TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => General Sunni-Shia => Topic started by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on April 19, 2017, 02:00:04 PM
-
I recommend you watch the entire video, but the relevant part about Al-Suyuti is after minute 4:
The reason why I also recommend the entire video is because it reveals Ibn Taymiyyah's aqeedah about the karamaat of the awliyah. Some of the stuff mentioned in there are the exact same things the Shi'a attribute to the Imams of the Muslims (AS) yet we are accused of ghulu and shirk. Weird.
;D
-
Oh and btw only for those who can understand Arabic. Sorry about that.
-
Oh no! What do you say, do I see shirk? Is this not what we hate about the rafidha???
O' Al-Dhahabi, what kind of fatwa is this??? O' Ibn Hanbal, you are a great scholar, how could you???
P.S I love the term "rafidhi", it's a badge of honor to me.
-
Cheap shubuhat by the alraseed crew, don't think you pulled out a shocker and that nobody knows these cheap arguments by cheap and desperate Rafida who try to justify their khurafat with other peoples khurafat and mistakes. BIG DIFFERENCE: Sunnis don't follow the mistakes of their khalaf blindly, they reject ibn Taymiyyah, Suyuti and ANYBODY if it opposes the path of Ahlul-Bayt/Sahaba i.e. Salaf who were not known for this Quburi stuff.
Also learn the difference between all the mustala7aat, not everything Rafida do is shirk. Licking graves, crawling to graves, monkey chest beating as a form of ritual these are all bida3 and khurafat not shirk, shirk is to associate partners with Allah in worship that should be done for Allah only. As for Al-Dhahabi and others, then I can add to your list Ibn Hibban who also had Quburi tendencies (visiting grave of Al-Rida, however he explicitely stated he prayed to Allah DIRECTLY so no Mushrik like you lot) and others, point is, two mistakes don't make a right, and more importantly you are Mushriks beyond doubt, not just innovators or people with Quburi tendencies like some of the Khalaf scholars.
As for karamat: Nobody denies karamat, Rafidism is not about karamat it goes way beyond that, all karamat of the Prophets and UNIQUE attributes of Allah have been given to the Imams, its pure kufr in the name of karamaat.
-
Cheap shubuhat by the alraseed crew, don't think you pulled out a shocker and that nobody knows these cheap arguments by cheap and desperate Rafida who try to justify their khurafat with other peoples khurafat and mistakes. BIG DIFFERENCE: Sunnis don't follow the mistakes of their khalaf blindly, they reject ibn Taymiyyah, Suyuti and ANYBODY if it opposes the path of Ahlul-Bayt/Sahaba i.e. Salaf who were not known for this Quburi stuff.
Also learn the difference between all the mustala7aat, not everything Rafida do is shirk. Licking graves, crawling to graves, monkey chest beating as a form of ritual these are all bida3 and khurafat not shirk, shirk is to associate partners with Allah in worship that should be done for Allah only. As for Al-Dhahabi and others, then I can add to your list Ibn Hibban who also had Quburi tendencies (visiting grave of Al-Rida, however he explicitely stated he prayed to Allah DIRECTLY so no Mushrik like you lot) and others, point is, two mistakes don't make a right, and more importantly you are Mushriks beyond doubt, not just innovators or people with Quburi tendencies like some of the Khalaf scholars.
As for karamat: Nobody denies karamat, Rafidism is not about karamat it goes way beyond that, all karamat of the Prophets and UNIQUE attributes of Allah have been given to the Imams, its pure kufr in the name of karamaat.
Cheap shubuhat, lol look how easy it is for you people to deflect. Pathetic mukhalifeen!
The point of this thread here is not to refute your pathetic beliefs, but to show you the beliefs of your beloved ulama. And by telling you the beliefs of those who you call ulama, I expect from you to attatch the terms you mukhalifs attatch to us (grave-worshippers, innovators, for example) at your beloved so-called scholars. So do you dare call them as such, or will you only cry when the Shi'a do similar things? Is there double standards for Shi'a? Is this the mindset of the Ahlul Sunnati (Batili) wal Jama'ah (wal khurafa)?
Aa for shirk, yes, you people accuse us of shirk and ghulu for the same attributes that your beloved Ibn Taymiyyah attributes to the awliyaah and their "karamaat".
So there you go! Ya mukhalif!
-
I recommend you watch the entire video, but the relevant part about Al-Suyuti is after minute 4:
https://youtu.be/Vapsn8c9O54
Excellent that you brought this up (are you from the Rafidaorg crew, they are also desperate and bring up khurafat to justify their own khurafat, losers), this is an excellent opporunity to school Sunnis and Shias alike on this topic.
First as mentioned before, these are not new shubuhat, that's recycled stuff, some extremists Sufis (of course) and Rafida use these to justify their crazy beliefs and worship to saints, in Arabic all these issues have been answered and note how all the books they quote are NOT from the Salaf, not even Aqidah books by the Khalaf, it's certain position some Khalaf hold (yet NONE of them went as far as the Rawafid, advocating literal prayers to saints etc.)
CASE: IMAM SUYUTI
Imam Suyuti (3 October 1445 AD / 1 Rajab 849 AH) is a very late scholar, from the Khalaf (not the Salaf). The 15th century AD was a time with huge Quburi and extreme Sufi influence, in fact he himself was a Shadhili Sufi. There are a number of small books that As-Suyuti wrote that comply with some of the Sufi ideologies that spread during his time, which are not correct. Without a doubt, these books agree with the common people's beliefs and they try to find religious justifications for them for what they wrote and heard, such as the belief that Al-Khidr was still alive and confirming the existence of abdaal and Aqtaab.
Aqtaab is the plural form of qutb, which means axis or pivot: the highest station in the Sufi hierarchy of saints. Sufis believe that the universe has a master pivot, which they call al-Qutb, which is to the universe as the soul is to the body; once the qutb departs, the universe can no longer exist. They claim that the one who keeps the greatest name of Allah keeps the secret of the power of the qutb (similar to to the Wilayah Al-Takwiniyyah Khurafah of the Rafida and their 12 Imams/Saints). They also claim that his person reaches the state of "qutbhood" by acquiring the perfection of knowledge, observation and mushahadah, which includes witnessing the Divine essence. He who does this is, according to Sufis, the hierarch of the Sufi leaders of his generation.
As for Abdaal: This is the plural of badl, which is a sufi term that refers to designates people that Allah has given the power to run affairs of the universe. They are called substitutes because according to FABRICATED hadiths, there are forty or so of them in every generation that are constantly being substituted by next geenrations all possessing this power, which is specific for only Allaah! Sounds all too similar to Rafidism, this is because both of their sects live on Khurafat and fabrications.
So in Suyuti's books, there can be found contradictions, delusions, mistakes and errors in aspects of knowledge, which at times came as a result of hastiness in authoring, little revision and proofreading, and a lack of proper verification (of the hadith found in them). This is the observation that has been made by everyone that deals with the books of Suyuti, as has been recorded by the muhaqqiqoon (those who verified and checked his books).
Now let's analyse the video:
So here is what the Kuwaiti Rafidi speaker in the video says in a nuthshell (from min. 4:00-5:20):
He quotes Imam Al-Suyuti who held the belief that Prophets and Awliyah are not just alive in their graves (Prophets are, that's a Sunni belief), but their souls are also free to float around and have an effect on the universe etc. and since Suyuti said that then all the Ghuluww and Khurafat of the Rafida must the alright of course because the "very great Suyuti" said it. There is obviously a deeper issue here, the Rafida are obviously not seeking the truth, I remind everybody the word of our master 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) who said (sahih quote by him in Sunni books):
"Know the Truth and you shall know it's people."
So if the Rafida were truthful they would question their despicable and baseless beliefs that have crossed the limits of karamat/Mu'jizat and are nothing but pure kufr (like Imams knowing what is in the hearts of the believers etc.) in the NAME of Karamat/Mu'jizat (wonders etc.), but instead of doing that they do what? They desperately dig to look what Sufis believe or what some of the KHALAF did and believe, as if two wrongs make a right.
So the Rafidi in the clip asks: Do you dare to accuse Suyuti of Ghuluww?
Ahlus-Sunnah say: YES, OF COURSE WE DARE, we are not apologists like you hiding behind the names of man to justify Batil! Imam Suyuti's belief in that regard is BATIL, BATIL, BATIL, that doesn't make him a Zindiq as he never prayed to saints like Rafida or professed kufr beliefs, however, that aforementioned belief is ghuluww and many scholars fell in ghuluww in some matters, some in Takfri, some in affirming the sifat (especially Hanbalis), some in Tanzih etc.
Besides, he (Suyuti) is not a prove in our Deen, he is not an infallible Imam not have his words any weight if not backed by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Many scholars had errors in their beliefs, some with regards to the attributes and names of Allah, some in matter of the creation of the Qur'an, some even with regards to some Sahabah and some with regards to the unseen, Awliya and matters of veneration of the graves. So we as Muslims and Sunnis have the freedom to disagree with Suyuti and call his belief in that regards batil AND Khurafi, but can the Rafida say the same thing about their bliefs? Of course not, because they are chained by Iranian Ayatullats and mythical 12 "infallibles" and all the lies and supersitions and exaggerations that are so huge in number that without them they wouldn't have any Shi'ism.
So the difference is clear: We speak out, we reject falsehood from ANYBODY whereas the Rafida LOOK for falsehood to justify their OWN falsehood, an absolutely pathetic and desperate stance, the logic of: Two mistakes make a right, nothing more and nothing less.
BTW: As mentioned before in the other thread by someone, Kitab Al-Ruh by Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah which some doubt can be attributed to him and others claim it was written in his early years of seeking knowledge when he was influenced by Sufism is FULL of these baseless stories. He wasthe foremost disciple and student of Ibn Taymiyyah and yet that book is filled with Khurafat such as souls floating around and having an effect on the earth, a belief of the Sufis and Rafida that has no backing by the Qur'an and Sunnah. So again, no consistent and truth-loving Muslim would shun the book AND those beliefs, no matter if the author is Ibn Al-Qayyim or Ibn Taymiyyah, who are our Khalaf not even our Salaf!!!
-
Oh no! What do you say, do I see shirk? Is this not what we hate about the rafidha???
O' Al-Dhahabi, what kind of fatwa is this??? O' Ibn Hanbal, you are a great scholar, how could you???
https://youtu.be/q-7b8qQaXDs
P.S I love the term "rafidhi", it's a badge of honor to me.
Same childish and desperate logic here which goes like this:
Two wrongs make a right, O Nasibi!
Or:
Your Sunni scholars allowed the kissing of graves, so let us Rafida beat them in that and lick the graves, make Sujud to them, Tawaf and every other possible Bid'ah in the name of loving Jesus Ahlul Bayt!
CASE IMAM AHMAD:
The desperate Rafida who are obsessed with graves and shrines and the licking of them bring an alleged narration by the IMAM of Ahl Al-Sunnah (the brave Imam Ahmad who was lashed almost to death for speaking the truth, not resorting to Taqiyyah unlike the "Imams" of the Rafida, the Taqiyyah mongers, who are in reality of course innocent of Shi'ism):
وفي كتاب العلل ومعرفة الرجال ما نصه(2): سألته عن الرجل يمس منبر النبي (صلّى الله عليه و سلّم) و يتبرك بمسّه ويقبله ويفعل بالقبر مثل ذلك أو نحو هذا يريد التقرب إلى الله جل وعز فقال: لا بأس بذلك
Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal was asked about seeking blessings by touching and kissing of the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he said "I do not see any harm in it"
This is narrated by his son Abdullah bin Ahmed [Al-Dhahabi, Mu'jam al-Shuyukh (1:73 #58).]
RESPONSE:
1. First of all this narration is disputed by some scholars, most importantly, the Hanbali Madhab is united in the condemnation of kissing graves of ANYONE besides the Messenger of Allah such as saints/Imams (Sunnah of Jews and Christians):
Imam Mur`ee bin Yusaf Hanbali (d 1033) said:
ولا يتمسح بالقبر ولا يقبله بل يسلم عليه بأدب وسكون
"Do not touch the grave, do not kiss it, rather say salam with adab." [Shifa as-Sudur fe ziyarah Mashahid wal qaboor page 160]
Ibn Qudamah the Hanbali giant says:
قال ابن قدامة في المغني: « ولا يستحب التمسح بحائط قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا تقبيله قال أحمد: ما أعرف هذا. قال ابن الأثرم: رأيت أهل العلم من أهل المدينة لا يمسون قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقومون من ناحية فيسلّمون » [المغني 3/559 الفروع 2/573 وفاء الوفا 4/1403].
"It is NOT recommended to touch or kiss the walls of the grave of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and Imam Ahmad said: "I am not aware of it (i.e. its permissibility)." Ibn Al-Athram said: "I have seen the scholars of Madinah, none of them used to touch the grave of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. They used to stand next to the grave and say their salam." [Al-Mughni 3/559 by Imam ibn Qudamah Al-Hanbali]
وفي الإنصاف للمرداوي الحنبلي قال: « قال أحمد: أهل العلم كانوا لا يمسونه » قال المرداوي: ولا يستحب التمسح بالقبر على الصحيح من المذهب » [الإنصاف في معرفة الراجح من الخلاف 4/53 ط: ابن تيمية – القاهرة
Al-Mardawi: Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] said: "The scholars are in agreement that it (graves) shouldn't be touched." Al-Mardawi said: "It is not recommended to touch the graves, this is the correct opinion of the Madhhab (i.e. Hanbali Madhhab)."
2. Ibn Hajar said regarding this narration (of Imam Ahmad allowing the kissing of the Prophet's grave):
واستبعد بعض اتباعه صحة ذلك
Some of those who follow him ruled out the authenticity of this narration. [Fathul Bari 3/475 ]
Al-Zarqani said:
واستبعد بعض أتباعه صحة ذلك عنه .
Some of those who follow him ruled out the authenticity of this narration from him [Sharh Al-Zarqani of Al-Mawatta Kitab al Hajj باب تقبيل الركن الأسود في الاستلام]
Al-Haithami also questions the attribution (of Ahmad allowing the kissing of the grave of the Prophet) to Imam Ahmad.
3. Hanbali giants like Ibn Taymiyyah mention opposing opinions by Imam Ahmad:
قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله في اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم لمخالفة أصحاب الجحيم (2/ 244)
قال أبو بكر الأثرم: قلت لأبي عبد الله - يعني أحمد بن حنبل -: قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يمس
ويتمسح به؟ فقال: ما أعرف هذا.
قلت له: فالمنبر؟ فقال: أما المنبر فنعم قد جاء فيه. قال أبو عبد الله: شيء يروونه عن ابن أبي
فديك عن ابن أبي ذئب عن ابن عمر: أنه مسح على المنبر. قال: ويروونه عن سعيد بن المسيب في
Abu Bakr Al-Athram says: "I asked Abu 'Abdullah i.e. Ahmad ibn Hanbal:"Is it permissible to touch and wipe over the grave of the Prophet (saws)? He (Imam Ahmad) answered: "I do not of it (permission)." I said: "What about the pulpit?" He said: "As for the pulpit, yes, reports have reached us." [Iqtida Al-Sirat Al-Mustaqeem li mukhalifah Ashab Al-Jaheem, 244/2 by Ibn Taymiyyah]
Note: Tabarruk with the relics of the Prophet such as hair, clothes, pulpit etc. i.e. things SPECIFIC to him is what the Jumhour of the Salaf were upon. Heretics misuse these statements to extent the tabarruk to endless saints and Imams!
Finally, tabarruk has has nothing to do with praying to saints and other extreme shirk of the Rafida, kissing a grave is not shirk, it's a bid'ah and against Islamic Law, against the practice of the Sahabah and Ahl Al-Bayt:
'Abdullah, son of 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab:
Ibn 'Umar used to dislike touching the grave of Prophet (Peace be upon him). I (Al-Dahabee) say: He disliked it "BECAUSE HE FOUND IT AGAINST ADAB
Zayn Al-'Abidin, son of Al-Hussein ibn 'Ali ibn Abi Talib:
'Ali ibn Al-Hussein even disliked when people frequented the grave of his grandfather, let alone touching and kissing it!
Ali b. al-Hussein b. Ali b. Abi Talib, Zayn al-‘Abidin (whom the Shia claim as their fourth infallible Imam, free is he of them and their lies), the highly trustworthy, the Faqih, saw one day a man coming to a corner of the grave of the Prophet (صل الله علیه وآله و سلم) thus entering it and making Du’a. So he called him and said: “Has not the hadith reached you which I heard from my father from my grandfather the Messenger of Allaah (صل الله عليه و آله و سلم) that he said: ‘Do not take my grave as a place of festivity, nor make your houses graves, send blessings upon me, for indeed your blessings and your salutations are conveyed to me from wherever you are’” (Narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah (2/375))
The Messenger of Allah may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:
“O Allah! Do not make my grave an idol that is worshipped. The anger on those who took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration was terrible.”
(Related by Ahmad (no. 7352,) and the Muwatta of Malik, Book 9, Number 9.24.88)
and finally a beautiful quote by Imam Al-Ghazali, a person heavily influenced by Kalam and Sufism (which most of it he abondened by the end of his life), yet he professed the orthodox belief with regards to the kissing and touching of graves:
(http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/shirk-by-al-suyuti/?action=dlattach;attach=1287)
-
Ammunition for Arab speakers to refute Rafidi Quburi shubuhat with regards to Imam Ahmad allowing the touching and kissing of graves:
التعريف ببطلان ما نُسب إلى الإمام أحمد بجواز التمسح وتقبيل القبر الشريف
(http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/shirk-by-al-suyuti/?action=dlattach;attach=1289)
As for Imam Al-Dhahabi: He's from the Khalaf, his Quburi statements (which are well known and responded and in either case don't include ANY Shirk unlike the Rafida who do not just seek tabarruk but actually pray to their Imams DIRECTLY) are no evidence in the religion of Muhammad (peace be upon him), it is as Imam Malik said:
كُلُّ كَلَامٍ فِيْهِ مَقْبُوْلٌ وَ مَرْدُوْدٌ إِلّا كَلَامُ صَاحِبِ هَذا القَبْرِ
Every statement will either be accepted (when it is in agreement with the Quran and Sunnah on the understanding of the Salaf) or rejected (when it opposes that) except for the speech of the inhabitant of this grave (of the Prophet Muhammad – sallallahu alayhe wa sallam – since he was protected by Allah from making mistakes in the religion, his speech is never rejected)
من سيار علام النبلاء ٨/٩٣
From Siyaar ‘Alaam an-Nubalaa
PS: The clip posted in the third post in this thread (about Imam Al-Dhahabi and Imam Ahmad) ends with the silly question:
(http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/shirk-by-al-suyuti/?action=dlattach;attach=1291)
"Are you going to accuse Imam Al-Dhahabi and Ahmad of grave worship?"
Subhanallah, these Rawafid have seriously no intellect, they don't even understand the difference between Bida', Khurafaat and shirk! They don't understand that kissing, touching the graves is a bid'ah according to the correct opinion, not "worship of graves". Worship of graves is what Rafidah literally do when they do not just seek blessings but literally pray to their buried deities asking them directly for everything one should ask Allah only.
And the desperation of the Rafidah continiues ... they dig for shaadh/abnormal opinions to make their shirkiyat and khurafat look more pleasent ...
-
and finally a beautiful quote by Imam Al-Ghazali, a person heavily influenced by Kalam and Sufism (which most of it he abondened by the end of his life), yet he professed the orthodox belief with regards to the kissing and touching of graves:
(http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/shirk-by-al-suyuti/?action=dlattach;attach=1287)
Didnt know kissing grave is also jewish practise. Quick google and found this
-
Oh no! What do you say, do I see shirk? Is this not what we hate about the rafidha???
O' Al-Dhahabi, what kind of fatwa is this??? O' Ibn Hanbal, you are a great scholar, how could you???
https://youtu.be/q-7b8qQaXDs
P.S I love the term "rafidhi", it's a badge of honor to me.
Same childish and desperate logic here which goes like this:
Two wrongs make a right, O Nasibi!
Or:
Your Sunni scholars allowed the kissing of graves, so let us Rafida beat them in that and lick the graves, make Sujud to them, Tawaf and every other possible Bid'ah in the name of loving Jesus Ahlul Bayt!
CASE IMAM AHMAD:
The desperate Rafida who are obsessed with graves and shrines and the licking of them bring an alleged narration by the IMAM of Ahl Al-Sunnah (the brave Imam Ahmad who was lashed almost to death for speaking the truth, not resorting to Taqiyyah unlike the "Imams" of the Rafida, the Taqiyyah mongers, who are in reality of course innocent of Shi'ism):
وفي كتاب العلل ومعرفة الرجال ما نصه(2): سألته عن الرجل يمس منبر النبي (صلّى الله عليه و سلّم) و يتبرك بمسّه ويقبله ويفعل بالقبر مثل ذلك أو نحو هذا يريد التقرب إلى الله جل وعز فقال: لا بأس بذلك
Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal was asked about seeking blessings by touching and kissing of the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he said "I do not see any harm in it"
This is narrated by his son Abdullah bin Ahmed [Al-Dhahabi, Mu'jam al-Shuyukh (1:73 #58).]
RESPONSE:
1. First of all this narration is disputed by some scholars, most importantly, the Hanbali Madhab is united in the condemnation of kissing graves of ANYONE besides the Messenger of Allah such as saints/Imams (Sunnah of Jews and Christians):
Imam Mur`ee bin Yusaf Hanbali (d 1033) said:
ولا يتمسح بالقبر ولا يقبله بل يسلم عليه بأدب وسكون
"Do not touch the grave, do not kiss it, rather say salam with adab." [Shifa as-Sudur fe ziyarah Mashahid wal qaboor page 160]
Ibn Qudamah the Hanbali giant says:
قال ابن قدامة في المغني: « ولا يستحب التمسح بحائط قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا تقبيله قال أحمد: ما أعرف هذا. قال ابن الأثرم: رأيت أهل العلم من أهل المدينة لا يمسون قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقومون من ناحية فيسلّمون » [المغني 3/559 الفروع 2/573 وفاء الوفا 4/1403].
"It is NOT recommended to touch or kiss the walls of the grave of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and Imam Ahmad said: "I am not aware of it (i.e. its permissibility)." Ibn Al-Athram said: "I have seen the scholars of Madinah, none of them used to touch the grave of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. They used to stand next to the grave and say their salam." [Al-Mughni 3/559 by Imam ibn Qudamah Al-Hanbali]
وفي الإنصاف للمرداوي الحنبلي قال: « قال أحمد: أهل العلم كانوا لا يمسونه » قال المرداوي: ولا يستحب التمسح بالقبر على الصحيح من المذهب » [الإنصاف في معرفة الراجح من الخلاف 4/53 ط: ابن تيمية – القاهرة
Al-Mardawi: Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] said: "The scholars are in agreement that it (graves) shouldn't be touched." Al-Mardawi said: "It is not recommended to touch the graves, this is the correct opinion of the Madhhab (i.e. Hanbali Madhhab)."
2. Ibn Hajar said regarding this narration (of Imam Ahmad allowing the kissing of the Prophet's grave):
واستبعد بعض اتباعه صحة ذلك
Some of those who follow him ruled out the authenticity of this narration. [Fathul Bari 3/475 ]
Al-Zarqani said:
واستبعد بعض أتباعه صحة ذلك عنه .
Some of those who follow him ruled out the authenticity of this narration from him [Sharh Al-Zarqani of Al-Mawatta Kitab al Hajj باب تقبيل الركن الأسود في الاستلام]
Al-Haithami also questions the attribution (of Ahmad allowing the kissing of the grave of the Prophet) to Imam Ahmad.
3. Hanbali giants like Ibn Taymiyyah mention opposing opinions by Imam Ahmad:
قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله في اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم لمخالفة أصحاب الجحيم (2/ 244)
قال أبو بكر الأثرم: قلت لأبي عبد الله - يعني أحمد بن حنبل -: قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يمس
ويتمسح به؟ فقال: ما أعرف هذا.
قلت له: فالمنبر؟ فقال: أما المنبر فنعم قد جاء فيه. قال أبو عبد الله: شيء يروونه عن ابن أبي
فديك عن ابن أبي ذئب عن ابن عمر: أنه مسح على المنبر. قال: ويروونه عن سعيد بن المسيب في
Abu Bakr Al-Athram says: "I asked Abu 'Abdullah i.e. Ahmad ibn Hanbal:"Is it permissible to touch and wipe over the grave of the Prophet (saws)? He (Imam Ahmad) answered: "I do not of it (permission)." I said: "What about the pulpit?" He said: "As for the pulpit, yes, reports have reached us." [Iqtida Al-Sirat Al-Mustaqeem li mukhalifah Ashab Al-Jaheem, 244/2 by Ibn Taymiyyah]
Note: Tabarruk with the relics of the Prophet such as hair, clothes, pulpit etc. i.e. things SPECIFIC to him is what the Jumhour of the Salaf were upon. Heretics misuse these statements to extent the tabarruk to endless saints and Imams!
Finally, tabarruk has has nothing to do with praying to saints and other extreme shirk of the Rafida, kissing a grave is not shirk, it's a bid'ah and against Islamic Law, against the practice of the Sahabah and Ahl Al-Bayt:
'Abdullah, son of 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab:
Ibn 'Umar used to dislike touching the grave of Prophet (Peace be upon him). I (Al-Dahabee) say: He disliked it "BECAUSE HE FOUND IT AGAINST ADAB
Zayn Al-'Abidin, son of Al-Hussein ibn 'Ali ibn Abi Talib:
'Ali ibn Al-Hussein even disliked when people frequented the grave of his grandfather, let alone touching and kissing it!
Ali b. al-Hussein b. Ali b. Abi Talib, Zayn al-‘Abidin (whom the Shia claim as their fourth infallible Imam, free is he of them and their lies), the highly trustworthy, the Faqih, saw one day a man coming to a corner of the grave of the Prophet (صل الله علیه وآله و سلم) thus entering it and making Du’a. So he called him and said: “Has not the hadith reached you which I heard from my father from my grandfather the Messenger of Allaah (صل الله عليه و آله و سلم) that he said: ‘Do not take my grave as a place of festivity, nor make your houses graves, send blessings upon me, for indeed your blessings and your salutations are conveyed to me from wherever you are’” (Narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah (2/375))
The Messenger of Allah may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:
“O Allah! Do not make my grave an idol that is worshipped. The anger on those who took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration was terrible.”
(Related by Ahmad (no. 7352,) and the Muwatta of Malik, Book 9, Number 9.24.88)
and finally a beautiful quote by Imam Al-Ghazali, a person heavily influenced by Kalam and Sufism (which most of it he abondened by the end of his life), yet he professed the orthodox belief with regards to the kissing and touching of graves:
(http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/shirk-by-al-suyuti/?action=dlattach;attach=1287)
Lol. Just what I expected. Now let us begin!
All you did was tell me what your scholars say about it, and how it is a bid'ah blah blah blah whatever. This isn't the point of the thread, the point of the thread is for you to show you have consistent standards when it comes to what you accuse the Shi'a of. You just said that it is a bid'ah, now can you call Al-Dhahabi a mubtadi just like you call the Shi'a? Or is it too hard? I mean it is clear he believes in "quburi bid'ah" as you call it. Well! Call him a mubtadi!
And are you going to accuse Al-Suyuti of shirk for what he has attributed to the Prophets?
And there's no point narrating to me Sunni hadiths, to me they're as meaningful as Shi'i hadiths are to you.
-
I recommend you watch the entire video, but the relevant part about Al-Suyuti is after minute 4:
https://youtu.be/Vapsn8c9O54
The reason why I also recommend the entire video is because it reveals Ibn Taymiyyah's aqeedah about the karamaat of the awliyah. Some of the stuff mentioned in there are the exact same things the Shi'a attribute to the Imams of the Muslims (AS) yet we are accused of ghulu and shirk. Weird.
;D
Let's see what is the judgement of Shia Imam in this issue.
Hurr al-Amili in “Wasael ush shia” 28/341-342:
ـ وعن محمد بن الحسن ، عن الصفار ، عن الحسن بن موسى الخشاب ، عن يزيد بن إسحاق شعر ، عن عباس بن يزيد ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : قلت له : إن هؤلاء العوام يزعمون أن الشرك أخفى من دبيب النمل في الليلة الظلماء على المسح الأسود ، فقال : لا يكون العبد مشركا حتى يصلي لغير الله ، أو يذبح لغير الله ، أو يدعو لغير الله عزّ وجلّ –
And from Muhammad b. al-Hasan from as-Saffar from al-Hasan b. Musa the wood merchant from Yazid b. Ishaq Sha`ar from `Abbas b. Yazid from Abu `Abdillah(as). He said: I said to him: Verily these `awamm claim that shirk is more obscure than the creeping of the ant in a dark night upon the black haircloth. So he(as) said: The servant is not a mushrik until he prays to other than Allah, or slaughters (an animal) for other than Allah, or supplicates to other than Allah `azza wa jalla. (Shia book, wasail ush shia).
-
I recommend you watch the entire video, but the relevant part about Al-Suyuti is after minute 4:
https://youtu.be/Vapsn8c9O54
The reason why I also recommend the entire video is because it reveals Ibn Taymiyyah's aqeedah about the karamaat of the awliyah. Some of the stuff mentioned in there are the exact same things the Shi'a attribute to the Imams of the Muslims (AS) yet we are accused of ghulu and shirk. Weird.
;D
Let's see what is the judgement of Shia Imam in this issue.
Hurr al-Amili in “Wasael ush shia” 28/341-342:
ـ وعن محمد بن الحسن ، عن الصفار ، عن الحسن بن موسى الخشاب ، عن يزيد بن إسحاق شعر ، عن عباس بن يزيد ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : قلت له : إن هؤلاء العوام يزعمون أن الشرك أخفى من دبيب النمل في الليلة الظلماء على المسح الأسود ، فقال : لا يكون العبد مشركا حتى يصلي لغير الله ، أو يذبح لغير الله ، أو يدعو لغير الله عزّ وجلّ –
And from Muhammad b. al-Hasan from as-Saffar from al-Hasan b. Musa the wood merchant from Yazid b. Ishaq Sha`ar from `Abbas b. Yazid from Abu `Abdillah(as). He said: I said to him: Verily these `awamm claim that shirk is more obscure than the creeping of the ant in a dark night upon the black haircloth. So he(as) said: The servant is not a mushrik until he prays to other than Allah, or slaughters (an animal) for other than Allah, or supplicates to other than Allah `azza wa jalla. (Shia book, wasail ush shia).
Nothing wrong with this hadith. But please focus on the topic.
-
I recommend you watch the entire video, but the relevant part about Al-Suyuti is after minute 4:
https://youtu.be/Vapsn8c9O54
The reason why I also recommend the entire video is because it reveals Ibn Taymiyyah's aqeedah about the karamaat of the awliyah. Some of the stuff mentioned in there are the exact same things the Shi'a attribute to the Imams of the Muslims (AS) yet we are accused of ghulu and shirk. Weird.
;D
Let's see what is the judgement of Shia Imam in this issue.
Hurr al-Amili in “Wasael ush shia” 28/341-342:
ـ وعن محمد بن الحسن ، عن الصفار ، عن الحسن بن موسى الخشاب ، عن يزيد بن إسحاق شعر ، عن عباس بن يزيد ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : قلت له : إن هؤلاء العوام يزعمون أن الشرك أخفى من دبيب النمل في الليلة الظلماء على المسح الأسود ، فقال : لا يكون العبد مشركا حتى يصلي لغير الله ، أو يذبح لغير الله ، أو يدعو لغير الله عزّ وجلّ –
And from Muhammad b. al-Hasan from as-Saffar from al-Hasan b. Musa the wood merchant from Yazid b. Ishaq Sha`ar from `Abbas b. Yazid from Abu `Abdillah(as). He said: I said to him: Verily these `awamm claim that shirk is more obscure than the creeping of the ant in a dark night upon the black haircloth. So he(as) said: The servant is not a mushrik until he prays to other than Allah, or slaughters (an animal) for other than Allah, or supplicates to other than Allah `azza wa jalla. (Shia book, wasail ush shia).
Nothing wrong with this hadith. But please focus on the topic.
Focus on the hadeeth, you will see how it is related to the topic. The hadeeth answers the question you asked in the title of the topic. No it is not shirk by Suyuti. So now you may counter question that then why do Sunnis call some Shia practises as Shirk. Well then if that is the case then rest assured that I will show you proves where Shias practice atleast one of the above things mentioned by Imam as Shirk.
-
I recommend you watch the entire video, but the relevant part about Al-Suyuti is after minute 4:
https://youtu.be/Vapsn8c9O54
The reason why I also recommend the entire video is because it reveals Ibn Taymiyyah's aqeedah about the karamaat of the awliyah. Some of the stuff mentioned in there are the exact same things the Shi'a attribute to the Imams of the Muslims (AS) yet we are accused of ghulu and shirk. Weird.
;D
Let's see what is the judgement of Shia Imam in this issue.
Hurr al-Amili in “Wasael ush shia” 28/341-342:
ـ وعن محمد بن الحسن ، عن الصفار ، عن الحسن بن موسى الخشاب ، عن يزيد بن إسحاق شعر ، عن عباس بن يزيد ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : قلت له : إن هؤلاء العوام يزعمون أن الشرك أخفى من دبيب النمل في الليلة الظلماء على المسح الأسود ، فقال : لا يكون العبد مشركا حتى يصلي لغير الله ، أو يذبح لغير الله ، أو يدعو لغير الله عزّ وجلّ –
And from Muhammad b. al-Hasan from as-Saffar from al-Hasan b. Musa the wood merchant from Yazid b. Ishaq Sha`ar from `Abbas b. Yazid from Abu `Abdillah(as). He said: I said to him: Verily these `awamm claim that shirk is more obscure than the creeping of the ant in a dark night upon the black haircloth. So he(as) said: The servant is not a mushrik until he prays to other than Allah, or slaughters (an animal) for other than Allah, or supplicates to other than Allah `azza wa jalla. (Shia book, wasail ush shia).
Nothing wrong with this hadith. But please focus on the topic.
Focus on the hadeeth, you will see how it is related to the topic. The hadeeth answers the question you asked in the title of the topic. No it is not shirk by Suyuti. So now you may counter question that then why do Sunnis call some Shia practises as Shirk. Well then if that is the case then rest assured that I will show you proves where Shias practice atleast one of the above things mentioned by Imam as Shirk.
Actually, my focus about what Al-Suyuti said is not about the practices, but rather it is his own belief concerning the Prophet and his attributes.
If you want to speak about istigatha, look, I don't consider it as Du'a. I personally don't do it because I have my own reasons, but I do not consider it as doing Du'a to other than Allah or praying to other than Allah.
To me it is like a man calling on another man after falling in a hole. Now you might say well the Imams are dead, but we have hadiths telling us that they can hear us near their graves.
-
I recommend you watch the entire video, but the relevant part about Al-Suyuti is after minute 4:
https://youtu.be/Vapsn8c9O54
The reason why I also recommend the entire video is because it reveals Ibn Taymiyyah's aqeedah about the karamaat of the awliyah. Some of the stuff mentioned in there are the exact same things the Shi'a attribute to the Imams of the Muslims (AS) yet we are accused of ghulu and shirk. Weird.
;D
Let's see what is the judgement of Shia Imam in this issue.
Hurr al-Amili in “Wasael ush shia” 28/341-342:
ـ وعن محمد بن الحسن ، عن الصفار ، عن الحسن بن موسى الخشاب ، عن يزيد بن إسحاق شعر ، عن عباس بن يزيد ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : قلت له : إن هؤلاء العوام يزعمون أن الشرك أخفى من دبيب النمل في الليلة الظلماء على المسح الأسود ، فقال : لا يكون العبد مشركا حتى يصلي لغير الله ، أو يذبح لغير الله ، أو يدعو لغير الله عزّ وجلّ –
And from Muhammad b. al-Hasan from as-Saffar from al-Hasan b. Musa the wood merchant from Yazid b. Ishaq Sha`ar from `Abbas b. Yazid from Abu `Abdillah(as). He said: I said to him: Verily these `awamm claim that shirk is more obscure than the creeping of the ant in a dark night upon the black haircloth. So he(as) said: The servant is not a mushrik until he prays to other than Allah, or slaughters (an animal) for other than Allah, or supplicates to other than Allah `azza wa jalla. (Shia book, wasail ush shia).
Nothing wrong with this hadith. But please focus on the topic.
Focus on the hadeeth, you will see how it is related to the topic. The hadeeth answers the question you asked in the title of the topic. No it is not shirk by Suyuti. So now you may counter question that then why do Sunnis call some Shia practises as Shirk. Well then if that is the case then rest assured that I will show you proves where Shias practice atleast one of the above things mentioned by Imam as Shirk.
Actually, my focus about what Al-Suyuti said is not about the practices, but rather it is his own belief concerning the Prophet and his attributes.
If you want to speak about istigatha, look, I don't consider it as Du'a. I personally don't do it because I have my own reasons, but I do not consider it as doing Du'a to other than Allah or praying to other than Allah.
To me it is like a man calling on another man after falling in a hole. Now you might say well the Imams are dead, but we have hadiths telling us that they can hear us near their graves.
A call made Taht al Asbaab is acceptable, but Fouq al Asbaab is the issue. Where Shias believe that Imams have been granted some special powers that in their presence or even in their absense they can hear and fulfill the needs of the callers.
If you fall in a pit, you may call a person nearby, he would help you come out, since it is in his ability. That won't be shirk. But even during the lifetime of Imam people should not ask the Imam or Prophet to grant them rain.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Tough luck finding anybody who doesn't hold at least ONE innovation.
That's a misconception on your part. A person who commits an innovation is one thing, but labeling a person as innovator is another (in my view).
Also, a person who commits an evil act is not labeled "evil man".
Similarly, a person who commits an act of Shirk is one thing but a Mushrik is another.
I elaborate: We all commit acts of Shirk (mostly minor) almost on a daily basis without even sensing it, nobody is purely devoted to God 24/7 in the absolute sense. That is the nature of our flawed being, that however does not cause us to be called Mushrikeen. Calling someone a Mushrik means you took him outside the folds of the religion altogether and doomed him to hellfire.
Likewise, a simpler example is: you commit an act of evil or oppression, a mistake on your part or a slight slip in moral conduct. We all do it however no Faqih or `Alim would say that by doing so we are now to be labeled as "Evil people" or "Oppressive tyrants". The ones known as "oppressors" are those who continuously oppress folks knowingly and willingly, they are known for it in their societies and are unrepentant.
This means that any innovation held by me or you, if we are convinced it is right, no dishonesty or ill will, the merciful God will overlook it and so will society; they will say "may God forgive him for his error" at most. However, a person who is infested with malicious innovations, constantly calling people to his twisted views and straying from the path, this kind of person SHOULD be labeled as "innovator" in society so that people would avoid him. His innovations will sooner or later lead him to perish and be punished in hell-fire as the Prophetic-report says.
-
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.
Tough luck finding anybody who doesn't hold at least ONE innovation.
That's a misconception on your part. A person who commits an innovation is one thing, but labeling a person as innovator is another (in my view).
Also, a person who commits an evil act is not labeled "evil man".
Similarly, a person who commits an act of Shirk is one thing but a Mushrik is another.
I elaborate: We all commit acts of Shirk (mostly minor) almost on a daily basis without even sensing it, nobody is purely devoted to God 24/7 in the absolute sense. That is the nature of our flawed being, that however does not cause us to be called Mushrikeen. Calling someone a Mushrik means you took him outside the folds of the religion altogether and doomed him to hellfire.
Likewise, a simpler example is: you commit an act of evil or oppression, a mistake on your part or a slight slip in moral conduct. We all do it however no Faqih or `Alim would say that by doing so we are now to be labeled as "Evil people" or "Oppressive tyrants". The ones known as "oppressors" are those who continuously oppress folks knowingly and willingly, they are known for it in their societies and are unrepentant.
This means that any innovation held by me or you, if we are convinced it is right, no dishonesty or ill will, the merciful God will overlook it and so will society; they will say "may God forgive him for his error" at most. However, a person who is infested with malicious innovations, constantly calling people to his twisted views and straying from the path, this kind of person SHOULD be labeled as "innovator" in society so that people would avoid him. His innovations will sooner or later lead him to perish and be punished in hell-fire as the Prophetic-report says.
A few points.
1) That's your view, let's see what the hadith says:
“Every innovation is going astray, and every going astray will be in the Fire.”
Narrated by Muslim, translation from IslamQA.
Sorry but "dhalal" cannot be compared to any other sin, no matter how you play it around. So I don't understand the qiyas about "evil man".
2) I didn't say that one innovation is equal to 67 innovations in the worth of sin, rather, that one innovation or 67 innovations both constitute giving the man who practices them or believes in them the title: innovator.
3) Al-Suyuti and Al-Dhahabu were both promoting their bid'ah and both had no problems with it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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 ;D
-
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.
-
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/ (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 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/ (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?
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?