhere and at any time, they have control over matter/atoms, they can produce miracles at will, one is allowed to prostrate towards their graves and pictures, one is allowed to call on them directly to fulfill the needs, one should do pilgrimage to their graves, one is recommended to pray on the soil of their graves, one believers they're the dividers between heaven and hell or that they'll personally hold you to account on judgement day etc..etc...

For this reason, it is difficult for most Muslims to offer benefit of the doubt or find excuses in order to protect them from accusations of Shirk.

Ahsant, that's what the Rafida always miss, their sect has gathered all innovations and shirkiyat and turned it into mainstream of their sect, then they fish for some shaadh and bid'ah beliefs (holding some bid3ah beliefs based on shubuhat doesn't make one a mubtadi3) of LATE (Khalaf) Sunni scholars to justify their own khurafat and bida' or make it look less Bid'i. It's such a pathetic and apologetic stance, disgusting really but expected, besides the Quburi tendencies or LATE (khalaf) Sunni scholars NEVER include blatant Shirkiyat like the following (which is just one of MANY examples why we rightfully call you mushriks, not for you venerating the graves):

&t=1s

And by the way, one is not allowed to prostrate to other than Allah, especially not to the graves. As for their pictures, even moreso, there is a debate whether even drawing pictures of things with rooh is allowed. So that is not true.

I see you are on a damage control mission, maybe I would do the same if my sects hellmarks would be all sorts of kufriyat and bid'ah and khurafat. As for images, your top grand Ayatullats allow making images of Ahl Al-Bayt, hence those womanish-persian looking drag queens can even be found in your temples here in khalij (and in karbala and everywhere where Shiism flourishes). Even Sufis don't have this bid'ah!. As for prostrating to graves, it's common and you Mushrikeen even have a prayer where one WHILST prostrating PRAYS to Fatimah (like Catholics do with Mary) and asks her a few HUNDRED times for help:

https://shiascans.com/2017/04/14/sunnah-in-shiism-prostrating-praying-to-fatimah-a-few-hundred-times/

and of course this video with top Shia clerics all teaching this blatant kufr (yes, if Suyuti or ANYONE else would propagate kufr bawa7 like this we would call them mushriks, but they did not, even the worst Sufis haven't come up with blatant shirk like this):

&t=659s

Now let the apologism and justification for this shirk and kufr start 

[ANTI-MAJOS - Kas-SAHEL!]

Thank you I have not seen someone coming from an angle like you. So if I ask your opinion, if someone who in your opinion has a correct aqeeda with the exception of favoring Ali over Abu Bakr, he would not be an innovator to you?

Not at all, I don't see any Qur'anic verse saying Abu Bakr is greater than `Ali nor a reliable prophetic-Hadith to that effect. We push people to read and learn, the more people learn, the more enlightened their opinions will be and the more tolerant they become.

I absolutely agree, we are not like Rafida humanworshippers, the Prophet's (peace be upon him) cousin, Sayyiduna 'Ali never was nor ever will be part of the asl of the Deen (let alone his descendants), if someone believes 'Uthman is superior to 'Ali based on his ijtihad it's fine if someone believes 'Ali is better than all it's also fine, yet, as a Sunni I believe it is quite odd and in fact against 'Ali's own position:

http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/12/26/detailed-research-on-the-chains-of-hadith-ul-afdaliyyah-narration-of-superiority/

However, as the Salafi Shaikh Al-Qaffari from Saudi says in his beautiful book "Usul Madhab Al-Shia ...":

"If someone is a believer, monotheist, and doesn't even know that Abu Bakr and 'Ali existed and he dies upon Tawhid, he will enter Jannah."

This is the beautity of Ahl Al-Sunnah, they don't exaggerate, whereas the Ahl Al-Bid'ah made man into the Asl of the Deen who are allegedly more important to our salvation that Christ is to so called Christians.

[Hani]

I recognise that, but it's not only average laymen who say this, it is knowledgable people. So I want to see how they react.

But I am glad you are consistent. This is the first differing view. But something makes me think if you were a rijali scholar in the early days and this was your view, then a lot of people would be taken off the mubtadi list.

Don't be fooled by beards, a lot of the Sunni scholars don't know much about Tashayyu` nor are they interested. With respect to some excellent ones, there's not much quality these days as opposed to quantity.

If you're interested in my opinions, you can read my book on the story of succession:
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/02/17/book-saqifah-shura/

Don't worry, it opposes both the mainstream Sunni as well as the mainstream Shia stories. I base it on what is authentic in addition to all historical details preserved in the history books. Let me know what you think.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I recognise that, but it's not only average laymen who say this, it is knowledgable people. So I want to see how they react.

But I am glad you are consistent. This is the first differing view. But something makes me think if you were a rijali scholar in the early days and this was your view, then a lot of people would be taken off the mubtadi list.

Don't be fooled by beards, a lot of the Sunni scholars don't know much about Tashayyu` nor are they interested. With respect to some excellent ones, there's not much quality these days as opposed to quantity.

If you're interested in my opinions, you can read my book on the story of succession:
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/02/17/book-saqifah-shura/

Don't worry, it opposes both the mainstream Sunni as well as the mainstream Shia stories. I base it on what is authentic in addition to all historical details preserved in the history books. Let me know what you think.

I'm halfway through it, but what keeps popping in my head is that a certain Sunni  claimed that there is a sahih narration which says that Ali (as) offered allegiance to Abu Bakr a few days into his rule, if that hadith is sahih then why is there a lot of historical references which either say or imply otherwise?

Or is that hadith weak?

[Hani]

Salam,

The one where he pledges allegiance to him on the same night IS the widespread one found in most history books. It's al-Zuhri's statement in Bukhari which isn't popular, but I reconciled both in the book so review.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Salam,

A very relevant comment I wish to make: It is possible to find innovations among random Sunni scholars. However, the issue is that the Twelver sect COMBINES most of the innovations in one belief system. For instance, you can find Ibn Taymiyyah or Suyuti or whoever holding beliefs that some of the modern-day Salafis may disagree with, such as "can the dead hear?" or "can we build a Masjid on top of a grave?" or "is tawassul better than regular dua?" or "can we build a golden shrine on top of a grave?" etc... You can still make an excuse for the said scholar especially if he gave a sound explanation. However, I would like to stress that the issue with the Twelver sect is that it COMBINES ALL of these innovations and incorporates them into one belief system: They'll say the saints/imams can hear and answer anywhere and at any time, they have control over matter/atoms, they can produce miracles at will, one is allowed to prostrate towards their graves and pictures, one is allowed to call on them directly to fulfill the needs, one should do pilgrimage to their graves, one is recommended to pray on the soil of their graves, one believers they're the dividers between heaven and hell or that they'll personally hold you to account on judgement day etc..etc...

For this reason, it is difficult for most Muslims to offer benefit of the doubt or find excuses in order to protect them from accusations of Shirk.

This is what I mean by double standards! For your information a mubtadi is a mubtadi, whether he has 67 innovations or one. Every bid'ah is dhalal. There's no getting around it. Oh and "sound reasoning". You know as well as I do that's not a good excuse.

And by the way, one is not allowed to prostrate to other than Allah, especially not to the graves. As for their pictures, even moreso, there is a debate whether even drawing pictures of things with rooh is allowed. So that is not true.

They cannot perform miracles at will, all supernatural ability is granted by Allah by His Will. This goes for Prophets and Imams.

There are other things which I can talk about mentioned in your comment, but I would like you to admit the double standards and the hesitation of calling your scholars mubtadis.

As for the Bidah argument refer this explanation of Dhahabi(rah).

Al-Imam Adh-Dhahabee said: “If the major scholar is right most of the time, and his meticulous concern for the truth, and the vastness of his knowledge, and his intelligence are all well known; as is his righteousness and piety, and his adherence (to the Sunnah), then his mistakes are forgiven. And we do not say that he is astray and throw him away, forgetting all of the good that he has done! That’s right! However, (at the same time) we do not follow him in his bid’ah or his mistake, and we hope that he will repent.”[ Sayr-ul-A’laam An-Nubalaa (Vol. 5, pg. 271).]

As for the argument of double standards then refer this:

And Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:

تدريب الراوى 1:253 جلال الدين السيوطي
وقد صرح بذلك الذهبي في « الميزان » ، فقال : البدعة على ضربين صغرى كالتشيع بلا غلو ، أو بغلو ، كمن تكلم في حق من حارب علياً ، فهذا كثير في التابعين وتابعيهم مع الدين والورع والصدق ، فلو رد حديث هؤلاء لذهب جملة من الآثار النبوية ، وهذه مفسدة بينة ، ثم بدعة كبرى كالرفض الكامل والغلو فيه ، والحط على أبي بكر وعمر والدعاء إلى ذلك ، فهذا النوع لا يحتج بهم ولا كرامة

“Al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) has written this in al-Mizan and said: bid’ah is of two types; smaller like tashayyu’ without extremism, or with extremism, like one who criticized those who fought Sayyiduna Ali. There were many such people in the tabi’in and their followers along with religiousness, piety and truthfulness. If their traditions are rejected, a good part of the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) heritage will vanish, and this will be an open evil. The second one is greater bid’ah like complete rifd and resorting to extremism in this regard, to debase Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna Umar and inviting to the same. So, these kinds of people will not be accepted and given any esteem.” (Tadrib al-Rawi, 1:253)

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I am happy you are consistent. But many Sunnis and especially Salafis would call someone who believes Ali is better, an innovator. I would like to see them justify this.

Most Salafis don't read and are not open to different views due to this. Also most Sunnies online don't even know the correct definition of "innovation". If you follow their opinions then putting the Qur'an into a CD would be an innovation.

I recognise that, but it's not only average laymen who say this, it is knowledgable people. So I want to see how they react.

But I am glad you are consistent. This is the first differing view. But something makes me think if you were a rijali scholar in the early days and this was your view, then a lot of people would be taken off the mubtadi list.

Like the revival which took place in Shia Rijal?


1. Shia Ayatullah Burujerdi wrote in Taraiful Maqal, Volume 2, Page 356

وبالجملة الظاهر أن القدماء كانوا مختلفين في المسائل الأصولية، فربما كان
شئ عند بعضهم فاسدا أو كفرا أو غلوا، وعند آخرين عدمه بل مما يجب الاعتقاد
به، فينبغي التأمل في جرحهم بأمثال الأمور المذكورة

And the bottom line is that it is apparent that the beliefs of the classical scholars were different, so sometimes something according to them would be invalid/corrupt, kufr (disbelief) or Ghulu, while according to the latter scholars it would not be so, in fact it would be regarded obligatory to believe in it. Therefore it is required to think over their jarh (attacking/weakening of hadith narrator by rijal scholars) due to the issues such as those mentioned.

2, Shia Allama Mamqani wrote in Tanqihul Maqal (Volume 1, Page 334):

قال المامقاني في تنقيح المقال ج1 ص334 : قد نبهنا غير مرة على أن رمي القدماء سيما القميين منهم ، الرجل بالغلو لا يعتنى به ، لإن الاعتقاد بجملة مما هو الآن من ضروريات المذهب ، كان معدوداً عندهم من الغلو ، ألا ترى عدهم نفي السهو عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله والأئمة عليهم السلام غلواً ، مع أن من لم ينفي السهو عنهم اليوم لا يعد مؤمناً ، ولقد أجاد الفاضل الحائري حيث قال : رمي القميين بالغلو وإخراجهم من قم لا يدل على ضعف أصلاً ، فإن أجل علمائنا وأوثقهم غالٍ على زعمهم ، ولو وجدوه في قم لأخرجوه منها لا محالة

We have warned more than once that an accusation from the classical scholars, especially of the ones from Qum, of a man (hadith narrator) being ghali should not be taken into consideration. This is because overall what is considered among the fundamentals of the religion these days was considered Ghulu by them. Do not you see that they counted denial of the belief that the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) can forget as Ghulu, even though one who does not deny that they (as) may forget would not be considered a momin (believer) these days. And Ayatullah Fadhil al Haeri excellently put it, where he said: “Accusation by the classical scholars of Qum, of hadith narrators being ghali and their exiling them from Qum (on charges of ghulu) does not prove in principle their da’f (weakness/unreliability). For indeed, most of our scholars and their most trustworthy ones would have been considered ghali by them, and if they had found them in Qum then they would have definitely exiled them from it inevitably.”

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I am happy you are consistent. But many Sunnis and especially Salafis would call someone who believes Ali is better, an innovator. I would like to see them justify this.

Most Salafis don't read and are not open to different views due to this. Also most Sunnies online don't even know the correct definition of "innovation". If you follow their opinions then putting the Qur'an into a CD would be an innovation.

I recognise that, but it's not only average laymen who say this, it is knowledgable people. So I want to see how they react.

But I am glad you are consistent. This is the first differing view. But something makes me think if you were a rijali scholar in the early days and this was your view, then a lot of people would be taken off the mubtadi list.

Like the revival which took place in Shia Rijal?


1. Shia Ayatullah Burujerdi wrote in Taraiful Maqal, Volume 2, Page 356

وبالجملة الظاهر أن القدماء كانوا مختلفين في المسائل الأصولية، فربما كان
شئ عند بعضهم فاسدا أو كفرا أو غلوا، وعند آخرين عدمه بل مما يجب الاعتقاد
به، فينبغي التأمل في جرحهم بأمثال الأمور المذكورة

And the bottom line is that it is apparent that the beliefs of the classical scholars were different, so sometimes something according to them would be invalid/corrupt, kufr (disbelief) or Ghulu, while according to the latter scholars it would not be so, in fact it would be regarded obligatory to believe in it. Therefore it is required to think over their jarh (attacking/weakening of hadith narrator by rijal scholars) due to the issues such as those mentioned.

2, Shia Allama Mamqani wrote in Tanqihul Maqal (Volume 1, Page 334):

قال المامقاني في تنقيح المقال ج1 ص334 : قد نبهنا غير مرة على أن رمي القدماء سيما القميين منهم ، الرجل بالغلو لا يعتنى به ، لإن الاعتقاد بجملة مما هو الآن من ضروريات المذهب ، كان معدوداً عندهم من الغلو ، ألا ترى عدهم نفي السهو عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله والأئمة عليهم السلام غلواً ، مع أن من لم ينفي السهو عنهم اليوم لا يعد مؤمناً ، ولقد أجاد الفاضل الحائري حيث قال : رمي القميين بالغلو وإخراجهم من قم لا يدل على ضعف أصلاً ، فإن أجل علمائنا وأوثقهم غالٍ على زعمهم ، ولو وجدوه في قم لأخرجوه منها لا محالة

We have warned more than once that an accusation from the classical scholars, especially of the ones from Qum, of a man (hadith narrator) being ghali should not be taken into consideration. This is because overall what is considered among the fundamentals of the religion these days was considered Ghulu by them. Do not you see that they counted denial of the belief that the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) can forget as Ghulu, even though one who does not deny that they (as) may forget would not be considered a momin (believer) these days. And Ayatullah Fadhil al Haeri excellently put it, where he said: “Accusation by the classical scholars of Qum, of hadith narrators being ghali and their exiling them from Qum (on charges of ghulu) does not prove in principle their da’f (weakness/unreliability). For indeed, most of our scholars and their most trustworthy ones would have been considered ghali by them, and if they had found them in Qum then they would have definitely exiled them from it inevitably.”

Yep.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I am happy you are consistent. But many Sunnis and especially Salafis would call someone who believes Ali is better, an innovator. I would like to see them justify this.

Most Salafis don't read and are not open to different views due to this. Also most Sunnies online don't even know the correct definition of "innovation". If you follow their opinions then putting the Qur'an into a CD would be an innovation.

I recognise that, but it's not only average laymen who say this, it is knowledgable people. So I want to see how they react.

But I am glad you are consistent. This is the first differing view. But something makes me think if you were a rijali scholar in the early days and this was your view, then a lot of people would be taken off the mubtadi list.

Like the revival which took place in Shia Rijal?


1. Shia Ayatullah Burujerdi wrote in Taraiful Maqal, Volume 2, Page 356

وبالجملة الظاهر أن القدماء كانوا مختلفين في المسائل الأصولية، فربما كان
شئ عند بعضهم فاسدا أو كفرا أو غلوا، وعند آخرين عدمه بل مما يجب الاعتقاد
به، فينبغي التأمل في جرحهم بأمثال الأمور المذكورة

And the bottom line is that it is apparent that the beliefs of the classical scholars were different, so sometimes something according to them would be invalid/corrupt, kufr (disbelief) or Ghulu, while according to the latter scholars it would not be so, in fact it would be regarded obligatory to believe in it. Therefore it is required to think over their jarh (attacking/weakening of hadith narrator by rijal scholars) due to the issues such as those mentioned.

2, Shia Allama Mamqani wrote in Tanqihul Maqal (Volume 1, Page 334):

قال المامقاني في تنقيح المقال ج1 ص334 : قد نبهنا غير مرة على أن رمي القدماء سيما القميين منهم ، الرجل بالغلو لا يعتنى به ، لإن الاعتقاد بجملة مما هو الآن من ضروريات المذهب ، كان معدوداً عندهم من الغلو ، ألا ترى عدهم نفي السهو عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله والأئمة عليهم السلام غلواً ، مع أن من لم ينفي السهو عنهم اليوم لا يعد مؤمناً ، ولقد أجاد الفاضل الحائري حيث قال : رمي القميين بالغلو وإخراجهم من قم لا يدل على ضعف أصلاً ، فإن أجل علمائنا وأوثقهم غالٍ على زعمهم ، ولو وجدوه في قم لأخرجوه منها لا محالة

We have warned more than once that an accusation from the classical scholars, especially of the ones from Qum, of a man (hadith narrator) being ghali should not be taken into consideration. This is because overall what is considered among the fundamentals of the religion these days was considered Ghulu by them. Do not you see that they counted denial of the belief that the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) can forget as Ghulu, even though one who does not deny that they (as) may forget would not be considered a momin (believer) these days. And Ayatullah Fadhil al Haeri excellently put it, where he said: “Accusation by the classical scholars of Qum, of hadith narrators being ghali and their exiling them from Qum (on charges of ghulu) does not prove in principle their da’f (weakness/unreliability). For indeed, most of our scholars and their most trustworthy ones would have been considered ghali by them, and if they had found them in Qum then they would have definitely exiled them from it inevitably.”

Yep.

So there remains a possibility that, after a century the Shia scholars of that time sit together and decide that the classical scholars of Qum were right, hence they again weaken the narrators who were declared Ghali by the classical Schlolars and reject their narrations. LOL.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I am happy you are consistent. But many Sunnis and especially Salafis would call someone who believes Ali is better, an innovator. I would like to see them justify this.

Most Salafis don't read and are not open to different views due to this. Also most Sunnies online don't even know the correct definition of "innovation". If you follow their opinions then putting the Qur'an into a CD would be an innovation.

I recognise that, but it's not only average laymen who say this, it is knowledgable people. So I want to see how they react.

But I am glad you are consistent. This is the first differing view. But something makes me think if you were a rijali scholar in the early days and this was your view, then a lot of people would be taken off the mubtadi list.

Like the revival which took place in Shia Rijal?


1. Shia Ayatullah Burujerdi wrote in Taraiful Maqal, Volume 2, Page 356

وبالجملة الظاهر أن القدماء كانوا مختلفين في المسائل الأصولية، فربما كان
شئ عند بعضهم فاسدا أو كفرا أو غلوا، وعند آخرين عدمه بل مما يجب الاعتقاد
به، فينبغي التأمل في جرحهم بأمثال الأمور المذكورة

And the bottom line is that it is apparent that the beliefs of the classical scholars were different, so sometimes something according to them would be invalid/corrupt, kufr (disbelief) or Ghulu, while according to the latter scholars it would not be so, in fact it would be regarded obligatory to believe in it. Therefore it is required to think over their jarh (attacking/weakening of hadith narrator by rijal scholars) due to the issues such as those mentioned.

2, Shia Allama Mamqani wrote in Tanqihul Maqal (Volume 1, Page 334):

قال المامقاني في تنقيح المقال ج1 ص334 : قد نبهنا غير مرة على أن رمي القدماء سيما القميين منهم ، الرجل بالغلو لا يعتنى به ، لإن الاعتقاد بجملة مما هو الآن من ضروريات المذهب ، كان معدوداً عندهم من الغلو ، ألا ترى عدهم نفي السهو عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله والأئمة عليهم السلام غلواً ، مع أن من لم ينفي السهو عنهم اليوم لا يعد مؤمناً ، ولقد أجاد الفاضل الحائري حيث قال : رمي القميين بالغلو وإخراجهم من قم لا يدل على ضعف أصلاً ، فإن أجل علمائنا وأوثقهم غالٍ على زعمهم ، ولو وجدوه في قم لأخرجوه منها لا محالة

We have warned more than once that an accusation from the classical scholars, especially of the ones from Qum, of a man (hadith narrator) being ghali should not be taken into consideration. This is because overall what is considered among the fundamentals of the religion these days was considered Ghulu by them. Do not you see that they counted denial of the belief that the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) can forget as Ghulu, even though one who does not deny that they (as) may forget would not be considered a momin (believer) these days. And Ayatullah Fadhil al Haeri excellently put it, where he said: “Accusation by the classical scholars of Qum, of hadith narrators being ghali and their exiling them from Qum (on charges of ghulu) does not prove in principle their da’f (weakness/unreliability). For indeed, most of our scholars and their most trustworthy ones would have been considered ghali by them, and if they had found them in Qum then they would have definitely exiled them from it inevitably.”

Yep.

So there remains a possibility that, after a century the Shia scholars of that time sit together and decide that the classical scholars of Qum were right, hence they again weaken the narrators who were declared Ghali by the classical Schlolars and reject their narrations. LOL.

People have different standards. For example, as demonstrated above, the brother Hani has a different standard than a lot of Sunnis and especially Salafis.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I am happy you are consistent. But many Sunnis and especially Salafis would call someone who believes Ali is better, an innovator. I would like to see them justify this.

Most Salafis don't read and are not open to different views due to this. Also most Sunnies online don't even know the correct definition of "innovation". If you follow their opinions then putting the Qur'an into a CD would be an innovation.

I recognise that, but it's not only average laymen who say this, it is knowledgable people. So I want to see how they react.

But I am glad you are consistent. This is the first differing view. But something makes me think if you were a rijali scholar in the early days and this was your view, then a lot of people would be taken off the mubtadi list.

Like the revival which took place in Shia Rijal?


1. Shia Ayatullah Burujerdi wrote in Taraiful Maqal, Volume 2, Page 356

وبالجملة الظاهر أن القدماء كانوا مختلفين في المسائل الأصولية، فربما كان
شئ عند بعضهم فاسدا أو كفرا أو غلوا، وعند آخرين عدمه بل مما يجب الاعتقاد
به، فينبغي التأمل في جرحهم بأمثال الأمور المذكورة

And the bottom line is that it is apparent that the beliefs of the classical scholars were different, so sometimes something according to them would be invalid/corrupt, kufr (disbelief) or Ghulu, while according to the latter scholars it would not be so, in fact it would be regarded obligatory to believe in it. Therefore it is required to think over their jarh (attacking/weakening of hadith narrator by rijal scholars) due to the issues such as those mentioned.

2, Shia Allama Mamqani wrote in Tanqihul Maqal (Volume 1, Page 334):

قال المامقاني في تنقيح المقال ج1 ص334 : قد نبهنا غير مرة على أن رمي القدماء سيما القميين منهم ، الرجل بالغلو لا يعتنى به ، لإن الاعتقاد بجملة مما هو الآن من ضروريات المذهب ، كان معدوداً عندهم من الغلو ، ألا ترى عدهم نفي السهو عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله والأئمة عليهم السلام غلواً ، مع أن من لم ينفي السهو عنهم اليوم لا يعد مؤمناً ، ولقد أجاد الفاضل الحائري حيث قال : رمي القميين بالغلو وإخراجهم من قم لا يدل على ضعف أصلاً ، فإن أجل علمائنا وأوثقهم غالٍ على زعمهم ، ولو وجدوه في قم لأخرجوه منها لا محالة

We have warned more than once that an accusation from the classical scholars, especially of the ones from Qum, of a man (hadith narrator) being ghali should not be taken into consideration. This is because overall what is considered among the fundamentals of the religion these days was considered Ghulu by them. Do not you see that they counted denial of the belief that the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) can forget as Ghulu, even though one who does not deny that they (as) may forget would not be considered a momin (believer) these days. And Ayatullah Fadhil al Haeri excellently put it, where he said: “Accusation by the classical scholars of Qum, of hadith narrators being ghali and their exiling them from Qum (on charges of ghulu) does not prove in principle their da’f (weakness/unreliability). For indeed, most of our scholars and their most trustworthy ones would have been considered ghali by them, and if they had found them in Qum then they would have definitely exiled them from it inevitably.”

Yep.

So there remains a possibility that, after a century the Shia scholars of that time sit together and decide that the classical scholars of Qum were right, hence they again weaken the narrators who were declared Ghali by the classical Schlolars and reject their narrations. LOL.

People have different standards. For example, as demonstrated above, the brother Hani has a different standard than a lot of Sunnis and especially Salafis.

People have different standards, and different beliefs. But the point here how should the people determine which one of these conflicting beliefs true. Esp, when the issue is related to people(narrators) who transmitted you your religion.

For classical Shia Scholars certain belief is Kufr.
For present day Shia scholar, it is obligatory to have that belief, which was termed Kufr by the classical scholars.

If you say you'll use the narrations of Imams(esp those) which were free from the narators who were accused by classical scholars. Then whose view is supported from the sayings of Imams?