Afzaliyat and Kufr

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by kattarsunni, Dec 9, 2011.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    One note that is very relevant. Ijma' is a source of law. What is the source for Ijma' being an evidence? If it were Ijma' itself then that would lead to circular reasoning. Therefore the evidence of Ijma' is from the Quran and Sunnah itself.

    The other sects reject Ijma' as a source of law for obvious reasons. The likes of Jubbai are mentioned in the books of Usul.

    So it is irrelevant if the opinion of a mujtahid mubtadi' is taken in to consideration or not, simply because the innovators themselves do not believe
    in Ijma' as a source of law.
    Another point to note is that during the civil strife in the reign of Mawla Ali radiyAllahu anhu, despite the civil war, Mawla Ali radiyAllahu anhu was Khalifah. From what source do we establish this? By way of Ijma', even if there were dissenters.
  2. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

  3. Ghulam

    Ghulam Veteran

    When are you releasing your refutation of matla?
  4. respected brother, on a lighter note:

    kann phanwein sidda phardo ya puttah phardo par phardiya kann hi hai!
  5. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    I'll repeat what I said, but in full and not a snippet:

  6. thats all I wanted you to say. Thank You. good bye.
  7. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Again I re iterate, without seeing the whole picture the bus home can be missed and the subject grossly misunderstood. I said earlier with reason:

    With regard to the position of Imam Ghazzali and Imam Amidi, Allama AbdulA'liyy Muhammad bin Nizzaam alDeen alAnsaariy rahimaha Allah writes:

    | (مسئلة * لا يشترط عدالة المجتهد) في الإجماع (فيتوقف على غير العدل في مختار الآمدي و) الإمام حجة الإسلام (الغزالي) قدس سره كلاهما من الشافعية (لأن الأدلة) الدالة على حجية الإجماع (مطلقة) عن تقييد الأمة بكونها عدلا فاعتبار اجماع العدول مع مخالفة الفاسق لا مدرك له شرعا وكل حكم لا مدرك له شرعا وجب نفيه وهذا انما يتم إذا كان الأمة المطلقة شاملة للساق في العرف القديم (والحنفية بل الجمهور شرطوا العدالة) وهو الحق لأن قول الفاسق واجب التوقف فلا دخل له في الحجية و (لأن الحجية) في الإجماع (حقيقة للتكريم) لأهله والفاسق لا يستحق التكريم وقد يقال لم يدل دليل على أن الحجية للتكريم وانما اللازم أن التكريم ثبت بالحجية

    The above quote is from his 'Fawatih alRahmut Sharh Musallam alThabut', page 407, vol.2 (Dar alArqam ed.), under the book of Ijma'.

    He states the jamhur opinion is that the faasiq mujtahid is not considered.
    And he mentions the divergent opinion of Ghazzali and Amidi.
    In all the divergent opinions on ijma' we follow the jamhur. And in knowing who the jamhur are the muta'akhir U'lama like the above are the best people to tell us.

  8. والمختار أنه لا ينعقد الإجماع دونه لكونه من أهل الحل والعقد وداخلاً في مفهوم لفظ الأمة

    Imam al-amidi states: "the preferable position about this question is that Ijma is NOT valid without the opinion of the heretic mujtahid because he is one of the participants in ijma (ahl al-hall wa'l-'aqd). He is included in the community whose total agreement has been declared as infallible."

    it was not just imam al-ghazali but actually it is the 'mukhtar' opinion.

    * thats it, good bye. couldnt help it, back to life.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2011
  9. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    I don't think you understood fully my last post and by simply dismissing it by the above will not cover that. Of course this thread is regarding the opinion that rejection of afdaliyya is kufr or not. To consider it disbelief is wrong and a major blunder.

    Both Imam Ahmad Rida Khan and Imam Yusuf Nabhani mention it as a khafif bid'a.

    The thread was then diverted to a statement from a previous thread. I added my tupence worth on the quote of Ibn Salah and a quick note on the machinations of ijma'. When you rebound from your duties inshaAllah we can start a separate thread on the workings of ijma' and also tackle the divergent quotes like the one you provided. I knew this would be done and that is why i made clear before by saying:

    As for your quote from Imam Ghazali, this is why I said earlier:

    I mentioned only 'mukaffira' because if I said only bid'a I knew the above and similar quotes would be provided. What the rajih is we can cover later when we have time.
  10. as for me, I am gone for days. I have tons of work to do so see you on the rebound. Ya ALi Madad!

  11. whatever the difference with abu hasan, one thing, one has to say is that he is not a politician and says it as he thinks whether its right or wrong. his view on the haq chaar yaar conference Newcastle's statement is that their declartion is extreme:


  12. unfortunately that is a smokescreen of terms garbed in dogma. what counts is a justification and sound argument. however, we have to return to our priorities but i will just leave you with al-Imam al-Ghazali though there are other opinions from the imams in the field but this would be sufficient in demonstarting that there is no ijma on the theory of ijma that you are proposing:

    مسألة ( عدم انعقاد الإجماع بالمجتهد الفاسق المبتدع
    إذا خالف لم ينعقد الإجماع دونه إذا لم يكفر بل هو كمجتهد فاسق وخلاف المجتهد الفاسق معتبر

    Ijma is invalid even if an innovator and fasiq mujtahid opposes it.
  13. Ghulam

    Ghulam Veteran

    You come out with some lines Shah Jee but Dadyal does produce character's not like the boring Tench Bhatvis
  14. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Of course the term 'Ijma' alUmmah' is a broad term under which many things can be covered. You will find that all the definitions have the word 'ittifaaq' (agreement). Agreement of whom? The U'lama have placed, sometimes, just the word 'Ummah'. But many of them have added the words 'ahl ulhallwal a'qd', 'ulama' and 'mujtahidi'. And then the further restrictions of 'a'sr' (time period), varying from the 'a'sr alnubuwwa' (Prophetic time), age of the companions and successors.

    They state in the def. 'amrun min alamur'. Does this include all matters? All matters from a'qliyaat (rational things), shar'iyat (legal), u'rfiyaat (custom) and lughwiyaat (linguistical). Some of them, like Imam Juwayni, disputed a'qliyaat which can be proven otherwise and thereby contradict ijma', or qat'iyaat (like existence of Allah) which needs not the support of ijma' as this would lead to dawr (circular reasoning). There is no credibility of ahl ulbid'a mukaffira in ijma' by agreement. The U'lama also agreed on the point that ijma' is a legal source.

    Not surprisingly the Shi'a, Khawarij and Nazzam from the Mu'tazila opposed this. See Mustasfa.

    But our discussion now delves into the mafaad (import) of ijma'. Especially from the aspect of dhann and qat'. There are a few masaail that affect this.

    1 Method of how the ijma' came into place (in'iqaad alijma'). Is it Sareeh or Sukuti?

    2 Those who conducted the ijma' did their numbers reach tawatur or not?

    3 From the point of istinaad (support). Meaning have those who conducted ijma' from the U'lama based it on dalil dhanni, or dalil qati', or did they base it on nass or qiyas etc. The effect of each will differ.

    4 How this ijma' reached us (naql). The mode, was it tawatur or aahaad?

    In each one of the above four there are numerous sayings. And then there is tarjih (preference) of the jamhur (majority). Here it would not be sufficient to take snippets from a few books. It would be necessary to have an in depth understanding of the jamhur position.

    For instance, the first aspect of sarih ijma', anyone can sift through the books of usul and find sayings which are divergent to the majority opinion. But that does not mean those positions are correct.

    Then when they have said that the import of a dalil is dhann or qat' it is is imperative we understand the meanings behind these words. We need to define 'dalil' and its types, 'ilm' and its types, 'aql'. Then to qati'ya and what is attatched to it from the mufradat.
    Then the evidences (thubut) of qat'ya. Then the stations (maraatib) of qati'ya. Then the same with dhanniya. Meaning, defining dhann, then what is attatched to it from the mufradaat. Then the evidences (ithbaat) of dhanniya. Then the maraatib (levels) of dhanniya.
    Then the nisba (relation) between qati'yya and dhanniyya. Then ranks of comprehension (maraatib alidraak) and the rank of qat' and dhann. Then finally muqaarana of qati'ya and dhanniya.

    After covering that we will understand a bit of Imam Ibn Salah statement. radiyAllahu anhu.

    Of course the U'lama of Ahl alSunna have made all that easy. This is why there path is safe. quddisat Asraruhum.
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    sub'HanAllah, with every iteration, the statement is being given a new twist.

    i said rejecting a SaHiH hadith (with a rigorously authenticated chain) not a "sahih chain." it was a mistake to be distracted in this thread - as it disrupts something i have been doing (and thanks to aN for reminding me.) inShaAllah i will soon return to the thread and GG's sophisms.

    meanwhile, aF asked about denying afzaliyat of abu bakr being kufr - as far as i know, ulama - and alahazrat among them - have said that it is khafif bid'ah and anyone claiming this to be kufr is extreme. Allah ta'ala knows best.

    inShaAllah wa bi tawfiqihi.
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2011
  16. والأمة في إجماعها معصومة من الخطأ،

    so on sahihayn the kind of ijma' meant is Ijma' of Ummah?
  17. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Just out of interest Ibn Salah writes:

    (Explaining mutafaqun a'layhi) When they apply the term without qualification, then they mean by it the agreement of Bukhari and Muslim on it, and not the agreement of the Muslim Community.

    However, the agreement of the Muslim Community on it necessarily follows from the agreement of Bukhari and Muslim and is concurrent with it, because of the agreement of the Muslim Community to receive with acceptance whatever Bukhari and Muslim agreed upon. The soundness of this entire subcategory is definitely settled.

    Theoretical and certain knowledge occurs through it, contrary to the doctrine of those who deny this, arguing that their agreement that their agreement does not in principle produce than the presumption (dhann).

    They claim that the Muslim Community received these hadith with acceptance only because it is obliged to act on presumption, although sometimes errs. Formerly, I had toward this view and regarded it highly. Then it became clear to me that the doctrine we had chosen in the first place is the correct one, because the presumption of someone is protected (ma'sum) from error is never wrong and the Muslim Community, when united by consensus ((fi ijama'ihaa), is protected from error. For this reason, consensus based on someone's personal endeavour (ijtihad) is decisive proof,and most of the cases of the consensus of the scholars are of this kind. This is a precious and useful point.

    One of the ramifications of this is the doctrine that the hadith which either Bukhari or Muslim is alone in including come under the heading of what is decisively regarded as sound because of the Muslim Community's reception of each of their books with acceptance in the fashion detailed by us in the preceding paragraph (ie by ijma'). This applies to all but a few insignificant items which some of the critics among the experts of hadith-like Daraqutni and others-have discussed. These are known to the scholars in this field. Allah knows best (End of quote from Imam Ibn Salah rahimahu Allah in his 'Muqaddima' First Category, 7th fasl.

    I'm very sure the above passage will enlighten the debate even to what type of ijma' is meant Ibn Salah has made it very clear. And also what it is inclusive of.
  18. so you are all innocent and do not know what kufr and rejecting a hadith means etc. yet, dear brother, you are talking about all other meticulous notions contained in those books about types and kinds of hadith, it implications, etc but you do not the hukm for rejecting a sahih chain? I find that strange, indeed!

    if I say 'reject' then you want all kinds of explanations and peculiarities about the mechanism behind that statement but you do the same and more seriously use 'ijma' just because someone has written it who dies in 643 AH and was the first person to say so. the point is that it is one thing saying 'ijma' but another to provide the mechanism from those who have defined and categorised ijma. it is here that i think you will be true to yourself and to your demand from me, if you do what you say. merely someone's mention of ijma does not make it ijma my dear brother. substantiate the claim by saying this the definition of ijma and this how many kind of 'binding' ijma is there and these are the usoolis such as al-jassas, al-shafi' etc have said so.

    otherwise, why ask me for something which you do not yourself do?
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2011
  19. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Yes I do. But as Sidi Abu Hasan said he will return to the debate when he has time and has checked the references you have provided. I will wait to see what he has to say as I trust it will be elucidating his previous statement which is currently under scrutiny.

    Of course when I said ijma' I was quoting that which is mentioned by Imam Ibn Salah rahimahuAllah and the like in the works of Usul alHadith when discussing the Sahihayn. The Muhaddithin mention that they mean the musnad and marfu' reprts contained within the Sahihayn and not the additions like the one you quoted as an example of what you reject.

    What type of Ijma' did the likes of Ibn Salah rahimahuAllah and the likes mean?
    The point of my previous post was not the ijma' but the madlul of the ijma' (according to Ibn Salah etc) being the musnad and marfu' reports and not the example you have provided.

  20. remember this?

Share This Page