TwelverShia.net Forum

Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: Soccer on August 22, 2020, 08:14:30 PM

Title: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 22, 2020, 08:14:30 PM
I can quote so many verses about this topic, but I will be brief, it's not. If I quote all the verses about this, the points I bring will have so many verses, but rather I will summarize what people who read Quran should recall and be familiar with.

1)Believers were always seen low, vile, per their opponents and Quran says the people of hell will be amazed that there was a group of people they use to count as the most evil and vile, but not one of them in the hell.

2)People know for "righteousness" without proof from God in form of signs and scripture from him designating them specifically as that, for the most part, are the opposite and clothing themselves with garbs of purity and righteousness above others, when they are not even believers.

3) Clergy of all religions known as highly more pious, pure or righteous then others, there are so many verses, about how their reputation was based on falsehood from Iblis and the sorcery gives them the illusion of it in both their eyes and the eyes of the people.

4) The only people who are attributed purity by God and have authority to speak about guidance with firm authority, is those who God manifests their purity per scriptures and proves them, and who have proof of their authority from God without doubt.

5) Who truly fears God is not known through reputation, claiming one fears God, outward show and marks, all this doesn't prove it.

6) God always divided believers from disbelievers, with the word of light from him in both form of scripture and in humans who interpret the scripture and leads humans back to God and calls them back to God.

7) The sorcery itself makes people belittle Prophets as liars, deceivers, greedy people out for their own reward, let alone, believers, and so in a world ruled by dark magic from Iblis,  one cannot rely on who is "known" for knowledge, piousness, or purity.  One has to seek proof from God.

8) God emphasizes so much places, faith is hidden and needs to be tested,  and even when one is sure and certain, and don't doubt after, if they sin and unclean fire takes over their souls, they can turn on their backs... and so even if a person is a believer and you know he is, this is different then guarantee from reverting to disbelief and this is true vice versa, lost souls and rebellious souls still have a chance to repent and thank God and turn to the right path. The nature of most humans is they are volatile. IT's the chosen ones who God knows for sure if they slip, they will repent and turn back, and will remain on the straight path and not leave it no matter what slip they might slip by.

Believers are volatile, and Suratal Auli-Imran shows even the original Badr fighters, were volatile and can turn on their backs after, let alone other believers.

9) Real trials come at moments we don't expect and make us and break us, like Iblis when ordered to prostrate to Adam. Worshipping God for eons before, he didn't expect himself to leave the path, disbelieve in God and rebel against the order of the heavens and the earth, but here is and here we are.


10) The Quran talks about disbelievers having followed their leaders and their great ones, their great ones were not great, only their eyes, this means, reputation in people's eyes is not reliable.


Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: muslim720 on August 24, 2020, 11:09:31 PM
A perfect example of why the explanation of the Qur'an should not be tasked to a nobody.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 25, 2020, 12:15:09 AM
A perfect example of why the explanation of the Qur'an should not be tasked to a nobody.

What did I say that is wrong here?
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: muslim720 on August 25, 2020, 05:01:25 PM
What did I say that is wrong here?

Well, simple, you have said nothing with any value whatsoever.

Just because you have access to the translation of the Qur'an and an internet connection does not mean that you should broadcast all the preposterous things that run across your mind.  This is true for everyone, btw!
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 25, 2020, 06:16:55 PM
It's of value. Ilmel Rijaal and the whole basis of Sunnism and Shiism today, trusts reputation as reliable. I've shown by Quran, it is not.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: muslim720 on August 26, 2020, 07:47:16 PM
It's of value. Ilmel Rijaal and the whole basis of Sunnism and Shiism today, trusts reputation as reliable. I've shown by Quran, it is not.

So the entire point of your post was to show that ilm-ul-rijaal is based on reputation and since reputation does not confer reliability that both Sunni and Shi'i ilm-ul-rijaal are flawed.  You did not make your objective clear in your opening post but no problem.

I have a question for you.  Like me, you must have read the Qur'an in its English translation but if you were to read it in Arabic, how can you trust the vowel points?  After all, the vowels - the rules of recitation - are based on isnad (chain) and that chain entails ilm-ul-rijaal (those who were experts or imams in recitation).  So essentially, you're reading a text which arrived to you via a chain that was verified by ilm-ul-rijaal and you're using the very same text to criticize those who transmitted it to you and its methodology.  If ilm-ul-rijaal is to be doubted and not trusted, how can you accept the Qur'an?

Do you even think before you type?
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 26, 2020, 11:22:52 PM
So the entire point of your post was to show that ilm-ul-rijaal is based on reputation and since reputation does not confer reliability that both Sunni and Shi'i ilm-ul-rijaal are flawed.  You did not make your objective clear in your opening post but no problem.

I have a question for you.  Like me, you must have read the Qur'an in its English translation but if you were to read it in Arabic, how can you trust the vowel points?  After all, the vowels - the rules of recitation - are based on isnad (chain) and that chain entails ilm-ul-rijaal (those who were experts or imams in recitation).  So essentially, you're reading a text which arrived to you via a chain that was verified by ilm-ul-rijaal and you're using the very same text to criticize those who transmitted it to you and its methodology.  If ilm-ul-rijaal is to be doubted and not trusted, how can you accept the Qur'an?

Do you even think before you type?

The Quran has the most majestic form and guidance.   The different vowels or even different forms of letters (because it's not only vowels that differ) - they all there, and there is a way to know which is true.  However, if you rely on isnaad, than their is contradictions in meaning for example in 3:7 the stop place changes meaning.  So they can't all be right.

But how to know which is right, is always possible through reflecting on Quran just as you can know the true meaning even if multiple meanings through reflecting on the different possibilities and which one is best suited given context, flow, and with respect to the whole Quran and reason.

Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on August 27, 2020, 01:05:43 AM
As brother muslim720 has said without the isnad, you wouldn't know how to pronounce the words let alone know what the meaning is, for example in Surah Al-Baqarah the first words are الم, in Surah Al-Fil the first word is الم, how would you know one is pronounced one way or the other if you didn't have someone tell you?

As for Surah 3:9, what difference is made depending on where the stop is? How do you know which one is correct?

In the oldest manuscripts there are no diacritics (no tashkil, no harakat, no ijam) you wouldn't be able to distinguish one letter from another let alone the words - I have attached an example - please let us know what is the right meaning, ...given context, flow and respect to the whole Quran and reason
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 27, 2020, 01:16:32 AM
The Qariats is part of what is passed on to us. None of them are full proof reliable in themselves, for example, where it stops (the Hamza) in 3:7 changes meaning of the verse, so it needs to be investigated.

There is no difference in this regard with respect to meaning of the Quran with respect to a Qariat, so it's the same with Qariats with respect to each other.

Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 27, 2020, 01:18:31 AM
The Qariats is part of what is passed on to us. None of them are full proof reliable in themselves, for example, where it stops (the Hamza) in 3:7 changes meaning of the verse, so it needs to be investigated.

There is no difference in this regard with respect to meaning of the Quran with respect to a Qariat, so it's the same with Qariats with respect to each other.

To add to this, it's not only Qariats that differ, even the huruf (letters themselves) differ in different chains passed on to us.

This doesn't mean Quran is not preserved.   It just requires a bit more effort to get to the truth then simply blindly follow so called Authorities pertaining to the Quran or Sunnah.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on August 27, 2020, 01:53:21 AM
Rather than your meaningless word salad, would you like to hazard a guess at that the text says that is attached? Since you don't blindly follow any authorities you should have no problem reciting the text for us.

As for the Qira'at - they are the Quran! How else would someone know where to put the Nuqat, Tashkil and Harakat?

As for 3:7 which hamza are you talking about?
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 27, 2020, 03:32:55 AM
Communicate more clearly, because I feel like I already addressed your points. As in, elaborate your points.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: muslim720 on August 27, 2020, 04:12:11 PM
The Quran has the most majestic form and guidance.   The different vowels or even different forms of letters (because it's not only vowels that differ) - they all there, and there is a way to know which is true.  However, if you rely on isnaad, than their is contradictions in meaning for example in 3:7 the stop place changes meaning.  So they can't all be right.

But how to know which is right, is always possible through reflecting on Quran just as you can know the true meaning even if multiple meanings through reflecting on the different possibilities and which one is best suited given context, flow, and with respect to the whole Quran and reason.

Stop perceiving yourself as a prophet who knows and sees things that others don't!  You know which is right, as in, how to recite the Qur'an, by reflecting on it?  Idiot, how do you - as someone else raised the point - recite "alif laam meem"?  Do you recite the individual letters, as we normally do, or alm, ilm or ulm?  No, you recite it as "alif laam meem"!  Is it because someone reflected on it?  No!  Because someone transmitted it to us.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on August 27, 2020, 05:29:39 PM
Communicate more clearly, because I feel like I already addressed your points. As in, elaborate your points.

1.  The Rasm I attached has many possible pronunciations, I would like you to let me know how to pronounce the words correctly; as without a teacher/transmitter who either indicates how to pronounce and what the rhythm of the text is or put the diacritics in there themselves - normal people wouldn't know how to pronounce it; the diacritics in the text are used to fix the text with one Qira'at.

Please show us how to pronounce the words of the Rasm I posted - since you think it is unnecessary to have diacritics to comprehend the text.

2. in Surah 3:7 you stated that the placement of the Hamza changes the meaning of the verses - which hamza are you talking about?  What is the correct meaning and which of the Qira'at does it conform with; I have checked through, Hafs/Warsh/Douri/Qaloon and they all look the same.  If you disagree with the placement of the Hamza, on whose authority are you doing that?  And if you disagree with the one little hamza, why do you agree with all the other niqud, harakat etc, the people who put that hamza there are the same people who put everything else there - so you should remove all of them and produce a Qira'at of you own, that accords to the rules of Grammar, accords to the Rasm Uthmani, and has a chain of authority that goes back to the prophet (as) - Let's start with text I originally attached and then we can move on to all the errant hamza's of the world and anything else you want.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: muslim720 on August 27, 2020, 05:38:06 PM
It's of value. Ilmel Rijaal and the whole basis of Sunnism and Shiism today, trusts reputation as reliable. I've shown by Quran, it is not.

By the way, if reputation is unreliable, well, there goes Shiaism with it!  After all, when Shias make a case for Imams (ra), they make it on reputation.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 27, 2020, 06:55:09 PM
By the way, if reputation is unreliable, well, there goes Shiaism with it!  After all, when Shias make a case for Imams (ra), they make it on reputation.

They shouldn't make it on reputation, but rather, who is to pure in eyes of people per Quran, is by God making them pure in their eyes and proving their case.  In fact, there is three verses purely about this, that reputation of purity is not for the people to do, and purity in context not of infallibility or the level of the chosen ones, but just a high righteousness by which people can rely on,  is not for the people but only for God.

Authority is never proven by people per Quran, but by God, and if you can't ascend means to the sky or cannot prove your case by a book from God or cannot bring miracles than you have no proof of authority at all. 

It is for God to attribute purity to who he pleases, not for the people, and chooses who he wishes as authority, not for the people. In fact, there is more verses condemning polytheists for choosing without knowledge their gods and ascribing God partners without proof, then there are verses showing the impossibility of it and condemning it based on the impossibility.

There are more verses about the requirement of being sure who you give clear authority and place of intercession with knowledge and proof, then they are condemned for not realizing Tawheed and impossibility of other gods with God.

Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: muslim720 on August 28, 2020, 05:48:25 PM
They shouldn't make it on reputation, but rather, who is to pure in eyes of people per Quran, is by God making them pure in their eyes and proving their case.

WHAT. THE. HECK.

They should not be followed based on reputation but based on the fact that they were purified by Allah (swt)?  Well purification by Allah (swt) is a fadhila which bolsters one's reputation.  For example, the virtue (or at least one of the virtues) bestowed upon Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain - peace be upon them both - is that they are the Leaders of the Youth of Paradise.  That is their reputation.  And we know about their fadhaail because it was transmitted by reputable people.

You know what, you should make an appointment with Dr. Jordan Peterson!
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 28, 2020, 11:57:26 PM
God attributing purity is proven through other means than reputation.  Their reputation as pure is due to God proving it through other then means of reputation.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on August 29, 2020, 02:04:45 AM
God attributing purity is proven through other means than reputation.  Their reputation as pure is due to God proving it through other then means of reputation.

What other means?
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 29, 2020, 02:52:28 AM
What other means?

Book from God.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on August 29, 2020, 12:03:11 PM
Book from God.

Where in the book of God?
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 29, 2020, 06:46:53 PM
Where in the book of God?

This has been discussed to death here.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on August 30, 2020, 01:24:48 PM
This has been discussed to death here.

Indulge me.  Give me just one place where your evidence is found in the book of God.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 30, 2020, 03:33:18 PM
Indulge me.  Give me just one place where your evidence is found in the book of God.

42:23.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on August 30, 2020, 05:18:10 PM
42:23.

What does it say?
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 30, 2020, 06:04:41 PM
What does it say?

The reward the disbelievers accused the Prophet of seeking from power, reputation, moral landscaping, control, fame, legacy in his bloodline, all that at the end of it that which they see as a reward really is but recognizing and loving the kinsfolk chosen by God for who they are and appreciating God's favor and this love is actually the path of goodness - and God will appreciate this goodness and they are the means of faith and goodness to approach God by which he will forgive and appreciate those who do so.





Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on August 30, 2020, 09:15:00 PM
The reward the disbelievers accused the Prophet of seeking from power, reputation, moral landscaping, control, fame, legacy in his bloodline, all that at the end of it that which they see as a reward really is but recognizing and loving the kinsfolk chosen by God for who they are and appreciating God's favor and this love is actually the path of goodness - and God will appreciate this goodness and they are the means of faith and goodness to approach God by which he will forgive and appreciate those who do so.

Wow that's a lot of words...let's unpack what you said;

ذلك الذي يبشر اللَّه عباده الذين آمنوا وعملوا الصالحات قل لا أسألكم عليه أجرا إلا المودة في القربى ومن يقترف حسنة نزد له فيها حسنا إن اللَّه غفور شكور   

I checked the Arabic there was no mention about disbelievers? Where does it say Prophet (as)? Where does it say that the family it is talking about is the prophet's family (as)?
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on August 31, 2020, 04:21:09 PM
You can play with Quran with a hard heart or you can fear God and believe in what it says, it's up to you brother.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on September 01, 2020, 08:29:10 PM
You can play with Quran with a hard heart or you can fear God and believe in what it says, it's up to you brother.

Take some of your own advice - fear Allah and don't ascribe things to the words of Allah that aren't there.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on September 03, 2020, 03:25:11 AM
What is the clear unambiguous meaning of the verse by context, language, and other verses of Quran per you?
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on September 03, 2020, 11:24:59 PM
What is the clear unambiguous meaning of the verse by context, language, and other verses of Quran per you?

Per Me? Who care's what you or I think (I am not qualified, and you certainly are not) - this is what ibn Abbas said about القربى, which let's be honest is the only thing you are interested in;

"There was no clan among Quraysh to whom the Prophet did not have some ties of kinship.'' Ibn `Abbas said, "Except that you uphold the ties of kinship that exist between me and you.'' This was recorded by Al-Bukhari. It was also recorded by Imam Ahmad with a different chain of narration."


So it's not about obeying to infallible one's that would be born in the future from his Son-In-Law's family...

Regards,
Glorfindel.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on September 04, 2020, 02:48:07 AM
Per Me? Who care's what you or I think (I am not qualified, and you certainly are not) - this is what ibn Abbas said about القربى, which let's be honest is the only thing you are interested in;

"There was no clan among Quraysh to whom the Prophet did not have some ties of kinship.'' Ibn `Abbas said, "Except that you uphold the ties of kinship that exist between me and you.'' This was recorded by Al-Bukhari. It was also recorded by Imam Ahmad with a different chain of narration."


So it's not about obeying to infallible one's that would be born in the future from his Son-In-Law's family...

Regards,
Glorfindel.

So you put the Quran at the mercy of something we aren't certain of?
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: glorfindel on September 04, 2020, 10:52:46 PM
So you put the Quran at the mercy of something we aren't certain of?

Please explain.  I'm certain of the explanation of ibn Abbas.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on September 05, 2020, 12:03:15 AM
Please explain.  I'm certain of the explanation of ibn Abbas.

If you are certain, then show how you know this by Quran.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on September 05, 2020, 12:06:18 AM
Please explain.

The Quran describes itself not only as a clear book, but that a book that forever explains itself, clearly, with with clear proofs and signs, and the way language works is that contextualization of all words contextualize each other.

Show by context, other verses of Quran, or by the very words, that the clear meaning is that one you claim Ibn Abbas believed in.

Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Khaled on September 09, 2020, 12:55:36 AM
I can quote so many verses about this topic, but I will be brief, it's not. If I quote all the verses about this, the points I bring will have so many verses, but rather I will summarize what people who read Quran should recall and be familiar with.

السلام عليكم,

I'm not sure if this is a off shoot of another topic or what, so if I'm not getting your point please link me to the original post.

Quote
1)Believers were always seen low, vile, per their opponents and Quran says the people of hell will be amazed that there was a group of people they use to count as the most evil and vile, but not one of them in the hell.

Sounds like how the 12ers view the tens of thousands (maybe one hundred thousand) Sahaba, no?

Quote
2)People know for "righteousness" without proof from God in form of signs and scripture from him designating them specifically as that, for the most part, are the opposite and clothing themselves with garbs of purity and righteousness above others, when they are not even believers.

Isn't the Qur'an proof enough for the "righteousness" of the Sahaba, at least the Muhajiroon and Ansar?  The Qur'an describes them as being "المؤمنون حقا" and teaches a prayer which includes that we shouldn't have any hatred for them.

Quote
3) Clergy of all religions known as highly more pious, pure or righteous then others, there are so many verses, about how their reputation was based on falsehood from Iblis and the sorcery gives them the illusion of it in both their eyes and the eyes of the people.

I don't think I understand what you mean here?  Are you talking about people who put on turbans and collect khums?

Quote
4) The only people who are attributed purity by God and have authority to speak about guidance with firm authority, is those who God manifests their purity per scriptures and proves them, and who have proof of their authority from God without doubt.

You mean like "المؤمنون حقا"?

Quote
5) Who truly fears God is not known through reputation, claiming one fears God, outward show and marks, all this doesn't prove it.

It doesn't disprove it either.  In fact, a person could have a bad reputation with the people and still be God Fearing in the sight of Allah.

Quote
6) God always divided believers from disbelievers, with the word of light from him in both form of scripture and in humans who interpret the scripture and leads humans back to God and calls them back to God.

True.

Quote
7) The sorcery itself makes people belittle Prophets as liars, deceivers, greedy people out for their own reward, let alone, believers, and so in a world ruled by dark magic from Iblis,  one cannot rely on who is "known" for knowledge, piousness, or purity.  One has to seek proof from God.

Good thing Allah tells us who are pious and who isn't.

Quote
8) God emphasizes so much places, faith is hidden and needs to be tested,  and even when one is sure and certain, and don't doubt after, if they sin and unclean fire takes over their souls, they can turn on their backs... and so even if a person is a believer and you know he is, this is different then guarantee from reverting to disbelief and this is true vice versa, lost souls and rebellious souls still have a chance to repent and thank God and turn to the right path. The nature of most humans is they are volatile. IT's the chosen ones who God knows for sure if they slip, they will repent and turn back, and will remain on the straight path and not leave it no matter what slip they might slip by.
True.

Quote
Believers are volatile, and Suratal Auli-Imran shows even the original Badr fighters, were volatile and can turn on their backs after, let alone other believers.

Where does it say that?

Quote
9) Real trials come at moments we don't expect and make us and break us, like Iblis when ordered to prostrate to Adam. Worshipping God for eons before, he didn't expect himself to leave the path, disbelieve in God and rebel against the order of the heavens and the earth, but here is and here we are.

Which is precisely why we don't testify for anyone that they are going to Heaven or Hell unless they are promised either place in the Qur'an or Sunnah.

Quote
10) The Quran talks about disbelievers having followed their leaders and their great ones, their great ones were not great, only their eyes, this means, reputation in people's eyes is not reliable.


الحمدلله, Allah makes it clear in the Qur'an who to follow, or else we would basing our religion on what a guy in a turban who steals 5% of our wealth, and who cannot recite Surat al-Fatiha says.  Stay on the path of the Muhajiroon, Ansar, and those who follow them in guidance, and to never believe that anyone other than the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم can have an infallible understanding of our religion.

بارك الله فيك for the reminder.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Khaled on September 09, 2020, 12:59:44 AM
It's of value. Ilmel Rijaal and the whole basis of Sunnism and Shiism today, trusts reputation as reliable. I've shown by Quran, it is not.

I don't think you really understand how Ilm ar-Rijal works in the Sunni tradition.  While Adala is reputation, there is another element called Dabt, which can only be seen by analyzing everything that person reports and comparing it to other narrators reporting similar or contradictory repots.  Adala is only taken into consideration if the person is considered a liar, and he is the only person narrating such a narration (which, any one can see is a problem) or if it is a person from a particular sect and is solely narrating a report that promotes his theology.  Meaning, as long as the person is not known as a liar, his reports will be accepted if he is Dabt even if he is Rafidi, Nasibi, Qadari, etc, as long as he or she is not the only person narrating a report that promotes his deviance.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on September 10, 2020, 08:24:38 PM
As for Dabt, it's circular in reasoning with no way out and it doesn't lead to truth.

As for the Sahaba, read 3rd chapter of Quran, particularly the warnings at the end to not turn on their backs like those before did in the past, and also with flow with that is the verse of if Mohammad (s) dies or is killed.  The flow of the verses show it's possible even the original followers of Mohammad that fought the polytheists (who then would form the majority of the nation - ie. most of the Muslims were people who denied Mohammad as a sorcerer and liar and fought for most of his Nubuwa) to revert and turn on their backs.

That said, this doesn't mean most of them turned on their back, it just means it was a possibility.  My view is the followers of Mohammad (s) and Ali (a) - the majority of Muhajareen and Ansar remained loyal, and while they were a bit apathetic when Abu Bakr did what he did, Fatima (S) speech rallied them to convey the Sunnah about Ahlulbayt (a) and Ali (a) and also use the Quran to prove the rights of Ahlulbayt (a), and if it was not for their efforts,  the people would not have came to Ali (a) after Uthman was killed.

I think some of the original companions did turn on their backs, I believe others were of Gog and Magog and never truly believed, and remained loyal to the Devils they worshipped, and always faked belief and people lied about them even during Prophet's time about what the Prophet said regarding them.

That said, what I'm talking about, is not about companions.  It's about generations after, and whether we can know "scholars" are actually righteous by the reputation they have about it.

I'm saying - it's not only the case you can't, but the Quran shows the best people had the worst reputation in the eyes of majority of humans who were heedless and disbelievers.

The believers are not known and then their path, and rather the way is to be known, the chosen ones and his scriptures, then you come to know the believers of them perhaps, perhaps not if the falsehood has take root too much, it maybe you can't recognize believers anymore as this happened time and time again when the leaders of guidance didn't have enough support.

The issue is how to deal with guidance from God when reputation is unreliable. Ilmel Rijaal assumes it is reliable but per Quran is not a reliable means.

It could've been somewhat reliable if there was no divisions and people united on the rope of God, but that didn't occur. 

Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Khaled on September 10, 2020, 09:57:20 PM
As for Dabt, it's circular in reasoning with no way out and it doesn't lead to truth.

السلام عليكم,

How so?  Isn't the fact that the same narrators consistently narrating the same thing as other people from various teachers proof enough that he is Dabit and can be relied upon to narrate honestly and accurately?

Quote
As for the Sahaba, read 3rd chapter of Quran, particularly the warnings at the end to not turn on their backs like those before did in the past, and also with flow with that is the verse of if Mohammad (s) dies or is killed.  The flow of the verses show it's possible even the original followers of Mohammad that fought the polytheists (who then would form the majority of the nation - ie. most of the Muslims were people who denied Mohammad as a sorcerer and liar and fought for most of his Nubuwa) to revert and turn on their backs.

Never said it was impossible, neither عقلًا nor شرعًا.  I just said that Allah سبحانه وتعالى instructed us to follow their path and to pray to not have hatred in our hearts for them, at the very least the Muhajiroon and Ansar from among them.

Quote
That said, this doesn't mean most of them turned on their back, it just means it was a possibility.

Looks like we agree.

Quote
My view is the followers of Mohammad (s) and Ali (a) - the majority of Muhajareen and Ansar remained loyal, and while they were a bit apathetic when Abu Bakr did what he did, Fatima (S) speech rallied them to convey the Sunnah about Ahlulbayt (a) and Ali (a) and also use the Quran to prove the rights of Ahlulbayt (a), and if it was not for their efforts,  the people would not have came to Ali (a) after Uthman was killed.

A few questions if you don't mind:
1) How did the majority stay loyal (i.e. hold the belief that you hold, which is contrary to mainstream Sunnism AND 12erism) while still pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr and fighting in his armies?  I am having a hard time reconciling between your belief regarding the Imamate, and between the Sahaba remaining apathetic to it being usurped by Abu Bakr and Omar.
2) I'm confused, if the majority were loyal, then why would they then need to be reminded to come to Ali رضي الله عنه وعليه السلام after Uthman's rule?  This point just seems all over the place.
3) How did you come to the conclusion that the details regarding what happened with Fatima عليها السلام ورضي الله عنها actually took place?  Since I know you don't care about connected chains of reliable narrators and those details certainly didn't come to us by way of an Tawatur, let alone reliable chains.

Quote
I think some of the original companions did turn on their backs, I believe others were of Gog and Magog and never truly believed, and remained loyal to the Devils they worshipped, and always faked belief and people lied about them even during Prophet's time about what the Prophet said regarding them.

Is this belief based on any facts or just how you are able to reconcile their behavior in light of your belief system?  I think you really need to reflect about this point.

Quote
That said, what I'm talking about, is not about companions.  It's about generations after, and whether we can know "scholars" are actually righteous by the reputation they have about it.

The reason this discussion started was because of how your description seems to sound like how the 12ers view the Sahaba.  I have come now to know that you somehow are able to reconcile the majority of them being loyal to the Message (i.e. your belief system) while simultaneously being apathetic to Abu Bakr's rule.

Quote
I'm saying - it's not only the case you can't, but the Quran shows the best people had the worst reputation in the eyes of majority of humans who were heedless and disbelievers.

We don't need the Qur'an to tell us that.  The problem with your opinion regarding the Sahaba, is that their reputation is extracted FROM THE QUR'AN.  Therefore, how can the Qur'an, on one hand praise the Sahaba, say they are the true believers, ask the Muslims to follow their way and pray to never have any hatred in their hearts for them, while simultaneously telling us in an indirect way that these guys are going to turn their back on the Message?

Quote
The believers are not known and then their path, and rather the way is to be known, the chosen ones and his scriptures, then you come to know the believers of them perhaps, perhaps not if the falsehood has take root too much, it maybe you can't recognize believers anymore as this happened time and time again when the leaders of guidance didn't have enough support.

With all due respect, I could not make out this sentence no matter how many times I tried rereading it.  All I can gather is you are telling me I cannot recognize the believers because "perhaps ... the falsehood has take root too much."  I recognize Imam Ali, al-Hassan, al-Hussain, Fatima, Zayn al-Abideen, al-Baqir, and Ja'far as-Saadiq عليهم السلام ورضي الله عنهم ورحمهم الله as true believers, so I'm not sure how that works, considering this is the view of basically all Muslims إلا من شذ منهم.

Quote
The issue is how to deal with guidance from God when reputation is unreliable. Ilmel Rijaal assumes it is reliable but per Quran is not a reliable means.

Not true, Ilm ar-Rijal does not assume that at all.  It actually assumes the opposite, that is why every report must be checked and corroborated, or else we can't simply accept it.  The reputation that the narrators earn come after checking their reports, not before.

Quote
It could've been somewhat reliable if there was no divisions and people united on the rope of God, but that didn't occur.

The problem with your whole premise is that it is theoretical.  You need to somehow show practical examples of people who are: A) considered reliable in Ilm ar-Rijal B) making mistakes c) that were not noticed by the scholars of hadeeth.  Without that, you are just throwing the baby out with the water in your wholesale condemnation of Ilm al-Hadeeth, the same Ilm you conveniently ignore when choosing whatever narration you think fits with your narrative.  I'm not sure how a hadeeth that is relayed by a person who had a good reputation in front of the Muslims, who was considered Dabt through his constant narrating narrations that are corroborated by other sources, directly from his teacher is considered "unreliable", but the Sermon of Fadak, which has problems with the chain is somehow acceptable.  Why did you accept one and not the other?  Because one fits your preconceived narrative and the other one didn't.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on September 11, 2020, 12:27:40 AM
Salam

Mujareen and Ansar (original ones) are a very small minority of Muslims near the end of the Prophet's (s) life. They aren't majority.  Fatima (s) speech rallied them, woke them up, and I believe for the most part they performed their duty.

The majority of people - who Ali (a) didn't want to fight with his small band of followers (original companions very few compared to how many Muslims are now there who fought or denied Mohammad (s) most of his Propethood) - were frankly ignorant of the Quran and Sunnah.   

Majority of muhajareen and ansar were ready to fight if Ali (a) gave the orders, but he spared them their blood, and majority of the "Muslims" were people who fought Ali (a) and the first band of believers and who didn't understand Quran or Sunnah nor took the religion seriously.

Moving on from Sahaba - discussion.

The circular reasoning is that all kinds of hadiths existed.  What we have left from what is written is also a very small amount compared to the original amount of hadiths and their diversity.

Your last sentence: " Because one fits your preconceived narrative and the other one didn't." is ironic, because this what your system does. 

It fits righteousness according to a belief system, but how do you know the belief system is right, well due to righteous men chain of reports, and how do you know they are righteous, well by what they report confirming a type of belief system.

You don't take seriously the many (very many) chains naming the 12 Imams seriously. Think about the reason why... so the amount of hadiths and chains doesn't prove 12 Imams to you.

It has more - to do with - what you just said "Because one fits your preconceived narrative and the other one didn't."

And we see this clearly the case. For example,  a person narrates, Fatima (a) house was lit on fire, he is automatically flagged unreliable just for narrating that.

Someone narrates Imam Baqir (a) did a miracle - automatically flagged unreliable and liar.


The system is so chaotically bias, to lead one way, and so yes, it leads that way. It's circular defined to collect "authetnic" hadiths from all sorts of narrators narrating what is already believed in.

It's not there didn't exist numerous hadiths contradicting that or even more hadiths than ones "collaborating" each other.

Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Khaled on September 11, 2020, 08:36:51 PM
Salam

وعليكم السلام

Quote
Mujareen and Ansar (original ones) are a very small minority of Muslims near the end of the Prophet's (s) life. They aren't majority.

Do you have a list of them?  Would people like Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Talha, az-Zubayr, Abu Ubaydah, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqaas, Abd Al-Rahman bin Awf, Sa'd ibn Ubadah be on that list?

Quote
Fatima (s) speech rallied them, woke them up, and I believe for the most part they performed their duty.

What is the evidence that Fatima عليه السلام ورضي الله عنها gave that speech?
Who was rallied from the original Muhajiroon and Ansar?
What was the duty that they performed?

Quote
The majority of people - who Ali (a) didn't want to fight with his small band of followers (original companions very few compared to how many Muslims are now there who fought or denied Mohammad (s) most of his Propethood) - were frankly ignorant of the Quran and Sunnah.   

So these Muslims, who are frankly ignorant of the Qur'an and Sunnah, were good enough to fight with and support the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم but they were not good enough to do so with Ali عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه?  That's a very strange explanation.

In addition, I limited the discussion to the Muhajiroon and Ansar, so we don't need to include the Tulaqaa', who are all ignorant of the Qur'an and Sunnah according to you.  As of right now, the discussion centers around the Muhajiroon and Ansar, what was their duty, and how you are able to verify that any of this happened.

Quote
Majority of muhajareen and ansar were ready to fight if Ali (a) gave the orders, but he spared them their blood, and majority of the "Muslims" were people who fought Ali (a) and the first band of believers and who didn't understand Quran or Sunnah nor took the religion seriously.

All of this is problematic for several reasons:
1) What is the evidence for any of it?
2) Why would Imam Ali عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه do things differently from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم?  Why would the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم include these people in his followers, but Imam Ali عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه exclude them?
3) Your takfeer of the majority of the Muslims during the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's time based solely on your interpretation of he events that happened 1400 years ago, based on a system of preserving history (Ilm al-Hadeeth) that you don't believe in.

Quote
Moving on from Sahaba - discussion.

It seems we have yet to scratch the surface of that discussion.

Quote
The circular reasoning is that all kinds of hadiths existed.  What we have left from what is written is also a very small amount compared to the original amount of hadiths and their diversity.

I don't see how that is circular reasoning, nor do I see any evidence that "all kinds of hadiths existed" but no longer exist.  A lot of hadeeth books were lost, but that was during the times of the Mongols, long after Sunnism was codified.  Obviously, modern day 12erism was codified more in the 1700-1800s and reinterpreted in the past 40 years, but that's an entirely different discussion. 

Quote
Your last sentence: " Because one fits your preconceived narrative and the other one didn't." is ironic, because this what your system does. 

You will need to provide an example of this.  My examples of you doing it is believing in the Fadak Sermon without providing any reasons why.  Why do you believe this actually happened?  Did you do an analysis of its historicity, or is it just simply that it fits your belief so you accept it?

Quote
It fits righteousness according to a belief system, but how do you know the belief system is right, well due to righteous men chain of reports, and how do you know they are righteous, well by what they report confirming a type of belief system.

No it doesn't, since a person could be Adl and Dabit even if he is considered non-Sunni.  Here are some quick examples:

عباد ابن يعقوب الرواجني بتخفيف الواو وبالجيم المكسورة والنون الخفيفة أبو سعيد الكوفي صدوق رافضي حديثه في البخاري مقرون بالغ ابن حبان فقال يستحق الترك من العاشرة مات سنة خمسين خ ت ق

لمازة بكسر اللام وتخفيف الميم وبالزاي ابن زباد بفتح الزاي وتثقيل الموحدة وآخره راء الأزدي الجهضمي أبو لبيد البصري صدوق ناصبي من الثالثة د ت ق

أحمد ابن عبدة ابن موسى الضبي أبو عبد الله البصري ثقة رمي بالنصب من العاشرة مات سنة خمس وأربعين م 4

إبراهيم ابن يعقوب ابن إسحاق الجوزجاني بضم الجيم الأولى وزاي وجيم نزيل دمشق ثقة حافظ رمي بالنصب من الحادية عشرة مات سنة تسع وخمسين د ت س

إسماعيل ابن موسى الفزاري أبو محمد أو أبو إسحاق الكوفي نسيب السدي أو ابن بنته أو ابن أخته صدوق يخطىء رمي بالرفض من العاشرة مات سنة خمس وأربعين عخ د ت ق

أيوب ابن عائذ بتحتانية ومعجمة ابن مدلج الطائي البحتري بضم الموحدة وسكون المهملة وضم المثناة الكوفي ثقة رمي بالإرجاء من السادسة خ م ت س

دينار ابن عمر الأسدي أبو عمر البزار آخره راء الكوفي الأعمى صالح الحديث رمي بالرفض من السادسة بخ ق

عبد الله ابن عبد القدوس التميمي السعدي الكوفي صدوق رمي بالرفض وكان أيضا يخطىء من التاسعة خت ت

غالب ابن الهذيل الأودي [أبو الهذيل] الكوفي صدوق رمي بالرفض من الخامسة س

هارون ابن سعد العجلي أو الجعفي الكوفي الأعور صدوق رمي بالرفض ويقال رجع عنه من السابعة م
[/size]

That should be a small enough list to show you that what you have been taught about Ilm ar-Rijal isn't accurate.

Quote
You don't take seriously the many (very many) chains naming the 12 Imams seriously. Think about the reason why... so the amount of hadiths and chains doesn't prove 12 Imams to you.

It has more - to do with - what you just said "Because one fits your preconceived narrative and the other one didn't."

There are a host of reasons why I don't take those chains seriously, and it is not because I'm not 12er.  Even 12ers don't take those chains seriously and reject them, because they are not reliable.  Had they been authentically reported from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم we wouldn't have Shi'as differing ever time an Imam died.  Even the closest to the Imams, according to the 12er narrative, didn't know the successor.  Rejecting these reports has nothing to do with Ilm al-Hadeeth or preconceived narratives, its based on them being obvious later fabrication.

However, if you would like, we can go through the chains and see just how reliable they are together.
 
Quote
And we see this clearly the case. For example,  a person narrates, Fatima (a) house was lit on fire, he is automatically flagged unreliable just for narrating that.

Someone narrates Imam Baqir (a) did a miracle - automatically flagged unreliable and liar.

This is just an empty claim until we actually see proof.  هاتوا برهانكم إن كنتم صادقين

Quote
The system is so chaotically bias, to lead one way, and so yes, it leads that way. It's circular defined to collect "authetnic" hadiths from all sorts of narrators narrating what is already believed in.

It's not there didn't exist numerous hadiths contradicting that or even more hadiths than ones "collaborating" each other.

As we have seen time and time again from you:
1) You claim something is circular without actually showing why that is.
2) You make claims about how Adalah is defined in hadeeth science despite it not coinciding with reality.
3) You completely ignore anything about Dabt, and turn a system that verifies its reports through corroboration into simply "all sorts of narrators narrating what is already believed in."
4) You make the claim that Ahl al-Hadeeth accepted hadeeths based on what they already believed in, rather than believing what they believe the authentic reports show, despite the fact they rejected ALL ahadeeth praising Mu'awiyah, accepted more reports praising Imam Ali رضي الله عنه than anyone else, accepted all kinds of reports that praise Ahl al-Bayt, all kinds of reports that disparage the Sahaba, and rejecting reports that say the Qur'an is Ghayr Makhlooq, and every report disparaging deviant sects except for the Khawarij.

Just face it, your narrative doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on September 11, 2020, 10:42:51 PM
The discussion should move on and be centered around "can every issue pertaining to guidance be verified in Quran?" and "what is the role of the hadiths and Sunnah with respect to Quran if ilmel rijaal is unreliable?".

I feel getting into a whole discussion about a system that has not a single verse to support it from Quran nor a hadith, is fruitless, and as if Quran doesn't tell us in detail how to approach studying Quran and Sunnah but rather this is a false lie scholars of both sects attribute to God. We been doing it for centuries (some people at least) this ilmel rijaal none-sense and it won't lead to guidance.

These two questions will answer your constant questioning and also prove all sects of Islam apparent today to be in error and their methodology to be false and not lead to truth.

Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Khaled on September 12, 2020, 01:40:52 AM
The discussion should move on and be centered around

I think its unfortunate that you chose to ignore everything I wrote.  I think this seems to imply that you don't have an answer to the questions I posed.  Since this is the course you have decided to take, I would still love to know how and why you chose to accept the Sermon of Fadak as authentic.  I would also love to go through the chains of the ahadeeth  regarding the names of the Imams to see if the reason I reject them is preconceived, or is just simply the logical conclusion that any non-sectarian would reach after investigating the reports.

Quote
"can every issue pertaining to guidance be verified in Quran?"

The general consensus seems to be that everything is found in the Qur'an, its just the details maybe ascertained through Ahadeeth, Qiyaas, Ijmaa' and other means like the Amal of Ahl al-Madeena etc.  Some scholars, like al-Ghazali and ar-Razi, stated that we must also learn logic or else our understanding of all these things will be futile.

Quote
and "what is the role of the hadiths and Sunnah with respect to Quran if ilmel rijaal is unreliable?".

Of course I don't believe Ilm ar-Rijal is unreliable, but if it was proven to be, then it would have no value.

Quote
I feel getting into a whole discussion about a system that has not a single verse to support it from Quran nor a hadith, is fruitless,

You do raise a good point, why should we get into a discussion about infallible Imams if such a concept is absent from the Qur'an.

Quote
and as if Quran doesn't tell us in detail how to approach studying Quran and Sunnah but rather this is a false lie scholars of both sects attribute to God.

I don't know of any Muslim scholar, Sunni or Shi'a, who claims that the "Quran doesn't tell us in detail how to approach studying Quran and Sunnah."  That is a "false lie" that is purported by you, unfortunately.

Quote
We been doing it for centuries (some people at least) this ilmel rijaal none-sense and it won't lead to guidance.

Instead of empty slogans, a better approach would be, to tell us how we can verify the Sunnah if Ilm ar-Rijaal is "none-sense (sp)."  I showed that your understanding of Ilm ar-Rijal was lacking at best, so therefore you need to bring a better argument than "it is circular" and it is "none-sense" in order to convince anybody.  Especially considering you didn't address the examples of non-Sunnis having tawtheeq, nor did you address the concept of Dabt.  You have a lot on your plate, but seeing how this discussion has gone so far, my guess is you'll just completely ignore everything I said, and accuse everyone of lying and being under the spell of sorcery.

Quote
These two questions will answer your constant questioning and also prove all sects of Islam apparent today to be in error and their methodology to be false and not lead to truth.

So what you are saying is that ALL Muslims, except for you, are "in error" and that "their methodology" is "false and" will "not lead to truth"?  بارك الله فيك, but please clarify
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on September 12, 2020, 01:49:13 AM
You are not letting me answer your questions and you are denying what you know is true and denying what is well known.   The Quran shows as far convincing people, Pharaoh won, and people accused Moses as being a sorcerer, even though inwardly they knew he was right.

You don't want to learn, you want to argue. Even Moses lost like that. 

I told you answering these two questions (in detail), would answer your queries. But you can stick to your sect and your people.

I don't care about Shiites or their religion, that is why I abandoned their clergy and false ways.   I choose God over conjecture of people who will not avail me anything.

Muslims choose to be blind despite a book providing insights. They are a cursed people worthy of God's wrath. Stick to them in whatever way you like.
Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on September 12, 2020, 02:00:06 AM
just completely ignore everything I said, and accuse everyone of lying and being under the spell of sorcery.

What is ironic, is that this how Quran approaches it.  It was never the case that God did not clarify what people must do to remain guided and divisions from the rope of God only occur AFTER KNOWLEDGE when people envy each other and rebel against one another out of hate of God's light and out of clinging to the cursed tree and thereby hating the blessed tree.

The knowledge and simple clear way - is always belittled - due to sorcery. Not only is Quran clear about Ahlulbayt, it has repeated them through out it's pages but it is exactly the sorcery that not only keeps people from perceiving them but so many other clear insights and proofs repeated through out the Quran including the promise of God trying humanity with one more test - through a sent one from him - that if people reject his message, will be destroyed and all cities are under this threat, before the day of judgment.

Title: Re: Is reputation reliable?
Post by: Soccer on September 12, 2020, 02:07:09 AM
The Quran talks about itself as a book of signs, proofs, and insights - but that there is a curse sorcery with respect to it. It encourages us to reflect and seek the family of the reminder for proofs including seeking miracles from them (and both contexts of the two verses in this respect including asking for clear proofs in form of miracles).

We are in drought - where there is no live miracles in the open, the truth becoming no longer uppermost, God's word belittled, and evils looking beautiful while virtues looking ugly.

The Quran shows that nothing ever prevents God from sending with signs in form of miracles except the first ones denied them.

Miracles are a great part of Quran, and the tone is obvious they were meant to stay. If they are gone for the latter ones , the former ones didn't accept the miracles for certain.

Again, we can discuss religion to death and many people have done that.

You don't want to discuss dark magic with respect to Quran, yet Quran talks about that, but has not mentioned a word confirming any of the methodology of your complicated ilmel rijaal conjecture system but rather has shown the opposite - that it's unreliable.