TwelverShia.net Forum

Is Rijaal reliable?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Link

Is Rijaal reliable?
« on: March 06, 2017, 03:18:59 PM »
Salam

The religion of God has always been about submitting to him.

The question is, is the path of submission to God all coming down to, "trust opinions of certain non-chosen authorities on who is trustworthy and who isn't".

There are somethings that come to my mind.

1. How do we know a person actually knows who is trustworthy and who is not?

2. How do we know in the chaos of sectarianism and mass fabricators, that those who inherited regarding the opinions of who is trustworthy and who isn't,  has usefulness or a some high probability of truth?

3. Is the proof of the path of submission to God come to technical historical and analytical analysis of "opinions on men" through time?


An obvious question a person would come up with to say, yes of course, we need to trust rijaal, is how else can we objectively determine what is from God and his Messenger, and what isn't.  I believe there is alternative ways.

We can rather then take people's word on who is trustworthy and who is not. First, we should gather all on contradictions in hadiths, whether authentic or not authentic.

Then we should investigate, them, in light of Quran and reasoning.

Then the narrators always found narrating things that contradict Quran, we should begin to make a tally.

The narrators that give insight to Quran, we should make a tally. By insight, I mean, help us see things in Quran, we would not have seen were it not for the ahadith. See light therein confirmed in Quran through Quran, but with the aide of hadiths.

We should also see if a person is constantly narrating things that contradict other hadiths. So if we have an oddball that constantly likes to narrate controversial or opposite type hadiths, it should be noted.

Then we see how all this fairs with how they traditionally were classified.

If a weak narrator narrated things that are confirmed in Quran, but not only that, gives insight to Quran, and his hadiths are all of good nature. Perhaps he was misjudged.

If a narrator constantly narrates what contradicts Quran, but was trusted, perhaps he was misjudged.

There are some hadiths that about given insight to the religion and are of a very deep nature. Some hadiths about deep meanings of certain things in the Shariah.

I think a re-evaluation should be made.

Some reason are as follows:

1. People don't know exactly who is a liar and trustworthy specially in the chaotic way people displayed themselves as pious and accused people of being liars when they constantly narrated what seem weird to them.

2. Many "authentic" hadiths contradict Quran and reason, showing our Rijaal system wasn't accurate.

3. There was not much detail about how each person formed their opinion on each person. It's like people take people's opinions on who is trustworthy as if God made these opinions obligatory to accept and the way to submit to his religion without even brining rigorous proofs.

4.  The people of hell will not be able to recognize a single person they deemed of evil in hell, this has to tell you, that humans can often shift perspective to extent good people are deemed evil, and evil people are deemed good.....and we cannot by circular reasoning prove who are the good people. We have to throw away with the assumption that the people who tell us who are trustworthy and who are not, are themselves trustworthy. We have to find the truth first, and then realize who narrated it.  We cannot find all the truth, but when we find important truths in Quran, we can look to see who are the ONLY people who narrated such truths. And those who opposed it, are obviously, not worth our time after that. And we keep narrowing our search like that, because, the Quran describes itself as manifestation of clear proofs of the guidance.

Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Farid

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2017, 06:50:41 PM »
I recall in one post you said that you would reject the Qur'an if it had tajseem.

With such standards, I cannot be bothered to responds to your post.

If anyone has any questions about Link's post please let me know.

Link

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2017, 06:45:01 PM »
I recall in one post you said that you would reject the Qur'an if it had tajseem.

I would reject the Quran if it has tasjeem, just as I would of rejected other holy books if they had other gods then God.

But that is off-topic.
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Farid

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2017, 06:45:59 PM »
Would you reject the Qur'an if it said that Allah has a son?

Link

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2017, 06:50:47 PM »
Would you reject the Qur'an if it said that Allah has a son?

I would.
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Farid

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2017, 09:54:58 PM »
Would you reject the Qur'an if it said that Allah has a son?

I would.


Say, [O Muhammad], "If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of [his] worshippers." (43:81)


...and that is why, ladies and gentlemen, I couldn't care less about this individual.

Imam Ali

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2017, 10:21:52 PM »
Would you reject the Qur'an if it said that Allah has a son?

I would.


Say, [O Muhammad], "If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of [his] worshippers." (43:81)


...and that is why, ladies and gentlemen, I couldn't care less about this individual.

LMFAO.

glorfindel

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2017, 02:19:21 AM »
Bismillah,

I am reminded of the words of 'Abdullah ibn Muburak "...Sanad is a part of Deen, if it was not there, then everybody would have said whatever they liked..." how true it is here.

Salam

The religion of God has always been about submitting to him.

The question is, is the path of submission to God all coming down to, "trust opinions of certain non-chosen authorities on who is trustworthy and who isn't".

There are somethings that come to my mind.

1. How do we know a person actually knows who is trustworthy and who is not?

Who told you that the religion of God is to submit to him? To begin with you would have expected that the prophet (saw) and the Shia' Imams (ra) would have known who was truthful or not - this is an indication about who you should take your religion from and who you should not take your religion from.

2. How do we know in the chaos of sectarianism and mass fabricators, that those who inherited regarding the opinions of who is trustworthy and who isn't,  has usefulness or a some high probability of truth?

If someone who was trusted by the prophet (saw) or the Imam's (as) teaches someone who teaches someone else who informs someone who writes down what they have heard - what problem is there with that?

3. Is the proof of the path of submission to God come to technical historical and analytical analysis of "opinions on men" through time?

You have used the phrase submission to God quite a number of times so far - what does that mean and how is it realised? Is it not how the prophet (saw) did it? If it is then is not incumbent to seek out how he did it? How else would you find a route back to the source of revelation because the entirety of the revelation has been conveyed by men (i.e. human beings) should you not find out if these people are truthful or not, at the very least? Or does it not matter, if something sounds good we should follow it - by that token if something sounds bad we should reject it, then that would be a free for all because what sounds good in your ear, would probably sound foul in another's ear.

An obvious question a person would come up with to say, yes of course, we need to trust rijaal, is how else can we objectively determine what is from God and his Messenger, and what isn't.  I believe there is alternative ways.

We can rather then take people's word on who is trustworthy and who is not. First, we should gather all on contradictions in hadiths, whether authentic or not authentic.

Then we should investigate, them, in light of Quran and reasoning.

Then the narrators always found narrating things that contradict Quran, we should begin to make a tally.

The narrators that give insight to Quran, we should make a tally. By insight, I mean, help us see things in Quran, we would not have seen were it not for the ahadith. See light therein confirmed in Quran through Quran, but with the aide of hadiths.

Sounds like a barmy idea but please go ahead and let us know what you find out - but remember even a liar who gives you "insight" in the Quran is still a liar and a truthful one who gives information which cannot be reconciled in your head is still truthful.

If there is a hadith that gives you insight into the Quran or some other aspect of the Quran and you cannot determine (or cannot be bothered to) whether the hadith is truthful or not, what's the point in even using the hadith, because if insight can be derived without aid of revelation (prophetic hadith are revelations) then we don't need to bother with any of the hadith, indeed we wouldn't even need the Quran, because we could all just figure out what was good and bad and how best to submit to God.

We should also see if a person is constantly narrating things that contradict other hadiths. So if we have an oddball that constantly likes to narrate controversial or opposite type hadiths, it should be noted.

Then we see how all this fairs with how they traditionally were classified.

If a weak narrator narrated things that are confirmed in Quran, but not only that, gives insight to Quran, and his hadiths are all of good nature. Perhaps he was misjudged.

Maybe you should actually take a course in Hadith Studies because you don't seem to know how traditions are classified, the ancient scholars noted these things down.  When someone is classified as being weak, there is a reason for that classification, if you think that they are not weak then the reason for the weakness needs to be tackled - the fact that they narrate "good" things sometimes (how do you define good, because you feel something in your water about them? What's your criteria?) doesn't stop them being rejected by others because of the fact that they have been weakened elsewhere.

If a narrator constantly narrates what contradicts Quran, but was trusted, perhaps he was misjudged.

There are some hadiths that about given insight to the religion and are of a very deep nature. Some hadiths about deep meanings of certain things in the Shariah.

Examples about this constantly narrating against the Quran (how do you define constantly, once, twice, thrice?)  As for these deep insights again you have to use an external criteria to judge them, what is this external criteria?

I think a re-evaluation should be made.

Some reason are as follows:

1. People don't know exactly who is a liar and trustworthy specially in the chaotic way people displayed themselves as pious and accused people of being liars when they constantly narrated what seem weird to them.

2. Many "authentic" hadiths contradict Quran and reason, showing our Rijaal system wasn't accurate.

3. There was not much detail about how each person formed their opinion on each person. It's like people take people's opinions on who is trustworthy as if God made these opinions obligatory to accept and the way to submit to his religion without even brining rigorous proofs.

4.  The people of hell will not be able to recognize a single person they deemed of evil in hell, this has to tell you, that humans can often shift perspective to extent good people are deemed evil, and evil people are deemed good.....and we cannot by circular reasoning prove who are the good people. We have to throw away with the assumption that the people who tell us who are trustworthy and who are not, are themselves trustworthy. We have to find the truth first, and then realize who narrated it.  We cannot find all the truth, but when we find important truths in Quran, we can look to see who are the ONLY people who narrated such truths. And those who opposed it, are obviously, not worth our time after that. And we keep narrowing our search like that, because, the Quran describes itself as manifestation of clear proofs of the guidance.

1. If we knew who was truthful and who lied - there would be no problem, but we are not prophets who get revelation about such things hence we have to 'trust' people who were trusted by others.  By all means you can reject them all - all the weak and the sahih ones - that would at least be fair then trying to cherry pick the ones which give you an 'insight'.  Unfortunately you are from the outside looking in, in that you don't know how the ancient scholars classified men and traditions the way they did - if you could quote an example of a scholar whose methodology you disagree with and an alternate methodology, that would be helpful.

2. Some examples would be good here as I haven't seen any that contradict either, the fault my lie in you dear brutus and not in our stars, because you can't understand something.

3. Maybe not in the Shia school but in the Sunni school there are volumes of books written about how the conclusions have been drawn about who to take, and more importantly who not to take, our religion from.  Maybe you should read them.

4. Garbled nonsense that doesn't need a response.

Regards,
Glorfindel.

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2017, 06:50:29 AM »
Would you reject the Qur'an if it said that Allah has a son?

I would.


Say, [O Muhammad], "If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of [his] worshippers." (43:81)


...and that is why, ladies and gentlemen, I couldn't care less about this individual.

Haha. The guy link and his ignorance and arrogance is pitiful.

Link

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2017, 09:05:36 AM »
Quote
If there is a hadith that gives you insight into the Quran or some other aspect of the Quran and you cannot determine (or cannot be bothered to) whether the hadith is truthful or not, what's the point in even using the hadith, because if insight can be derived without aid of revelation (prophetic hadith are revelations) then we don't need to bother with any of the hadith, indeed we wouldn't even need the Quran, because we could all just figure out what was good and bad and how best to submit to God.

What I mean by insight is not a trivial repetition of what is in Quran.

Quran is layered and is a connection from the lowest to highest reality.  What helps us ascend and understand Quran at a higher level should always be noted.

What verifies a deep layer of Quran should be noted.

If a person never narrates anything that gives "insight" to Quran - this already tells you much. 

If a person gives insight and helps humanity open doors to Quran, and often does, this already tells you much.

If more insight comes from unknown narrators and liars, this may be a sign, they weren't really liars or that the system of Rijaal as we inherited it, has failed us.

If we find many of those who we trust for our traditions contradict Quran, then is absolute reason to know that the system of Rijaal as we inherited it, has failed us.


The nature of the luminosity of Quran is that illuminates the signs within oneself as well as in the horizons, and it's those signs that bring the words of Quran to life. They work in conjunction together.

The hadiths play a huge role in this, in that, they emphasize on the right thinking process towards Quran as well elaborate the details.

Of course, there is always going to be some things we won't know right away if it's right or wrong.   However, Quran is a guidance, and in contains deep knowledge.

Seeing things in Quran is not "following desires", and often, we are blind to things until we come across ahadiths that emphasize a theme or interpretation of verses.

No one is saying to make decisions over hadiths one doesn't know.

If a person only narrated "laws" and "rules", and didn't narrate that gives insight, it should be noted.

This is not to make decisions right away and make it into an exact science one has to stick to.

But rather, it can be an ongoing research.  And yes it can be "boxing match" and "free for all", and maybe it should be, till we all discuss our various degrees of knowledge, and come to unite on Quran and Sunnah, as opposed to this path of following the system of our forefathers as if we cannot change our course and as if what we inherited is all not to be questioned.

Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Link

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2017, 09:14:29 AM »
Would you reject the Qur'an if it said that Allah has a son?

I would.


Say, [O Muhammad], "If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of [his] worshippers." (43:81)


...and that is why, ladies and gentlemen, I couldn't care less about this individual.

Yeah, it's because you interpret Quran and ahadith by your desires, and not by light and reason, that you could care less.

One the verse can be translated "so then I am the foremost of those who worship", which would mean, there is a paradox, in which the best after God must be those who worship God the best,  and if there would be a son it would be them, but at the same time,  their whole path of exaltedness is through worship of God without partners.

And if we translate as you said, it would be a paradox, in which Mohammad would be required would be foremost to worship the "son", making him "the son", yet, how can he Worship himself and be the best?

In other words, this verse is showing in either way it's translated:

It's a paradox that God has a son.


Skip over many verses that show it's impossible that God has a son, and that every human should know it's impossible, and you use this out of your caprice.

This is the essential foundation of Sunnism. Interpret everything according to their caprice.

Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2017, 04:58:22 PM »

One the verse can be translated "so then I am the foremost of those who worship", which would mean, there is a paradox, in which the best after God must be those who worship God the best,  and if there would be a son it would be them, but at the same time,  their whole path of exaltedness is through worship of God without partners.

And if we translate as you said, it would be a paradox, in which Mohammad would be required would be foremost to worship the "son", making him "the son", yet, how can he Worship himself and be the best?
Shia Translator Muhammad Sarwar[Translator who translated Quran & Al-Kafi] :

(Muhammad), say, "Had the Beneficent God really had a son, I would certainly have been the first one to worship him.(43:81)

Another Shia Translator translated it as:
“If the Most Gracious [Allah] had a child, then I am the first of Allah’s worshippers [and I were the first person to respect the child and to obey him].”

Farid

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2017, 05:22:31 PM »
^ He accuses me of following my desires when he rejects the clear meaning of the Qur'an.

Abu Muhammad

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2017, 05:50:39 PM »
One the verse can be translated "so then I am the foremost of those who worship", which would mean, there is a paradox, in which the best after God must be those who worship God the best,  and if there would be a son it would be them, but at the same time,  their whole path of exaltedness is through worship of God without partners.

And if we translate as you said, it would be a paradox, in which Mohammad would be required would be foremost to worship the "son", making him "the son", yet, how can he Worship himself and be the best?

In other words, this verse is showing in either way it's translated:

It's a paradox that God has a son.


Could you please explain in a simple and concise manner where the paradox is?

Link

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2017, 07:06:43 PM »
One the verse can be translated "so then I am the foremost of those who worship", which would mean, there is a paradox, in which the best after God must be those who worship God the best,  and if there would be a son it would be them, but at the same time,  their whole path of exaltedness is through worship of God without partners.

And if we translate as you said, it would be a paradox, in which Mohammad would be required would be foremost to worship the "son", making him "the son", yet, how can he Worship himself and be the best?

In other words, this verse is showing in either way it's translated:

It's a paradox that God has a son.


Could you please explain in a simple and concise manner where the paradox is?

The paradox is the servant of God would be on par with who he is worshiping.

There is a whole theme of this in Quran, "if he were to have sons, he would choose from who he has created" "nay rather they are honored servants...." etc....

The translation I posted, "then verily I am of the foremost of those who worship", would go in line with those verses more and is confirmed by that theme.



Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Link

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2017, 07:09:20 PM »
^ He accuses me of following my desires when he rejects the clear meaning of the Qur'an.

The problem with you is everything Shaytan and his forces suggest to you is "clear" meaning, and everything the Quran itself confirms and manifests through other verses, and holds together, is not. You neglect reasoning and following desires and take it the impression rooted in you from Shayateen as clear.

Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Hani

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2017, 10:34:31 PM »
Guys pls stay on topic or don't discuss. OP did not talk about Tajseem or whatever, he's talking about "reforming" the Rijali system.

PS. If God Had a son (which we firmly believe he doesn't) that son would not be an object of worship as he is not ancient.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Abu Muhammad

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2017, 02:09:48 AM »
The paradox is the servant of God would be on par with who he is worshiping.

There is a whole theme of this in Quran, "if he were to have sons, he would choose from who he has created" "nay rather they are honored servants...." etc....

The translation I posted, "then verily I am of the foremost of those who worship", would go in line with those verses more and is confirmed by that theme.

You know what, nobody here will say that Allah, in reality, has a son. I didn't see any need for you to go into that unnecessary details (in fact, your explanation above was a diversion from the very point Farid wanted to show).

It was all about "IF" situation.

Farid was pretty much wanting to know your reaction IF the Quran mentions that Allah had a son, would you reject the holy book. And your annwer was affirmative yes.

He brought the very verse from the Quran what a person should react IF Allah had a son. And the answer is not to reject or abandon but to embrace. Regardless how you want to interpret "فَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْعَابِدِينَ" , the verse does not give a meaning to reject at all.

Again I remind you, it was all about "IF" situation. Never about the Quran really mentions that Allah has a son.

With that, I ask who is following his own desire and who is following what Allah desires?

Link

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2017, 03:50:13 AM »
Farid did not ask what I would do if God had a son he asked what I would do if Quran says God has a son.  But if God had a son there would be no way to know that and hence it is impossible that we ever ought to worship other then God.  The proper translation when thought Witt reason is saying if indeed God had a son it would be the best worshipper of God.  That would be closest being to him but even he who was two bows or closer still cannot be said to be son of god.  If there would be any son of God it would be metaophorical relationship of closeness with those that God has chosen.  So even the best of his creation it does not beseem them to be called that when compared to God.  The same logic shows the true family of Mohammad can only be exalted chosen souls.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2017, 03:52:06 AM by Link »
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Link

Re: Is Rijaal reliable?
« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2017, 02:40:06 AM »
Salam

Does anyone want to discuss the actual topic?
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
2231 Views
Last post January 18, 2015, 04:23:42 PM
by Hani