Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hadith' started by FaqirHaider, Jun 16, 2020.
You've made your point. Any more trolling and you'll be gone.
Why are you guys so scared to follow rules of munazara and have it gave face to face. Are you above the rules of munazara ?
I can read maybe you struggle - rules of munazara dictate face to face - so anything not in the rules and conditions of munazara is not relevant.
Can you read? He HAS stepped up? Why are you so afraid of a written debate?
I’m guessing you have so many members here that you don’t know who Harris is yet he’s the one that posts the replies to Haroon’s status on my post from u.
you said “you must see the shouting matches of some munazirs - and shaykh asrar's helplessness at the pathetic performance of some of his opponents? Which debate was pathetic where munazara conditions were used n abided by.
The real issue for you here is, You said that your a student. If your a student then youve admitted you don’t meet the condition of munazara that is of equality. How about you finish your study then prove equality and then can you be in a position debate Haroon face to face. Until then see if you can find ready anyone who can meet the conditions of munazarah and debate out this matter of contagion. To be honest I could see why debating shaykh Asrar face to face would be an option for you due to his lack of studies you may win. I don’t understand why you mention Ala Hazrat and their fatwa also is there’s no contagion. Saying on one hand you don’t munazara then to say if you did would be with someone who’s studied less again is a cowards way out.
If you are correct and believe there is contagion in Islam and Haroon’s got this horribly wrong then for the sake of guiding the ummah away from falsehood you need to step up.
i believe that the system is outdated and dozens of topics that are taught in the present format were cutting edge in a different age and are as outdated as logarithmic tables and lithography in our time. when could one persuade the frog in the pond that a larger body of water exists? i am surprised why a pamphlet was not published or a poster pasted in the city.
kids who are just opening their eyes to the world will not understand what we mean by 'from memory'. we are not talking about the ibarat per se, but the argument - the answer to this argument is found where. we read a lot of books, and we know that an answer to this objection is found somewhere we have read. that would require time to look up etc. which is not possible in a few hours format.
people who don't have the ability to present their thoughts in readable paragraphs should not be lecturing on what works and what doesn't. just sayin'
it is immaterial that whether i like the format or not. it is an obselete format which has many disadvantages i have listed - i would like to know, what exactly is the purpose and advantages of the munazarah in this format. if you wish to behold the disadvantages, you must see the shouting matches of some munazirs - and shaykh asrar's helplessness at the pathetic performance of some of his opponents.
come to think of it, if i ever accepted to a munazarah of the verbal format, it could be if it was a worthy opponent who is intelligent and fair, like shaykh asrar. else, one would be exasperated at the hapless understanding of fools or cringe at their switching positions without compunction. and be dismayed at their denials.
we have seen here on this forum that even a written format does not deter the dishonest debaters who jump to another issue when cornered without even acknowledging that they were wrong.
even alahazrat said that there should be only written debates with people like wahabis (i extend that for everyone).
couldn't make head or tail of it.
who is harris?
imagine the level of thinking one can expect in a munazarah. lol.
i will post whatever i deem fit on this forum or release as a paper (again announced on this forum), in sha'Allah. if anyone has objections, they are free to post them here as mature adults (without profanities and inanities, LOL).
i don't have time to waste on fools, foolish arguments and people who are incapable of making a reasonable argument. salam.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
Haroon can reply in written form why he disagrees with what Abu Hasan has said.
You can be his proxy if he doesn't wish to register here. He can continue posting on Facebook and you can post his replies here.
It's the internet age. Ulama were having written exchanges centuries ago so it's nothing new.
Salaam Alaikum first of I’m not Haroon nor do I have any reason to pretend to be Haroon. Harris will confirm this for you.
You reply regarding munazara I don’t think it matters whether you “like the format or not” the rules n conditions are clearly laid out for all and I believe this system n book is taught to students as they progress their studies. Having a debate face to face doesn’t have to be from memory in many debates scholars have brought books so again that excuse is weak. Munazara is not their establish your worth ( don’t even know who you are) I shared Haroon’s posts on contagion and Harris replied with whatever is was you had told him disagreeing with the posts. The correct way to resolve this difference of opinions is through a debate using the books n rules taught. If you need references to where it states face to face I can send them to you.
Can you satisfy the conditions of munazara? I told Harris on my posts that I see shared on here even down to the hashtag #HaroonSultan lol, that if Abu Hassan thinks he’s right take it as an OPEN CHALLENGE to debate the issue of contagion out using the rules of munazara if Abu Hassan cannot meet the conditions then BRING ANY of your teachers that can.
first: HOW? on what basis? for what reason?
debating an issue is not backbiting. if someone said that the person's face was ugly or something like that it would be backbiting.
the words used by haroon sultan are not befitting a student of knowledge. either you are that person himself or speaking on his behalf. perhaps we can start with abstaining from profanities.
no time to do munazarah. i have repeatedly said that i don't like the verbal and the extempore format of munazarah. i prefer doing research, looking up books and refuting the argument rather than 'answer' the opponent and silence him regardless of whether such an answer would hold under academic scrutiny.
of course, there were people in the past who were mountains of ilm and could marshall evidence from memory. i have never made a claim that i am like them or that i would emulate them. even if i could do it, i think it is unfair to those who do not have a good memory or who take time to understand the argument. the worst part is that when a person says: 'i misunderstood your argument' or that 'let us start again, we are not in sync' or 'i never said that' - i find it difficult to deny the opposite party such excuses.
such munazarahs worked in the past. in our days, we can do munazarah online referring to books and refuting the other person's argument without their resorting to repudiation of their own stance. if the munazarah is out to establish my 'worth' however, i concede it without contest. i am only a student of knowledge.
in short, we are in the process of a munazarah if you like - if he answers my questions, we can proceed further.
what stops the person from presenting his evidence, if he has any?
if that evidence is faulty or its citation worthy of criticism, you will see it here.
be straightforward. be clear. do not be purposely vague. and if you are that person haroon sultan, own up. it is perfectly okay if you wish to be anonymous - but pretending to be person X defending person Y, when both X and Y are the same person, is deception. feel free to disagree.
Why not simply debate him using the rules and conditions of munazara then and put an end to the madness properly?
wouldnt this be considered backbiting?
I noticed even with the challenge posted on here, no one was qualified enough to accept it
Well three things have stood out immediately... the first that contagion is a "medical" belief I.e. not an Islamic belief.
Dear Brother Talib ul Haq:
I really have trouble understanding the nuance of it all.
1) Is the person being mentioned, denying "transmission" of disease from infected person to the non-infected one i.e. in the sense it is the disease within the infected person which brings into existence the disease in the non-infected individual.?
If yes, then he is correct. Because in Islam everything happens by the Will of Allah. Created causes have no intrinsic power to bring about effects. Allah (swt) is the creator of causes and effects.
2) Is the person denying the "correlation" between the infected person and the non-infected person?
If yes, then he is incorrect. And this entails denial of observed reality as well. The notion that non-infected person got infected from the infected person (A correlation) by the Will of Allah is not problematic. The infected person in this case is merely a correlation. Nothing more. Infected person is not the reason why the disease began to exist in the non-infected individual.
Similar to a certain"medicine" being a correlation of the "cure" when in fact it is Allah who created the medicine as well as the cure.
P.S. I am a medical doctor by profession. And I fail to see how (2) is against Islamic doctrine.
it is only in our age that people proudly strut their jahalat and beat their chests claiming to be the biggest scholars in town.
do 'personal' opinions of imam shafiyi and imam malik constitute ijmaa?
what are their 'official' opinions? [official jadid or official qadim?] as opposed to their 'personal' opinions.
instead of answering my straight simple question: "is there an ijmaa that there is nothing such as contagious disease"? our genius friend throws back:
so, the above statement:
1. is it a weak type of ijmaa? if so, which kind. (you could also enlighten us about others, but it is optional. you can omit it if you find it difficult to explain).
2. how many types of ijma "qatti" are there and which type of ijma "qatti" is this? and why?
3. to disambiguate the above - is this indeed a type of ijma "qatti", and therefore those who reject it are kafirs?
4. and another objective question: what is the ruling on the people who say that some diseases are contagious?
insulting a student like me or some scholar (i assume the 'so-called sheikhs' is a jibe for some aalim he has in mind) or belittling us is not a proper answer.
pardon my ignorance. i hadn't even heard of the suyuti of our time, until aqdas bhai posted his nuggets of wisdom dripping with the nectar of sweet and cultured speech. blame it entirely on my ignorance. but you could give a hint. which book, which section (pp helpful), and whether the book is available as PDF or one has to buy it - and if so where can one obtain it?
Please share. No need for the suspense and mystery.
Ok so I have the personal opinions of Sayyiduna Imam Malik and Sayyiduna Imam Shafi rahmatullahi alayhima on contagion.
Who wants a debate!
So called sheikhs thinking that a difference of opinion negates the concept of ijma... nevermind the weaker types of ijma, one of the types of ijma qatti becomes bound despite dispute such that if one rejects it they will be judged to be a kafir.
I wrote about this in detail in one of my books.
There is no such thing as contagion.
the biggest problem in this whole debate is the misunderstanding of 'contagion'.
we will in sha'Allah elaborate in my paper, but here is one of the key premises:
contagion WITHOUT any cause (or agent) - is `adwaa. this was the belief of jahiliyyah.
contagion BECAUSE of a cause (agent or sabab) is commonly observed and does not contradict the concept of "there is no `adwaa".
for example, one can get sick because of poisoning. one can get sick because of a snake bite. one can get sick because of n-number of "CAUSES".
if a man sits next to a person who has perfume on his hands, and upon his touch a person sitting next to him was smeared with some perfume and hence smells good - do we say that 'fragrance flew from person A to person B'? certainly not.
if person-A has deadly poison on his hands, and shakes the hand person-B; and B passes his own (now poison-smeared hand) upon his face or lips and gets sick or dies - do we say that "disease, venom or death jumped from A to B"?
of course, there will be people who will try to counter this with 'we have never heard of poison killing or causing sickness by a little smear'. one could counter them with: 'what about radioactive poisoning like litvinenko? or polonium as poison? (this abstract from lancet is enough for our argument).
i am sure, they will respond with radioactive poisoning being a 'medical belief' and not being an 'islamic belief'.
when there is a cause and effect, the concept of adwa (as in mysteriously being transferred from A to B) does not apply. notice, the common wording (ignoring varying additions and omissions) of the hadith is:
there is no contagion (should be qualified in translation: "without a cause")
there is nothing such as a bad omen
there is no evil in an owl
there is no harm in the month of safar.
if we qualify 'contagion' on account of a physical and observable cause - as a 'virus' in the present case - there is no contradiction in the hadith per se. and also resolves the predicament that hadith-masters had to face in reconciling the report with commonly observed phenomena.
microbiology and the concept of pathogens causing disease is a relatively recent discovery. even though microbes were discovered in the 16th century, what actually happened was not understood until the late 1800s; pasteur and koch being the pioneers.
it is unfair to blame islamic scholars prior to the 1940s - who were trying to reconcile hadith text with what was known by experience; HOWEVER, no one knew WHY.
many islamic scholars rejected the idea that disease 'jumps' from A to B - citing the literal meaning of the hadith. some hadith masters, however said that the hadith CAN be explained in a way that could reconcile with experience and 'medical belief' at that time, that INDEED, being in close proximity of a person with CERTAIN diseases could cause those in contact to be afflicted with the same disease without a proper explanation of WHY.
this also explains the generalisation - treating ALL diseases as contagious and posing the question - if X, why not Y? plus other factors such as immunity, response to infection is not the same by all individuals, presence of OTHER diseases, other health parameters etc were not at all taken into consideration.
we have mentioned imam muslim's demise by eating dates. it is quite possible that imam muslim raHimahullah, was a diabetic and an intake of so much sugar led to a spike in glucose levels and contributed to his demise (wAllahu a'alam). without knowledge about diabetes, we cannot make a generic statement that 'DATES ARE HEALTHY FOOD FOR EVERY ONE'.
objections by alahazrat on medical opinions are of this nature - treating disease as borne out of simple causes and not taking into consideration various factors, simply because that knowledge was not available at that time. and whatever was known was still speculative/theoretical and not empirical. (wAllahu a'alam).
based on the knowledge in our time, we have to reconcile the apparently contradictory statements in the hadith.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
The same chap has now wrote
Well three things have stood out immediately... the first that contagion is a "medical" belief I.e. not an Islamic belief. The second that the congregation will continue. The third and I think the most important that the people who are sick and excused will not have sin for missing congregation, from what it is understood that those not sick and not excused will have sin for missing the congregation.
All the mosques in this country are communally and individually sinful for either having closed the doors last week or for closing the doors this week.
Never mind. Found it
Does anyone know where i can find the detailed explanation of the hadith "la adwa" in Na`imat ul Bari or Sharh Sahih Muslim of Allama Saeedi sahib rahmatullahi `alayh?
Jazakum Allah for your help.