TwelverShia.net Forum

Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fgss

Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« on: November 16, 2017, 02:28:09 PM »
According to  Nader Zaveri, author of http://www.revivingalislam.com/?m=1

Quote
Our scholars most likely took it from the Mu'tazilah, as many of our classical scholar's teachers were Mu'tazilah. Their Usool al-Deen are:

Tawheed
`Adl
al-Wa`d wa al-Wa`eed (Promise and Threat)
al-Manzilah bayn al-Manzilatayn (Rank between two ranks)
Amr bi'l Ma'roof wa Nahi `anil Munkar

Notice the first two.


Quote
From my research, this Usool al-Deen of ours was not fully defined until the time of Shareef al-Murtada (355-436 AH), while the Usool al-Deen of the Mu'tazilah were defined way before the 5th century. We took many things from the Mu'tazilah, heavy reliance on mutawaatir and rejection of akhbaar aHaad was another Pro-mu'tazilah concept that al-Murtada also adopted.

There is no denying the many of our classical scholar's teachers were Mu'tazilah. We also had scholars who switched from being Mu`tazilah to an Imaami (i.e. Muhammad bin `Abd al-Rahmaan bin Qibah al-Raazi).

585 محمد بن قبة الرازي

، يكنى أبا جعفر، من متكلمي الإمامية و حذاقهم و كان أولا معتزليا ثم انتقل إلى القول بالإمامة

Muhammad bin Qibah al-Raazi:

kunya Abaa Ja`far, he is from the kalaam scholars of the Imaamiyyah, clever, he was first a Mu`tazilah, then he transferred to the belief of Imaamah

Source:

al-Toosi, al-Fihrist, pg. 132, person # 585


Quotes taken from: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234994293-why-is-adl-justice-part-of-usool-ad-deen/
إِنَّ أَصْدَقَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَأَحْسَنَ الْهَدْىِ هَدْىُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَشَرَّ الأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا وَكُلَّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلاَلَةٌ وَكُلَّ ضَلاَلَةٍ فِي النَّارِ

May Allah guide us to the true teachings of Quran and Sunnah of His beloved Prophet (s.a.w.w). Ameen

MuslimAnswers

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2017, 08:47:46 AM »
^

Even the 'Manzila Bayna al-Manzilatayn' seems to have echoes in how the Twelvers treat us, the 'Ammah': That we are to be treated as Muslims in this world, yet we are disbelievers in the next world.

fgss

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2017, 07:26:33 AM »
Yet they claim we take knowledge only from our divine guides (ahlebayt). Not only muta'zilah but they have also adopted many things from ahlul sunnah. Mostly they rely upon ahlul sunnah narrations.
إِنَّ أَصْدَقَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَأَحْسَنَ الْهَدْىِ هَدْىُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَشَرَّ الأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا وَكُلَّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلاَلَةٌ وَكُلَّ ضَلاَلَةٍ فِي النَّارِ

May Allah guide us to the true teachings of Quran and Sunnah of His beloved Prophet (s.a.w.w). Ameen

Rationalist

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2017, 10:22:25 AM »
Not only the Kalaam. They took history from the Mutazilla research to refute the Ahle Sunnah. I mean if the 12th Imam is the Imam of the time, why did they pay a Mutazilla to write the sharh of Najh al Balagha? Its because their own sources were insufficient.

whoaretheshia

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2017, 04:08:20 AM »
Asalamualaykum,

This is what the modern-day Salafi movement seem to claim about the vast majority of Sunni scholars historically and what is the orthodox in Sunni Islam [the Ashari and Maturidi].

The reality is, there are many key differences between the Shia and the M'utazila, and our classical and modern day scholars have written books refuting their overuse of rationality which was in fact, just pseudo rationality.

We base our Aqeedah on reports from a plethora number of chains from Muhammed and his purified progeny. That is the foundation of our Aqeedah. If in term of how we use some kinds of terminology, or in terms of methodology some of our scholars were drawn to the Mutazila viewpoint, then know that even men who you acclaim to write the 'greatest' Tafsir, such as Imam Tabari, also had such leanings.

What the modern-day Salafi-Athari movement is claiming is that the majority of Sunni scholars [who have been Ashari and Maturidi], the majority of Sunni muslims today, the vast majority of Shia Muslims, and even those who are non-muslim, have concluded that Allah existed outside of time and space, and that you can not describe the creator by the limitations of his own creation.

If he created where, you can not then say he became subjected to direction, as he created direction and existed pre-eternally without it.Such an awareness and understanding of Allah [swt] is found so ubiquitously among humanity that it is actually part of our Fitrah to negate attributing to Allah [swt] that which would compromise his Tawhid. I realised that before i even knew there was a minority group in Sunni Islam who believed in that.

It is a very brave position to go against clear rational sense, what the majority of both Sunni and Shia scholars historically have believed and affirmed, as well as what the majority of humanity has arrived to in their understanding of Allah [swt] which is strong evidence for core components of these beliefs being part of our Fitrah.

DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Rationalist

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2017, 05:13:48 AM »

We base our Aqeedah on reports from a plethora number of chains from Muhammed and his purified progeny. That is the foundation of our Aqeedah.
Can you point out hadith which say the pillars of Usool ad Deen are Tawheed and Adl?
Also can you tell us why Shaykh Mufid had to study under the Mutazilla when the 12th Imam is the Imam of the time?



As for differences I can agree. The 12er Shia Kalam evolved. Shaykh Mufid differed from Shaykh Saduq, and then Shaykh Tusi differed from Shaykh Mufid. So the differences were with the 12er Shia themselves.
Likewise the same case with the Jafari fiqh. It too evolved from Kuyani to Ibn Idris. Then its final stage it goes to Allama Hilli.




whoaretheshia

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2017, 07:05:37 AM »
Can you point out hadith which say the pillars of Usool ad Deen are Tawheed and Adl?
Also can you tell us why Shaykh Mufid had to study under the Mutazilla when the 12th Imam is the Imam of the time?
 

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, in that you made a mistake in saying 'Tawheed [divine unity of God] given there is no disagreement among the muslims of this fundamental pillar. So what i interpret you probably meant to say brother, is on 'Adalah'.

Adalah can be derived clearly from the corpus of Shia tradition as well as the Quran. The Shia did not wake up one day and decide to to philosophise on the matter, and imitate what the M'utazila have said about it. I am sure you may be aware that the topic concerning Adalah encompasses aspects such as free-will, pre-determinism, the role Allah [swt] had with the creation among fundamental issues.

In our Corpus of hadith, Muhammed and his purified progeny address these issues. However let me quote the shiachat user Q'aim: "Technically, the discussion on what constitutes Usool ad-Deon and what doesn't is mostly a scholastic discussion, rather than one discussed by ayat or ahadith. Different scholars have argued that there are anywhere between 1 and 6 Arkan al-Iman. One popular position is that Shiism has 3 principles, which are Tawhid, wilaya, and adl Others distinguish nubuwwa and imamah as two separate pillars, and put Imamah under the category of "usool al-madhhab" rather than "usool ad-deen." Others disagree with the distinction that usool ad-deen and usool al-madhhab should be different."

The reality is , there is a difference between scholastic discussion, and the actual beliefs themselves which are supported by the Quran and the Sunnah.

Furthermore, Shias have always disagreed with the Mutazila concept of Adalah [Justice of Allah]. The Mutazila contended that part of Adalah is the absolute free will of the creatures, as it would be unjust of Allah the Almighty to interfere. Shia's have refuted this view , as well as that of absolute free will, in addition to the misguided Mutazila understanding of the role Allah the Almighty has on his creation. We contend he has absolute and constant power, control and authority, and these do not detract from his divine justice.

This is worth a read: http://shiastudies.org/article/al-adl-divine-justice

Putting Adalah into a scholastic and formalised grouping is only after they have been expanded and elucidated as fundamentals in both the Quran and the corpus of tradition.


Quote
As for differences I can agree. The 12er Shia Kalam evolved. Shaykh Mufid differed from Shaykh Saduq, and then Shaykh Tusi differed from Shaykh Mufid. So the differences were with the 12er Shia themselves.  Likewise the same case with the Jafari fiqh. It too evolved from Kuyani to Ibn Idris. Then its final stage it goes to Allama Hilli.

They all shared the same corpus of tradition, agreed upon the very same notion and understanding of the fundamentals of the faith. Where they disputed with each other on were more on secondary issues.

If you look in the Sunni world today - to give you an example- you find the majority are Ashari or Maturidi in Aqeedah. Salafi-Athari Sunni's will claim they are innovators and deviant in the most fundamental pillar of all - Tawheed. You find enormous differences on far more pertinent issues of Aqeedah, from how to understand the attributes of Allah, and many other concepts. You won't find that level of difference among the Shia.

Ibn Taymiyyah is most well known for supporting a theory of dividing Tawheed into various groups and stages, and names, that you do not find in the corpus of hadith, but what he says are fundamental aspects of the religion to be accepted without question. Yet, other Sunni's today may not agree with his division. I am not commenting on it or refuting it right now, but it is to explain that there have been even greater bouts of evolution among the Sunni.

If you are a Salafi dear brother, what you are affirming is the the majority of Sunni scholars have been influenced by greek-philosophers and the Mutazila, and that had corrupted their entire understanding of the doctrine of Tawheed, and that they are 'Jahmiyya' , 'Innovators', and 'Deviants'.

The reality is, if you look at our classical works , there is uniformity in the understanding of the attributes of Allah , the Almighty. We don't have traditions whereby one group claims Allah literally descends, has two hands, fingers, two feet, a shin but not like ours, while other claims these are not literal , nor should the apparent meaning taken, but the entire meaning is unknown and perform Tafweed [referring it all to Allah, the Almighty].

Even if we claim there has been evolution among all groups, the reality is, while the Shia are unified in fundamental Aqeedah, our Sunni brothers are divided into three main schools of Aqeedah, two of which fundamentally differ with other on aspects such as Tawheed. So if Shaykh. Mufid criticises Shaykh Saduq on his reliance on Ahad, or even in the belief to the incident of forgetting of the Prophet [saw], this pales in comparison to the differences that still exist among the Sunni scholars.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2017, 07:15:15 AM »
Summary:

1. Shias must believe in the divine justice of God.

2. The discussion is a scholastic one, and it would not be unfair to say there was Mutazila influence so far as categorising is concerned. This is not the same as saying we took the actual belief from the Mutazila, given that it was always a belief we held.

3. All the major branches of Adalah are discussed extensively in hadith, on issues such as freewill, determinism and the like.

4. We differ greatly with the Mutazila on these issues, and the evidence exists in our earliest and most primary sources.


I think at the end of the day, all Shia's have to believe that God is just, and in his divine justice. Some do not differentiate and separate Nabuwyah and Imamah as individual pillars, but just place Imamah as that linked to Nabuwyah. Scholars differ on how to categorise things. However, no-one will deny Nabuwyah and Imamah.There is also a discussion of what should be in the Usool-al-din, and Usool-al-madhab.

What i don't want to be conflated here, is the idea that the actual belief of the Divine Justice of Allah has been taken from the Mutazila, rather than the influence on the Mutazila as to how some scholars chose to categorise things. Adalah is proven through clear ahadith and the Quran.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Hani

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2017, 09:06:39 AM »
Asalamualaykum,

This is what the modern-day Salafi movement seem to claim about the vast majority of Sunni scholars historically and what is the orthodox in Sunni Islam [the Ashari and Maturidi].

The reality is, there are many key differences between the Shia and the M'utazila, and our classical and modern day scholars have written books refuting their overuse of rationality which was in fact, just pseudo rationality.

We base our Aqeedah on reports from a plethora number of chains from Muhammed and his purified progeny. That is the foundation of our Aqeedah. If in term of how we use some kinds of terminology, or in terms of methodology some of our scholars were drawn to the Mutazila viewpoint, then know that even men who you acclaim to write the 'greatest' Tafsir, such as Imam Tabari, also had such leanings.

What the modern-day Salafi-Athari movement is claiming is that the majority of Sunni scholars [who have been Ashari and Maturidi], the majority of Sunni muslims today, the vast majority of Shia Muslims, and even those who are non-muslim, have concluded that Allah existed outside of time and space, and that you can not describe the creator by the limitations of his own creation.

If he created where, you can not then say he became subjected to direction, as he created direction and existed pre-eternally without it.Such an awareness and understanding of Allah [swt] is found so ubiquitously among humanity that it is actually part of our Fitrah to negate attributing to Allah [swt] that which would compromise his Tawhid. I realised that before i even knew there was a minority group in Sunni Islam who believed in that.

It is a very brave position to go against clear rational sense, what the majority of both Sunni and Shia scholars historically have believed and affirmed, as well as what the majority of humanity has arrived to in their understanding of Allah [swt] which is strong evidence for core components of these beliefs being part of our Fitrah.



Yes, "plethora" number of chains from two or three books, can you give me a brief overview of the early Shia books of Hadith where you derive your "plethora" of chains?
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

Rationalist

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2017, 09:56:50 AM »
[
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, in that you made a mistake in saying 'Tawheed [divine unity of God] given there is no disagreement among the muslims of this fundamental pillar. So what i interpret you probably meant to say brother, is on 'Adalah'.
I made no mistakes. Look at the link here the 12er Shia state that pillars of Usool ad Deen are Tawheed and Adl.
Usul al-Deen
Fundamental beliefs are called Usul al-deen, i.e. Roots of Religion. The Usul al-deen are five: Three are called Roots of Islam. They are:

(1) Tawhid, Belief in oneness of God;


The remaining two Usul al-deen are called Usul al-Iman, Roots of Faith. They are:

(1) 'Adl, Justice of God

https://www.al-islam.org/what-a-muslim-should-know-and-believe-akhtar-rizvi/usul-al-deen

 Now where is the hadith from the 12 Imams which state the pillars of Usool ad Deen include Tawheed and Adl? Stop changing the topic and answer the question.

Quote
In our Corpus of hadith, Muhammed and his purified progeny address these issues. However let me quote the shiachat user Q'aim: "Technically, the discussion on what constitutes Usool ad-Deon and what doesn't is mostly a scholastic discussion, rather than one discussed by ayat or ahadith.
Since there is no hadith your sect took the concept of Usool ad Deen from the Mutazilla.




Quote
Furthermore, Shias have always disagreed with the Mutazila concept of Adalah [Justice of Allah]. The Mutazila contended that part of Adalah is the absolute free will of the creatures, as it would be unjust of Allah the Almighty to interfere. Shia's have refuted this view , as well as that of absolute free will, in addition to the misguided Mutazila understanding of the role Allah the Almighty has on his creation. We contend he has absolute and constant power, control and authority, and these do not detract from his divine justice.
Are you aware Shaykh Mufid and Sharif Murtaza agreed with the Mutazilla on this one? So does the refutation apply to them as well?



Quote
They all shared the same corpus of tradition, agreed upon the very same notion and understanding of the fundamentals of the faith. Where they disputed with each other on were more on secondary issues.
No they didn't agree. Shaykh Mufid like the Mutazilla believed in absolute free will like the Mutazilla, and refuted his own teacher Shaykh Saduq.  In fact he wrote an entire book titled Tashih al-Itiqadat to refute Shaykh Saduq understanding that Allah's will does play a role in allowing actions to happen.

Quote
If you look in the Sunni world today - to give you an example- you find the majority are Ashari or Maturidi in Aqeedah. Salafi-Athari Sunni's will claim they are innovators and deviant in the most fundamental pillar of all - Tawheed. You find enormous differences on far more pertinent issues of Aqeedah, from how to understand the attributes of Allah, and many other concepts. You won't find that level of difference among the Shia.
The early Rafidah like Hisham ibn Hakam, Hisham ibn Saleem believed God has a body. Also Sharif Murtaza said all Qummis were Anthropomorphist except Shaykh Saduq.

Quote
So if Shaykh. Mufid criticises Shaykh Saduq on his reliance on Ahad, or even in the belief to the incident of forgetting of the Prophet [saw], this pales in comparison to the differences that still exist among the Sunni scholars.


His criticism also includes the concept of free will. Did you forget to mention that? Also, why did Shaykh Mufid study under the Mutazilla? Why can't you answer that?

whoaretheshia

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2017, 01:16:32 PM »
Now where is the hadith from the 12 Imams which state the pillars of Usool ad Deen include Tawheed and Adl? Stop changing the topic and answer the question.

I believe you have relayed your position with more clarity. I believe we need to make two clear distinctions:

1. How we group things into categories and the names we give for them, which Q'aim [shiachat.com] states is a topic of much debate and a scholastic discussion, more than anything else as scholars have differed over it.

"Technically, the discussion on what constitutes Usool ad-Deon and what doesn't is mostly a scholastic discussion, rather than one discussed by ayat or ahadith. Different scholars have argued that there are anywhere between 1 and 6 Arkan al-Iman. One popular position is that Shiism has 3 principles, which are Tawhid, wilaya, and adl Others distinguish nubuwwa and imamah as two separate pillars, and put Imamah under the category of "usool al-madhhab" rather than "usool ad-deen." Others disagree with the distinction that usool ad-deen and usool al-madhhab should be different."

2. As for the second, this means if those concepts are established in hadith and also the Noble Quran. So when you claim for example, we took the concept of divine justice from the Mutazila, i am sure you don't mean we plagiarised their view on divine justice. What you mean is we decided to copy their system of grouping fundamentals of the religion, and that it may or may not be the case that we can justify Adalah clearly in our own texts - but not necessarily justify putting it as part of a three or five pillar 'Usool al-Din' ?

This is a very important albeit nuanced distinction.

Quote
Since there is no hadith your sect took the concept of Usool ad Deen from the Mutazilla. 

Our scholars have always debated and differed on how to group certain things. What is important is whatever is in the 'Usool ad Deen' is substantiated in our own works. As for grouping it in that manner, refer to what Q'aim wrote.


Quote
Are you aware Shaykh Mufid and Sharif Murtaza agreed with the Mutazilla on this one? So does the refutation apply to them as well?  No they didn't agree. Shaykh Mufid like the Mutazilla believed in absolute free will like the Mutazilla, and refuted his own teacher Shaykh Saduq.  In fact he wrote an entire book titled Tashih al-Itiqadat to refute Shaykh Saduq understanding that Allah's will does play a role in allowing actions to happen.

Let me just correct you here brother, with the due respect. Tashih al-Itiqadat was written by Mufid not to refute Shaykh-Saduq, because much of what he writes in it is in agreement with Shaykh-Saduq, and areas where he differs with him on, he makes a note of that. The entire book is not written to refute Shaykh Saduq on the understanding of free-will, but it was a clarification of the creed of the Shia, and where he agrees [majority] and where he may have a point of difference with his teacher which i accept can happen.

When we are discussing the concept of free will, we have to be very careful here, because it can get confusing when terms are thrown around and not clarified. I will quote you once more at the end of my post to ask you to clarify exactly what Shaykh Mufid had said contradicted with Shayk Saduq, and how he agrees with the Mutazila? I am not asking because i do not know, but because i want to see where you are getting these ideas and interpreting it in this manner.



Quote
The early Rafidah like Hisham ibn Hakam, Hisham ibn Saleem believed God has a body.

You have severely distorted the position of the Hishamayn. You might quote a tradition, however this will not be adequate, as they have been addressed in depth here. If you are interested in seeking the truth my dear Sunni brother, i recommend you to read the following: https://www.al-islam.org/introduction-emendation-shiite-creed-muhammad-rida-jafari/mutazilis-whom-hisham-met-and-their#fref_9ee4a4d7_42

I will quote some relevant portions here:


There is a body of evidence which offers convincing proof of the innocence of Hisham ibn al-Hakam of that which his adversaries attributed to him regarding corporeality and anthropomorphism, and, moreover, that his statement 'a body unlike bodies' did not find favour with the Imams.

1. Our scholars relate that Hisham retracted his statement 'a body unlike bodies' after the Imam as-Sadiq, peace be upon him, criticized him for it. [al-Mufid, al-Fusulu 'l-mukhtarah, vol.2, pp.284-5; al-Karajiki, Kanzu 'l- fawaid, pp.198-9; al-Bihar, vol.3, p.290; vol.10, p.452; Mir’atu 'l-‘uqul, vol.2, p.5.

2. A statement by Hisham ibn al-Hakam which al-Kulayni transmits in the chapter on the falsity of the doctrine that God can be seen with ocular vision (ibtalu 'r-ru’yah), in the context of the hadith of the Imams, peace be upon them, which the distinguished al-Majlisi explains with his statement:

Because he was one of the greatest followers of the ma‘sumin peace be upon them, [the statement by Hisham] was well regarded because it was taken from them.In this statement, Hisham proves the impossibility of seeing God under any circumstance, as ocular sight is incapable of fixing upon anything besides bodies. He states at the end of it:

'Allah is above comparison with anything' If Hisham was among those who believed in corporeality then it would not have been possible for him to say what he said.

3. His statement, which as-Saduq narrates on his authority, in reply to someone who asked: "In what manner do you know your Lord?" He stated: "I know Allah, exalted be His greatness, through my soul, because it is the closest thing to me," and then gave proof through the compoundedness of his body and the principles according to which it was constructed. Then he said:

It is impossible for there to be a composition for which there is no composer, and the stability of a form without a former; I know that [my body] has a creator who created it, and a former who formed it, different from it in all its aspects [i.e., not having that which is composed of parts, because they entail imperfection and need]. Allah has said: And in yourselves, can you not see? (adh-Dhariyat,51:21).45

4. We have already listed the names of those of Hisham's books which deal with Unicity and the discussion related to it, such as the Kitabu 'd-Dalalah ‘ala hadathi (huduthi) 'l-ajsam – according to at-Tusi: al-ashya’ instead of al-ajsam. How could someone who describes Allah as a body write a book in which he maintains that bodies are inherently created and incipient and not eternally pre-existent.


Unfortunately, you find some today such as Ibn Taymiyyah, who claim it is possible for Allah to be physical:


"It is well-known that there is no report from any of the Prophets or from the Sahaabah or from the Taabi‘een or from any of the early generations of the ummah to suggest that Allah is a physical entity or that He is not a physical entity. Rather denying or affirming that is an innovation according to Islam. End quote.|  Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (5/434) 

By not refuting it affirmatively, he acknowledges it is possible. Furthermore, he states Allah [swt] literally has a direction, literally has two hands [but not like ours], literally has two feet [not like ours], literally has fingers [but not like ours] as well as a number of other constituent parts that make up his whole.

Ibn Uthaymeen said it was also possible for Allah to have a body, but nothing like our body. He then clarified this by saying he only affirms it is possible - not that this is the case.

The above beliefs would be strongly refuted by orthodox-Sunni schools such as the Ashari and Maturidi, whom the Salafi's call 'deviant' and 'innovators' as well as the Ijma of the Shia.
It is easy to misinterpret statements of the Hishamayn, ignoring most of the other clear things they had said, and looking at it in an academic manner which disproves these allegations.


Quote
His criticism also includes the concept of free will. Did you forget to mention that? Also, why did Shaykh Mufid study under the Mutazilla? Why can't you answer that?

It is simple: https://www.al-islam.org/introduction-emendation-shiite-creed-muhammad-rida-jafari/comparison-tashihu-l-itiqad-itiqadatu-l

"It should also be pointed out that taking from a non-Imami theologian does not necessarily mean that a student follows his teacher's opinions, especially as far as doctrinal differences he has with him are concerned. The non-Imami theologians of the earlier time were Mu‘tazili, and following the period of the Shaykhu’t-Taifah at-Tusi, were mostly Ash‘ari; a group of our Imami theologians were involved with them. In addition, and in contrast to this, there is the recorded involvement of non-Imami with Imami theologians, such as the students of Nasiru’d-Din at-Tusi, the famous theologian and philosopher.

This is only the acquisition of information from a non-Imami shaykh; how many non-Imami shaykhs of hadith there were from whom al-Mufid, al-Murtada, at-Tusi, and al-Karajiki learnt, not to mention those who preceeded them, like as-Saduq, and those who succeeded them, like the ‘Allamah al-Hilli. These men weighed the hadith they heard with the scales they held to be correct; in their view, it was a necessity for them to reveal the soundness or otherwise of a hadith. The result of this is that the lmami Traditionist sought the assistance of what he heard from his non-Imami shaykh in substantiating what he believed about the Imamate, and the qualifications of the Imams, peace be upon them, or in the refutation of arguments of adversaries.

This is the case as well in the sciences of theology, Qur’anic commentary, positive law, and jurisprudence. This sort of involvement was beneficial, in the first instance, in learning the usefulness of what the two sides agreed upon, and secondly, in making use of the teacher's knowledge in defense of what the student believed to be true."
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 01:22:56 PM by whoaretheshia »
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2017, 01:30:24 PM »
x

I believe you do wish to obtain the truth, so i would kindly ask you to read these works on the Hishamayn.

1. Hisham b.al-Hakkam a background: https://www.al-islam.org/introduction-emendation-shiite-creed-muhammad-rida-jafari/hisham-ibn-al-hakam-some-aspects-his

2. The Mutazila who Hisham b.al-Hakkam met and engaged in debate with: https://www.al-islam.org/introduction-emendation-shiite-creed-muhammad-rida-jafari/mutazilis-whom-hisham-met-and-their

3. Further refutation of allegations: https://www.al-islam.org/introduction-emendation-shiite-creed-muhammad-rida-jafari/hisham-ibn-al-hakam-and-his-refutation

4. Hisham b.Salim refuting attributing beliefs of anthropomorphism to him:https://www.al-islam.org/introduction-emendation-shiite-creed-muhammad-rida-jafari/incorrectness-attributing-views


Any sincere seeker of the truth should read the above links. It is easier to just quote particular traditions, or copy arguments from this website which have [and i will say not willingly to give the benefit of the doubt] distorted the truth, but if you want the truth dear brothers, refer to what i have posted.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2017, 01:36:24 PM »
It is also fairly easy to attribute anyone who has differed in creed to be Jahmiyyah or followers of the Mutazila.  The main two orthodox schools in Sunni Islam are the Ashari and the Maturidi. The majority of Sunni scholars past to present have belonged to these groups. However, the Salafi-Athari's claim that they too, just plagiarised and were influenced by the Mutazila, and throw slanderous names such as 'Jahmiyyah' which they use for Shia's as well, and just about anyone who disagrees with the idea Allah can be described by means of location, movement, divided into constituent literal components and beliefs the majority of human beings - from Christians, Jews, Deists, Orthodox Sunni and also the Shia have rejected.

Rather than saying - Akhi, if Allah is really the first, before anything else, and created space and direction, how can we describe Allah by means of what he created?

The response is - Don't ask these questions, don't listen to whoever speaks like this, they are just Mutazila and Jahmiyyah, and deny the attributes.

DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Rationalist

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2017, 02:57:30 AM »
So when you claim for example, we took the concept of divine justice from the Mutazila, i am sure you don't mean we plagiarised their view on divine justice. What you mean is we decided to copy their system of grouping fundamentals of the religion, and that it may or may not be the case that we can justify Adalah clearly in our own texts - but not necessarily justify putting it as part of a three or five pillar 'Usool al-Din' ? 
At least you admit that your sect agreed with Mutazilla and decided to borrow these ideas. I want to expand a bit further on this topic. I am a fan of Shiachat too. Although I was banned there 7 years ago, I still admire their discussion. It really gives a basic understanding. I notice you are referencing Qaim on this topic. In order to further present my view point I will quote a more knowledgeable brother who  studied in Qom, and is no longer a 12er Shia.

In terms of Mutazilla Influence M*******c states:

Shi`i scholars of kalam (I'm thinking here particularly in the early years in Baghdad) interacted a lot with the Mu`tazila. It isn't true that scholars such as Sharif Murtada (ra) were themselves Mu`tazila, however there's no denying that the Mu`tazila had an influence in terms of how the discussions, material, terminology would get framed (even where we disagreed with them).

So, in terms of understanding how `adalat came to be regarded as the second principle, on the one hand it would seem there's that Mu`tazila influence there (in that they also listed it as the second principle), though in its defense one might point out that the reason for doing so was that it distinguishes us from the `Asharites and their ideas on the topic

There's no way one can deny that there wasn't an influence there. I don't necessarily mean in terms of what was believed (though one might debate on specific points) but in the way the discussion was presented after a certain point.

Look at a book like adh-Dhakhira by Sharif Murtadha (ra) and then compare it to say the `Itiqad al-Imamiyya of Shaykh Saduq (ra), very, very different way of presenting things. The former contains little if any hadiths, relies heavily on rational argumentation, and discusses its topics in a kalami framework, which at the time would largely mean Mu`tazili framework (even if the actual _contents_ of that framework would disagree with the Mu`tazila beliefs, important distinction there). The latter on the other hand, like most of the Shaykh's works, relies heavily on the akhbar with very little kalami type discussion.

That's what I meant with regards to counting `adalat as the second usool ad-deen. The Mu`tazila did as well, I'm not aware of any hadiths that explicitely lay out the five fold structure in exactly those terms, so it would seem pretty safe to say that doing so was under Mu`tazili influence. Even in the works of Shaykh Mufid (ra) you can see this influence, as definitions for terms (look at his Nukat for instance) will be taken word for word from earlier Mu`tazila theologians (in this case I'm thinking of his definition of knowledge being taken apparently from the Basran Abu Hashim).

I'm not saying this to disparage it necessarily, or necessarily agree with it, but the fact that there was a direct influence particularly amongst the Baghdadi `ulama after a certain point in terms of the mode of presentation seems hard to deny. In terms of content differences though, that's also pretty clear as it was with the Mu`tazila that these earlier Imami scholars were often debating _against_. So, for example we have Shaykh Mufid's Awa'il al-Maqalat which goes over a number of points wherein the Mu`tazila and the Imamis disagreed.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234944402-why-is-adalat-one-of-the-usool-e-deen/

Quote
Let me just correct you here brother, with the due respect. Tashih al-Itiqadat was written by Mufid not to refute Shaykh-Saduq, because much of what he writes in it is in agreement with Shaykh-Saduq,
What does Tashih al Iiqadat mean?
Quote
When we are discussing the concept of free will, we have to be very careful here, because it can get confusing when terms are thrown around and not clarified. I will quote you once more at the end of my post to ask you to clarify exactly what Shaykh Mufid had said contradicted with Shayk Saduq, and how he agrees with the Mutazila? I am not asking because i do not know, but because i want to see where you are getting these ideas and interpreting it in this manner.

Okay I will post in the next post.



Quote


You have severely distorted the position of the Hishamayn. You might quote a tradition, however this will not be adequate, as they have been addressed in depth here. If you are interested in seeking the truth my dear Sunni brother, i recommend you to read the following: https://www.al-islam.org/introduction-emendation-shiite-creed-muhammad-rida-jafari/mutazilis-whom-hisham-met-and-their#fref_9ee4a4d7_42

I will quote some relevant portions here:


There is a body of evidence which offers convincing proof of the innocence of Hisham ibn al-Hakam of that which his adversaries attributed to him regarding corporeality and anthropomorphism, and, moreover, that his statement 'a body unlike bodies' did not find favour with the Imams.



There you go. He did have a deviant view.He did say God has a body, and the refutations which the 12er Shia did in his defense was to state that the body was no similar to  human body. Sadly, Hisham ibn Saleem was even more deviant.



Quote


"It should also be pointed out that taking from a non-Imami theologian does not necessarily mean that a student follows his teacher's opinions, especially as far as doctrinal differences he has with him are concerned. The non-Imami theologians of the earlier time were Mu‘tazili, and following the period of the Shaykhu’t-Taifah at-Tusi, were mostly Ash‘ari; a group of our Imami theologians were involved with them. In addition, and in contrast to this, there is the recorded involvement of non-Imami with Imami theologians, such as the students of Nasiru’d-Din at-Tusi, the famous theologian and philosopher.
I am asking about Shaykh Mufid and not Shaykh Tusi. Shaykh Mufid learned kalam under the Mutazilla and not the 12er Shia.
He was born in the year 338 A.H./949 and was brought up in a village. His father brought him to Baghdad for his education. There he studied under Shi'i and Mu'tazili scholars. He showed such promise that one of his teachers recommended that he study under one of the leading scholars of the period, 'Ali b. 'Isa al-Ramani. He also studied under the leading Shi'i traditionists of the time, al-Shaikh al-Saduq.

https://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/vol-3-no-3-1977/great-shii-works-kitab-al-irshad-al-mufid-dr-i-k-howard

« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 03:39:43 AM by Hani »

Rationalist

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2017, 02:58:05 AM »
Give me some time. I will reply about Shaykh Mufid's Mutazilla influenced view on free will.

whoaretheshia

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2017, 03:00:24 AM »
Give me some time. I will reply about Shaykh Mufid's Mutazilla influenced view on free will.

Barakallahufik.

I want to make sure we understand the words he has used the same way, and also in wider context what free will actually is and the subtle but significant difference between the Shia and the Mutazilla. Once i have your understanding of how he allegedly differed with Shaykh Saduq, and how he fully adopted the Mutazilla view point, i can begin to see your reasoning and where you are getting those ideas from.

DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Rationalist

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2017, 04:17:48 AM »
Here is the paper which in regards to Shaykh Saduq and Shaykh Mufid.

Ibn Babuya places his section on human actions immediately after his section on
obligation. The significance of the placement of this section is, perhaps, that Ibn
Bïibuya wanted to make his opposition to determinism clear before declaring that
human actions are created, for what have taklif and capacity got to do with a
determinist's scheme? He states:
Our beHef conceming hurnan actions is that they are created (makhliïqa [sic: makhliïq]),
in the sense that Allah possesses foreknowledge (khalq taqdJry, and not in the sense that
Allah compels man to act in a particular manner by creating a certain disposition (khalq
takwJn). And the meaning of aIl this is that Allah has never ceased to be aware of the
potentialities (maqiidJry ofhuman beings.)


Still, Mufid is not satisfied and rebukes Ibn Babuya in his Correction as follows:
The sound tradition from the family of Mu4ammad is that man's acts are not created by
God. And what Abü Ja'far [aH;adüq] has said came by an invalid tradition whose chain
of authority is not approved. The true tradition says the opposite. And it is unknown in
the language of the Arabs for knowledge ofsomething to be creation ofit. Were it as
the opponents of truth maintained, then anyone who knows the Prophet would
necessarily have created him! And whoever knows heaven and earth is their creator!
And whoever knows anything that God has made and affirms it in his own mind-why
he must be its creator! That is absurdo Its error escapes none of the followers of the
Imams, much less the Imams themselves. As for taqdJr, linguistically it is creation. For
taqdJrtakes place only by an action. As for knowledge, it is not taqdJr, nor can it (Le.,
taqdJI) be mere thought. Far is God above creating monstrosities and evil deeds in any
case.



Here Shaykh Mufid is took Shaykh Saduq's words out of context. Then he tried to apply the Mutazilla concept of free will.


Another tradition

Ibn Babuya's fifth section, on compulsion Uabi) and delegation (tafwIe/), consists
of one, short lJadIth narrated by Imam aHiadiq:
There is neither (complete) compulsion (or constraint) (on human beings), nor
(complete) delegation (or freedom), but the matter is midway between the two
(extremes). He was asked to define what was meant by "an affair midway between the
two"? He said: For instance, you see a man intent upon a crime and you dissuade him,
but he does not desist, and you leave him; then he commits the crime. Now, it is not,
because he did not accept (your advice) and you left him, that you are the person who
commanded him to commit the crime.


First Mufid dismisses the proof-text because it is, "incompletely supported." Then he
explains that, "The mean between these two theses is that God empowered creatures for
their acts and gave them ability for their deeds, and He set bounds and limits for them,
and He forhade them to do evil by reprimanding and warning, by the Promise and the
Threat.,,246 The difference between them is that, for Ibn Biibuya, the proof-text is a
sufficient theodicy, whereas, for Mufid, it is necessary to assert man's free-will in order
to necessitate that God is irreproachable; substantially they agree.



The sixth section of Ibn Biibuya's creed is about God's intention (iriida) and will
(mashl'a). He says that the Imamite doctrine is based on a lJadlth narrated by Imam al-
~iidiq which states that, "Allah wills (shii'a) and intends (ariida); or He does not like
(Iam yuiJibba) and He does not approve (Iam yarqa). "248 He explains the lJadlth as
follows:
Now by sha'a(He wills) is meant that nothing takes place without His knowledge; and
arada is synonymous with it; and He does not like (lam yu1;libba) it to be said that He is
"the third of the three"; and He does not approve of disbelief on the part of His slaves.
Says Allah, the Mighty and Glorious; "Verily, thou (0 Mul;mmmad) guidest not whom
thou lovest, but Allah guideth whom He Will."249 ... Our opponents denounce us for this,
and say that according to our belief, AŒih intends (that man should commit) crimes and
that He desired the murder ofI:Iusayn b. 'Ali, on whom both be peace. This is not what
we believe. But we say that Allah desired that the sin of the sinners should be
contradistinguished from the obedience ofthose that obey, that He desired that sins,
viewed as actions, should not be ascribed to Him, but that knowledge ofthese sins may
be ascribed to Him even before the commission thereof. And we hold that Allah's wish
was that the murder of I:Iusayn should be a sin against Him and the opposite of
obedience. And we say that Allah intended that his (I:Iusayn's) murder should be
prohibited, and something which was not commanded. And we say that his murder was
something that was disliked and not approved; and we say that his murder was the cause
of Allah's displeasure and it was not the cause of His approval, and that Allah the
Mighty and Glorious did not desire to prevent his murder by means of (His) compulsion
or power, but merely by prohibition and word. And if He had prohibited it by (His)
compulsion and power, even as he [sic] prevented it by prohibition and word, surely he
would have escaped being murdered ... And we say that Allah always knew that I:Iusayn
would be killed ... We hold that what Allah wills; happens; and what he willeth not, will
not happen.

Mufid states that, "The truth of the matter is that God wills (yuiid) only good actions
and intends (yashiï) only beautiful deeds. He does not will the evil and does not intend
the monstrous. Far is God above what the deceivers say!,,251 He goes on to accuse Ibn
Babuya of determinism:
The determinists' avoidance of saying unreservedly that God wills to be disobeyed and
disbelieved, that His friends be killed and His loved ones vilified, by saying instead that
He wills what He knows to take place as He knows it and wills that disobedience be an
evil and forbidden, really me ans a persistence in what they c1aim to have fled and an
entanglement in what they c1aim to have disowned. For if the evil He knows happens as
He knows it, and God was willing that the evil He knew should be as He knew it, then
He wills the evil, and He has willed that it should be evil. So what sense is there in
fleeing from one thing to the same thing and in their escape from one idea to the same
idea?2
 



More differences on free will and determinism taken from this article:

http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1511312296993~293


From what it looks like Shaykh Mufid used Mutazilla arguments against Shaykh Saduq. Shaykh Saduq view is the view that the 12er Shia support. Also, this view is supported by the Maturidi school in Ahle Sunnah.

Rationalist

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2017, 04:20:54 AM »

The response is - Don't ask these questions, don't listen to whoever speaks like this, they are just Mutazila and Jahmiyyah, and deny the attributes.



This is the type of attitude Shaykh Saduq showed when it came to the issue of the Quran being created or uncreated.
د اليقطيني، قال: كتب علي بن محمد بن علي بن موسى الرضا عليهم السلام إلى بعض شيعته ببغداد: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم عصمنا الله وإياك من الفتنة فإن يفعل فقد أعظم بها نعمة وإن لا يفعل فهي الهلكة، نحن نرى أن الجدال في القرآن بدعة، اشترك فيها السائل والمجيب، فيتعاطى السائل ما ليس له، ويتكلف المجيب ما ليس عليه، وليس الخالق إلا الله عز وجل، وما سواه مخلوق، والقرآن كلام الله، لا تجعل له اسما من عندك فتكون من الضالين، جعلنا الله وإياك من الذين يخشون ربهم بالغيب وهم من الساعة مشفقون. He said: “`Alee bin Muhammad bin `Alee bin Moosa Al-RiDaa (عليه السلام) wrote to some of his shee`ahs in Baghdad: ‘In the name of Allaah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful, May Allaah protect us and you from this fitnah, and if He does, then it is a great blessing, and if He does not then it is a disaster. Our view is that the argument (discussion) about the Qur’aan is bid`ah, (both) the questioner and the answerer share (in responsibility). The questioner gets into (something) he should not, and the answerer is constrained into what is not (true). There is no creator except Allaah (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ), and what is the same is the created. The Qur’aan is the speech (kalaam) of Allaah. Do not make a name from yourself, or you will be astray (Daaleen). May Allaah make us and make you from those who fear their lord and those who are apprehensive of the Hour (Day of Judgement)” Source: 1. Al-Sadooq, Al-TawHeed, pg. 224, hadeeth # 4

whoaretheshia

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2017, 04:52:01 AM »
At least you admit that your sect agreed with Mutazilla and decided to borrow these ideas. I want to expand a bit further on this topic. I am a fan of Shiachat too. Although I was banned there 7 years ago, I still admire their discussion. It really gives a basic understanding. I notice you are referencing Qaim on this topic. In order to further present my view point I will quote a more knowledgeable brother who  studied in Qom, and is no longer a 12er Shia.

In terms of Mutazilla Influence Macisaac states:

Shi`i scholars of kalam (I'm thinking here particularly in the early years in Baghdad) interacted a lot with the Mu`tazila. It isn't true that scholars such as Sharif Murtada (ra) were themselves Mu`tazila, however there's no denying that the Mu`tazila had an influence in terms of how the discussions, material, terminology would get framed (even where we disagreed with them).

So, in terms of understanding how `adalat came to be regarded as the second principle, on the one hand it would seem there's that Mu`tazila influence there (in that they also listed it as the second principle), though in its defense one might point out that the reason for doing so was that it distinguishes us from the `Asharites and their ideas on the topic

There's no way one can deny that there wasn't an influence there. I don't necessarily mean in terms of what was believed (though one might debate on specific points) but in the way the discussion was presented after a certain point.

Look at a book like adh-Dhakhira by Sharif Murtadha (ra) and then compare it to say the `Itiqad al-Imamiyya of Shaykh Saduq (ra), very, very different way of presenting things. The former contains little if any hadiths, relies heavily on rational argumentation, and discusses its topics in a kalami framework, which at the time would largely mean Mu`tazili framework (even if the actual _contents_ of that framework would disagree with the Mu`tazila beliefs, important distinction there). The latter on the other hand, like most of the Shaykh's works, relies heavily on the akhbar with very little kalami type discussion.

That's what I meant with regards to counting `adalat as the second usool ad-deen. The Mu`tazila did as well, I'm not aware of any hadiths that explicitely lay out the five fold structure in exactly those terms, so it would seem pretty safe to say that doing so was under Mu`tazili influence. Even in the works of Shaykh Mufid (ra) you can see this influence, as definitions for terms (look at his Nukat for instance) will be taken word for word from earlier Mu`tazila theologians (in this case I'm thinking of his definition of knowledge being taken apparently from the Basran Abu Hashim).


I had left Shiachat a while back. You have to be careful in that it is a forum that unites people of all ages, and so it is not necessarily the most academically rigorous place, but more so a community. Having said that, you have overrated Darcy Macisaac in claiming he was the most knowledgable member.

If you look into Macisaac's posts, you will find that here are beliefs he held which really demonstrated he had - with respect - a sense of arrogance that he knew better , and he thus had enormous dislike towards any sort of establishment. If you read his posts about going to Q'om , he states it was only for a year, he barely learned anything in that year, and he almost left Shia Islam and hated it. If you read what he has written about works like Tafsir-al-Qummi he has opted and chosen to rely on it, despite many of the actual more knowledgable posters like Nader Zaveri, Q'aim, Islamic Salvation, and Cake who are more than a match for anyone in a debate, having more balanced positions. He also decided to disparage Ibn Mahbub, a man considered a giant in the Shia school - one who was contemporary with the Imams, an enormous traditionalist, and regarded Thiqah beyond doubt. Yet, Macisaac weakened him [out of his own Qiyas] which was in my view, an outrageous thing to do. He gave very little importance to Ilm-al-Rijal instead often basing his judgements on his own speculation and by his own opinion. It is his R'ay that led him out of this Madhab. There are geniuses who are not muslim, but what stops them from embracing Islam is that arrogance they know better, the dislike of any authority or establishment among other ills.

Now, was he an eloquent individual, who generally possessed intelligence, and was fluent in Arabic and knew many of our works more than most? Absolutely, no-one can deny him that. But to be blinded by this and ignore the flaws of his methodology and even personal arrogance will make one miss the point that he never truly represented our Madhab, and there was always a question mark over him. I pray Allah gives him guidance to desist from the path he has taken. Remember, he has also rejected the Sunni view in much harsher and stronger terms, which at least in your eyes, would prove intelligence is not everything.

Nevertheless, i have already read Darcy Macisaac's post. However if you actually read Macisaacs comment you will find what he is saying is that in terms of our Aqeedah in and of itself, we have not borrowed from the Mutazilla , but can source our beliefs in our own texts. However, in methodology - for instance in placing much greater preference on the Mutawattir hadith as Shaykh-Mufid had done , which was contrary to Shaykh Saduq, this bears resemblance to the Mutazila. He explicitly also said that even where we disagreed profoundly with the Mutazila, some of our scholars were influenced in presented arguments in a similar way to them in terms of form and structure. So it is less about taking Aqeedah from the Mutazila, but rather being influenced at times by their methodology.

It is well known Shia Islam had both rationalist schools and traditionalist schools. The rationalist schools definitely relied upon the Imami traditions, but felt the need to expound on them with balanced and rational arguments in greater depth that were derived from them. Both accepted the traditions nevertheless if they ascertained the authenticity.

Macisaac writes: "I don't necessarily mean in terms of what was believed (though one might debate on specific points) but in the way the discussion was presented after a certain point."

What we believe, such as Tawheed , or the Justice of God [Adalah], or Nabuwah, or Imamah, or Qiyamah has already originated from Muhammed [saw], his purified progeny, and Quranic evidence such that they are key components. However, many scholars have debated how to catagorize these things. Some have one , some have three, some have five as Q'aims post clearly put forward. Some even disagreed on separation of Usul-ad-Din and Usul-al-Madhab.

Quote
What does Tashih al Iiqadat mean?

Yes, it does mean the Emendation of the 'Shiite creed' which was done by Shaykh-as-Saduq. However if you read it you will not find the book being devoted to solely refuting his teacher. What he intended to do was present the Shiite creed as he felt was right - agreeing with most of what Shaykh as-Saduq had said, and pointing out areas where he felt he was lacking or perhaps not correct. To claim it was an entire book devoted to refuting Shaykh Saduq is not accurate.



Quote

There you go. He did have a deviant view.He did say God has a body, and the refutations which the 12er Shia did in his defense was to state that the body was no similar to  human body. Sadly, Hisham ibn Saleem was even more deviant.

Akhi, maybe it was unfair to ask you to read the entire explanation which would show the position you hold is not accurate. I will make it very clear in my next post, where i will summarise in adequate detail so that it is clear to you that we must not merely take isolated quotes here and there, or what may be found on this particular website designed to refute the Shia.  InshAllah, do wait for my response on this, and i am certain if you show an open mind and examine the evidence i will bring you will reconsider this position.




Quote


I am asking about Shaykh Mufid and not Shaykh Tusi. Shaykh Mufid learned kalam under the Mutazilla and not the 12er Shia.
He was born in the year 338 A.H./949 and was brought up in a village. His father brought him to Baghdad for his education. There he studied under Shi'i and Mu'tazili scholars. He showed such promise that one of his teachers recommended that he study under one of the leading scholars of the period, 'Ali b. 'Isa al-Ramani. He also studied under the leading Shi'i traditionists of the time, al-Shaikh al-Saduq.

My brother, if you read the quote you will find it clearly stating that Imami theologians would often sit with those of other schools. This includes Shaykh-Mufid, Shaykh Tusi among others. The idea was that they had already affirmed what they believe, and if one obtains knowledge which can help add to the evidence and verify what they already believe, there is no harm in it.

We have traditions from our Aimmah and the Prophet [saw] which form the foundation of our doctrine of Tawheed. If we sit under those who in same cases agree with us, but give further arguments to bolster our points and positions, it only puts us in a stronger position. This also applies to sitting with the Ashari [orthodox Ahlus-Sunnah]. 

If i may ask brother, what is your school of Aqeedah?

« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 04:55:20 AM by whoaretheshia »
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Rationalist

Re: Shia usul al-din are an imitation of Mu'tazilah.
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2017, 06:07:08 AM »



Quote
My brother, if you read the quote you will find it clearly stating that Imami theologians would often sit with those of other schools.



Read it again brother. The reference says he learned under a Mutazilla. This is different sitting in Mutazilla circles.


Edit by Farid at the request of Rationalist.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 10:56:59 PM by Farid »

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1309 Views
Last post May 07, 2015, 10:06:20 AM
by Hadrami
4 Replies
1160 Views
Last post March 10, 2016, 02:26:52 AM
by Rationalist
1 Replies
184 Views
Last post May 22, 2017, 09:42:30 AM
by Optimus Prime
92 Replies
1729 Views
Last post Today at 11:00:39 AM
by muslim720