with your wording 'Ijma' we know that in Usul methodology there are many types that fall under this umbrella (kully) of Ijma. so you must be very specific as to what kind of Ijma do you mean in light of usul books that deal with Ijma.
Again, with your wording 'I reject' we know that in hadith methodology there are many types that fall under this umbrella (kully) of rejection. Threfore there is a great difference between saying reject because it ma'lul or shaadh and i reject it because it is mawdu'. Thus we (all involved) must be very specific as to what we mean by rejection. As for the cited example then it is not the saying Sayyiduna RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa aalihi wasallam but the observation of a companion. When the Ahl alSunna say there is ijma' on the Sahihayn being authentic, as you are aware, it means the musnad marfu' reports. And even then a report can be sahih but ma'lul or shaadh.
KS, I think, in order of priority, the pressing query should be made from abu hasan. How he holds to 'kufr' of the person rejecting a sahih chain!
@GG: Just for clarification, what would be the ruling on rejection of a rigorously authenticated hadith like those found in Bukhari and Muslim according to your reading and research?? And what would fall into the rubric of rejection? Would that include saying it is ma'lul, shaadh and other categorisations or just complete rejection? Would munkar and mardud carry the same import as mawdu'?? The quote from Imam Razi is not clear as to what rejection Imam Razi is referring to as he is clearly not using hadith terminology.
abu hasan, can i just say that i am quite flabbergasted by your attitude and unwarranted attacks on third party people. it seems like your crying like a spoiled child. how hard it is it to simply address the issue without bringing in all sorts of personalities in to vent out your anger (who are not involved in the discussion)? i have no issue with your viewpoint, whatever that may be, it's the attitude. do you have any views on the question that i asked about denying the afzaliat of Abu Bakr Siddique being kufr? That's what the original question was. Considering you have done quite a bit of "tafzeeli bashing" i was hoping you might shed some light on it as it is an area you have written on here about frequently. The other question is related to takfeer too but please guys do discuss without the emotional charge and off-topic attacks.
takfir means to consider someone kafir. we follow alahazrat and he says: 'luzum o iltizam mein farq hai'. i have reiterated many times that considering a saying or an action as kufr is not the same as considering that person (who said or did it) as kafir. we have not done takfir of tahir riaz, as yet. wAllahu ta'ala a'alam.
the following hadith is considred sahih with an authentic chain in sahihayn. Imam al-Razi(d.606 AH) says about the hadith of three lies: واعلم أن بعض الحشوية روي عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: " ما كذب إبراهيم عليه السلام إلا ثلاث كذبات " فقلت الأولى أن لا نقبل مثل هذه الأخبار فقار على طريق الاستنكار فإن لم نقبله لزمنا تكذيب الرواة فقلت له: يا مسكين إن قبلناه لزمنا الحكم بتكذيب إبراهيم عليه السلام وإن رددناه لزمنا الحكم بتكذيب الرواة ولا شك أن صون إبراهيم عليه السلام عن الكذب أولى من صون طائفة من المجاهيل عن الكذب. link:http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=4&tSoraNo=12&tAyahNo=24&tDisplay=yes&Page=5&Size=1&LanguageId=1
actaully I was going to present imam shafi's risala, or al-jassas's al-fusul or al-baqillani's al-taqrib or al-basri's al-mu'tamad or al-khatib's al-faqih or al-sarakhsi's usul but i thought that i should present something within your range of expertise.
i just glanced through the link, but isn't it ironical to use imam ghazali to defend tahir riaz and party - of the reviling-ghazali-fame? sub'HanAllah.
good that you gave the reference. your response is appreciated; i will check it later in the day. and comment. wa billahi't tawfiq. meanwhile, can you also provide your reference for imam razi you said below:
please try to avoid using words that you are not sure how to spell. it's better to use simpler words that you are sure of.
القسم الثاني من هذا الأصل في أخبار الآحاد وفيه أبواب الباب الأول في إثبات التعبد به مع قصوره عن إفادة العلم وفيه أربع مسائل مسألة ( هل خبر الواحد يفيد العلم ) اعلم أنا نريد بخبر الواحد في هذا المقام ما لا ينتهي من الأخبار إلى حد التواتر المفيد للعلم فما نقله جماعة من خمسة أو ستة مثلا فهو خبر الواحد وأما قول الرسول عليه السلام مما علم صحته فلا يسمى خبر الواحد وإذا عرفت هذا فنقول خبر الواحد لا يفيد العلم the link: 1/115 http://www.mojtamai.com/books/component/k2/item/3111-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%81%D9%89-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A3%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1-%D8%A3%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84/3111-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%81%D9%89-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A3%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1-%D8%A3%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84?start=14
unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag. i do not start controversial arguments, but if someone starts it, i will not let it go without notice if i can help it. i try to refute them and expose their ignorance so that truth is manifest. particularly the PAQ and tahir jhangvi lot thrive on the illusion that their pirs are 'oceans of knowledge' and thus sneak all kinds of nonsense. i am trying to call their bluff - so that everyone can see how ignorant they are and how shamelessly they lie - and why they should flee from these charlatans and ulama-e-suu. al-iyadhu billah. do you think we will keep quiet when that kazzab tahir jhangvi attributes to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam a lie? and such a filthy lie? ---- i agree that i am frail and weak, but i try. wa billahi't tawfiq.
alHamdulillah, i will provide the proof for my statement eventually, inShaAllah. but i am only trying to expose the ignorance of your lot, who just talk even if there is nothing in the head. ---- but you will have to prove: as i have said, you do not even know the basic of citation. if i had to refute like you guys do, all i have to say is go look in a certain-30-volume book and you will find it. only those who are incapable of reading/citation do that. a proper citation will always be specific: fasl, or page, or chapter. ---- my apologies for being pedantic, but, where in al-mustasfa is this? and if you are quoting a translation, you have to put it in quotes; so that, i don't confuse the citation with someone's interpretation. if you have derived this conclusion from a quote, then you have to say so. in the past i used to waste a lot of time hunting in books (where could it be), but that was due to my naive assumption that people will not simply make up quotes or chop quotes. but i now know well that instead of wasting time that way, ask them which page or fasl and if not found, dismiss the lie for what it is. so, i will still assume that you are quoting faithfully. but which page or fasl is this? however, i can make one concession: if you can give me the arabic text, i will figure out the fasl-chapter myself, inShaAllah.
