Seeing behind like infront

Discussion in 'Seerat ar-Rasul' started by sherkhan, Nov 13, 2008.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    You are hollow and dumber than the dumbest person I have seen. Go wallow in your self-serving delusions and you will be justly served sooner or later. I'm being personal since I'm dogmatic! (I don't know what "dogmatic sleep" means)

    Brother nJ asked if you had a shaikh or a teacher. I doubt if you have ever had one. You seem to be a self-taught person. When you are writing a book to benefit the entire ummah with your 'original' whacky interpretations? We had a teaser (actually 3 of them) from you and can't wait for more!
  2. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    I am Ubaid. this is who i am. i can pm you my address if you want to meet with me. i am often back and forth from Dubai so wherever you want i will meet you, inshAllah.

    it is no surprise that when you are unable to reply then go personal. something typical of people in dogmatic sleep.
  3. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    have you been on our portal before with a different id? if yes then why don't you use previous one, were you banned before due to same nonsensical arguments?
  4. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    no. because they also under taqiya justify things that are demeaning for Prophets(alayhum assalaam).

    note: taqleed in aqida is haram.

    Ya Shaykh Abd al Qadir al Jilani :ra: Shay'an Lillah!
  5. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    respected brother, that is fine by me. we think in different directions and from different frame of reference. the problems which such ideas create for natural deduction are the reason for me whereas scholars are the authority to you alone. everything that has been mentioned in this thread is relevent to the issue. for instance, you argued from appeal to majority scholars and in reply i said that majority scholars also held 'saghair sahvan' for the Prophets. whatever the details, 'blemishes' have been attributed to Prophets as you agree and i can feel another far-fetched looong post in the frame from you.
    you must realise it is better to call reporters and muhadithin and mutakallimmen wa ghaira hu made mistakes and had flaws in their arguments instead of trying to justify scholars. in which case you are demeaning(in my view) the status of Prophets.
    the standard is 'perfection' in dhaat and sifaat of Rasul Allah(sallalahu wa alayhi wa aalihi wasallam) and if anything or anyone states or argues otherwise then it unacceptable. three questions above have not and could not be anwered so alhamdolillah, my Prophet neither had any hizzush shaytaan nor made mistakes or did saghair whilst forgetting.

    one thing also has become clear that your initial calim that it is only 'miniscule minority' has also been proven wrong. it is not a new element brother but very much relevent to the basis of your argument.

    no hard feelings and i love you and respect you. next time address the questions and not ad hominem the person because it is very easy for logicians to tell who has a weak argument.
  6. are you a shia?
  7. ubaid,can i ask who is your shaykh?
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    inshaAllah, i won't engage with you further on this matter.

    you are introducing new elements in the discussion which are also false. we will examine this in a separate thread, insha Allah:
    i will grant it that you are right on this one but, one should not say this without mentioning the details and what zallah and khata'a means; and that it is not possible to commit saghayir which are dirty, base and despicable [like stealing. lying etc.]. you are deviating the topic in an entirely different direction while totally avoiding the main topic.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2008
    Umar99 likes this.
  9. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    your ad hominem style says volumes.


    1. simple question is: if hizz ushaytaan was something good then why was it removed? the removal itself means that it was not good. hence the whole point. why didnt hazrat Maryam not have it.
    if Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wasallam) was born circumcised etc then why not without hizzush shaytaan.

    2. you have also avoided thiqa rijaal thesis. we presented a thiqa sanad but why rely on external evidence to explain it if thiqa rijaal was the only mizaan.

    3. sharah aqaid, sharah maqasid, sharah mawaqif, sharah fiqh akbar all say that majority opinion is that saghair sahvan are possible.

    please reply to these questions and do not avoid them.
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    as usual, incoherent blabbering with slander and false accusations to spice it up.

    by this time, perhaps, you are the only ignoramus who sticks to this false and slanderous statement. a man has to be either utterly stupid or egregiously shameless to stick with this opinion. we never said it - it is your fanciful imagination and delusion.

    we are all at risk of cancer. does that mean we are all cancer patients?

    unlike you, who is proud and haughty to make a stupid statement and stick by it, i am followin muhaddithin. it is their methodology.

    they never accepted that it was a part of shaytan - only you are slandering them.

    what an absurd and illogical statement ... like most of what you have said.

    that is an accusation for which there is no basis. not that i expect you to understand these things as they are beyond your capabilities as you have adequately demonstrated, but the fallacies in it can be showcased to teach how NOT to form an argument.
    a. my framework of belief has simply not been defined in this argument. i have never stated that i follow every muhaddith in everything!

    b. the ulama who held that a possibility of prophets commiting minor sins are a miniscule minority. and i expressly reject their opinion unlike some people who are equivocal.

    c. however, qadi iyad, nawawi, sanusi, are not among them. they have proved in many ways that prophets are ma'sum and i can give you references if you want. incidentally, qadi iyad uses this very hadith as one of the major points of `ismah!

    d. first, i did not say that i unflinchingly believe everything that muhaddithin said in EVERY subject. second, it is not proved that qadi iyad et al believed in this [prophets commiting saghayir]; third, i did not say that i believe in the muhaddithin who claimed that belief.

    i demand you to produce this list. it is another false accusation on noble scholars. indeed, there are some who have said it, but your claim that it is a 'long' list is utterly baseless. you can disprove me by producing the list.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2008
    Umar99 likes this.
  11. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    the reason for rejection is that it makes Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wasallam) having had a shaytaan X in Him(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wasallam) which was removed but unlike Jesus and Maryam(alayhuma assalaam) who were free from such shaytaan part as Suhaili had suggested hence according to your methodology fixing its meaning.

    also please dont be so confident in listing muhaddithin because they accepted that part of shytaan was removed and then concluded that in future such and such benefits were achieved.

    however, there is a long list of mufassirin, muhaddithin, mutakallimin that have concluded that it was possible for Prophets to commit saghair sahvan(commit minor sins by forgetting), given your framework of believe, you also in following those ulema believe that prophets could commit minor sins.....shame on you too!
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    you are incapable of writing an objective sentence. and who is 'we'?

    1. does your latest claim mean that we reject the hadith of muslim 261? and we should add an annotation that it is a rejected hadith?

    2. if yes, please quote any muhaddith

    3. are you suggesting that the following muhaddithin: sanusi, ubayy, nawawi, qadi iyad and muslim himself are incapable of grading hadith? and that they do not understand usūl?

    4. are you suggesting that all these muhaddithin do not know arabic as well as your translator?

    5. are you suggesting that all of these muhaddithin did not have dirayah because none of them commented on the validity of the hadith itself?

    6.are you suggesting that all these muhaddithin have no feeling or respect towards the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam? or they did not know it?

    7.can you quote any major muhaddith who has rejected this hadith? please write the reference in case you manage to find one.

    the truth is that your own posts are insolent and disrespectful when referring to the prophet sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam - even if it is for argument's sake. much like thanawi did. shame on you.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
  13. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

  14. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Without deflecting the course of discussion, I would like to cite the commentary by G F Haddad* on the event of shaqq-e-sadr as prelude to the journey of Isra and Miraj.

    "Imam al-Taqi al-Subki said the 'black clot' represents the potentiality of shaytanic influence over every human heart, not its necessity, least of all in the Prophet's SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam: , while Imam Ahmad Rida Khan said the 'black clot' represents the part of the Prophet's SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam: mercy (rahma) that would have benefited shaytan on Qiyama."

    ...and you still think that brother abu Hasan's translation of the hadith is dishonest!

    Ubaid, don't bother replying to this post (and use it to digress, as is your wont) ... just try to respond coherently to aH's questions.

    * "The Prophet's Night Journey & Heavenly Ascent", Sayyid Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki, translated and annotated by G F Haddad, Aqsa Publication, page 5
  15. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    what has been argued so far is that the standard of authenticity of a hadith regarding Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wasallam) is that if it has anything in the text/matn which does not befit the 'perfection' then on this basis we reject such hadith.
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    so, what do you suggest concerning the hadith of muslim no.261?

    please be direct and objective.
    Umar99 likes this.
  17. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

  18. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    respected brother,

    i am surprised at how you could totally avoid necessary and sufficient 'part' of the discussion and harp about all that is not required or relevent to my pervious questions.

    1. none of them deny that Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wasallam) HAD shaytaan X in Him, as Part of Him.

    2. all muhaddithin are arguing for is CONSEQUENCES of the REMOVAL of Shaytaan X , whilst admitting to its priority in body of Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wasallam).

    3. the translation of the text is your own not of muhaddithin as they are dealing with CONSEQUENCES of the removal of shaytaan X.

    4. Prior to the REMOVAL of shaytaan X, according to you, it was possible to influence Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wasallam)! but as Suhaili says it was not possible to influence Eesa(A) and Maryam(S). did maryam not have a father and mother? so you are entatining the POssibility for Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wasallam) to be influenced by SHAytaan before removal yet there is no POssibility for Jesus And Maryam!

    5. muta is not what is argued for, which you seem to frame and attack. there is a fine point of tranmission here. your thesis that for a haidth to be sahih it has to only have 'thiqa rijaal'... but the hadith i presented is amongst counterexamples to your priniciples. the point is not muta allowed but what the WORDING of this particular hadith is ' we did muta in abu bakr and Umer's time'
    all other talk of abrogation or not knowing or differences amongst sahaba etc is not in THIS PARTicular CHAIN or WORDS of thiqa reporters.
    therefore there is evidence EXTERNAL to this report which qualifies and restricts this one via dirayah. blind principle that thiqa rijaal only is the requirement, thats it, is what you say and by this thiqa chain and words we have disproved that formulation of yours. now, you have to say that thiqa rijaal are not sufficiennt but we have to look at...X

    more could be said but one could lose sight of the issue with rhetoric and translations of prefaces of other researchers.
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    and if we go back to suhayli - abdu'r raHman as-suhayli - the grammarian [author of amālī as-suhayli] and biographer, whose book rawd al-unuf is the source for ubbi and sanusi's comments mentioned earlier. note that he does not deny the validity of the hadith nor reject it. rather considers it as proof of something special!
    in this hadith, there is an explanation of the ambiguity found earlier; because it is said there that 'the part that is sought/poked by satan and the clot of blood was removed'

    this proves that the part that was taken from him was that which would be touched/influenced by satan and present in every child that is born except yisa ibn maryman and his mother - alayhima as-salam - as the verse says (quoting maryam's mother):

    and verily, i seek thy refuge for her [maryam] and her offspring from the accursed satan. [aal imran, 36]
    therefore, satan could never reach him [yisa alayhis salam] because he was not created with the seed of man, he was asked to be given refuge [uyīdhahu] from that vulnerable part [maghmaz] for he was created by the puff of gabriel.

    this does not prove that yisa alyahi's salam was superior to sayyiduna muHammad sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam. because this vulnerable [maghmaz] part was removed from his heart and filled with wisdom and faith after gabriel [ruh al-quds] washed it with ice and cold.

    it is this vulnerable part [maghmaz] which is the place where desires are aroused and that which satans whisper into, not to mention the desire of those who are not muslim.*

    this vulnerable part is because of the father, not because of the pure and pristine son - sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam.
    remember that suhayli is a grammarian [also a lexicographer like qadi iyad] and don't tell me that he did not understand this hadith better than the poor english translator!

    *it is this point probably that alahazrat extrapolated in his ta'wil of the hadith. Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2008
    Umar99 likes this.
  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    you must read qadi iyad's explanation and you have to make a difference between:
    "a part that is vulnerable to shaytan"


    "a satanic part"
    if you cannot understand this basic difference, we cannot go further. we reject the second proposition altogether as it is a poor translation. the rest of your argument hinges on this misunderstanding.

    concerning suhaili's comment, assuming you have quoted correctly, it simply means that 'this vulnerable part' did not exist in them. so there is no contradiction at all with other explanations. [see far below for suhayli's comment]

    and it is obvious that you have not read qadi íyađ's commentary and if you did, you have not understood it.

    as i have already said it: the part was not satanic at all. it was a part vulnerable to satan. and since it was removed, there was no chance for satan to influence.

    in tarikh al-khulafa of suyuti, the statement that umar was the first to ordain mutáh to be ĥaram is actually reported from al-askari in 'the first to do..' list. there is no explanation or anything but just a comment among other things that he was the first to ordain mutáh as haram.

    the problem with some people is, particularly the shiah influenced, that they will go and hunt some obscure comment in a totally unrelated book ignoring whole volumes dedicated to the subject!

    when we are discussing a point of fiqh and hadith, you ignore exegeses of hadith and find refuge in a book of history? talk about relevance. that is like a physics student attempting to learn about f.diagrams in feynman's autobiography!

    when people do not have substance, they fall all over themselves on soundbites. recently, the intellectually bankrupt republicans claimed that obama was a socialist! just because he said: 'spread the wealth..'

    if you consider suyuti as a respectable source, i can quote suyuti himself on the matter of mutáh. there is an ijmáa on this; the only ones who refuse to accept this are the rafidis.

    i spared you the 'irrelevant translations' and gave you the gist. actually, imam nawawi's al-minhaj, the exegesis of muslim has a detailed exposition on mutáh and it is his direct quote that those who continued mutáh in the time of abu bakr and úmar had not learnt of its prohibition.

    i sat for a few seconds dumbstruck at this utterly ignorant statement. are you joking? that very part of muslim contains more than dozen hadith, directly from RasulAllah sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam that ordain mutáh as haram.

    including many narrated from ali radiyallahu `anhu himself! you talk about dirayah - but let it go on a long hike to the alps and back while you discuss this issue?

    so much so that many of the hadith are narrated by no less than sayyiduna álī karramAllah wajhah!
    narrated to us muhammad ibn abdullah ibn namir: narrated to us my father [abdullah]: narrated to us ubaydullah from ibn shihab from al-Hasan and abdullah ibn muHammad ibn `ali from their father that:
    when `ali [ibn abi talib] heard that ibn abbas was lenient in the matter of muta'h, he said to him: 'desist* o son of abbas! for verily RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam forbade us from it [mutáh] on the day of khaybar and from [eating] the flesh of domestic donkeys.'
    the hadith that says we practised mutáh in the time of abu bakr and umar is narrated by jabir ibn abdullah. and there is another hadith by the same sahabi where he said:
    until úmar forbade it.
    imam nawawi comments:
    that is, when the news of abrogation reached umar, he was the first to promulgate it.
    also, ask your dirayah on why did imam al-Hasan not do mutáh and instead married about a hundred women [though not at the same time]?

    yeah, and it was not i who brought up the dirayah thing. if you read other hadith (there are about 30 narrations in this chapter) along with inputs from muhaddithin who take from sahih hadith in other books and explain this hadith.

    it takes courage to say nowhere - because, unless you have examined everything fully, you cannot make a claim like that.

    this does not qualify for a response.

    who knows what you are arguing for? your argument is all convoluted and you keep mixing up everything. i don't expect this from you, but let me summarize:
    - our original point was that a sahih hadith is classified sahih on the basis of rijal.

    - and because it has been handed down by sahih rijal, it cannot be rejected outright.

    - the implications of the hadith itself are further studied. but, just because the hadith in its extraneous form/literal form appears to contradict our established principles, we cannot reject a sahih hadith. we have to reconcile it with many things and that is the job of fuqaha/muhaddithin.

    - if we choose and reject hadith arbitrarily on the basis of our frail understanding, we are hacking away at the foundations of our religion.

    if qadi `iyad and imam nawawi did not rule this hadith to be rejected; nor did other exegetes, what makes us audacious enough to overrule them without having learnt the fundamentals of hadith?

    you mentioned sharH sanusi, but a little interesting background on this:
    imam al-māzari [d.536 AH] wrote : al-múlim bi fawayidi muslim [sharĥ]

    qađi íyāđ [d.544 AH] wrote supercommentary: ikmāl al-múlim bi fawāyid muslim

    shaykh ubayy al-maliki [d.827 AH] wrote a supercommentary on qadi iyad's supercommentary: ikmāl ikmāl al-múlim

    and shaykh muhammad ibn yusuf as-sanusi [d.895 AH] wrote a supercommentary on shaykh ubayy al-maliki's supercommentary: mukammil ikmāl al-ikmāl al-múlim
    though they are supposed to be supercommentaries, in reality they are all independent commentaries but drawing from the previous ones.

    anyway, as-sannusi's commentary quotes qadi iyad first and then al-ubayy in these words:
    it can be explained that probably, this is the part which satan pokes, touches, feels [yaghmizu] in every child that is born except yisa and his mother alayhima as-salam. this does not prove that yisa alayhi's salam is superior [to our nabiy] because this part [that is vulnerable to satan's touch] was removed from our prophet's heart sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and its place was washed to remove any traces [of that vulnerability] and that place was filled with wisdom and faith [hikmah wa iman].
    notice that neither suhayli, nor ubayy nor sanusi [and earlier qadi iyad and imam nawawi] deny this hadith or reject it; they rather explain it which our friend summarily dismisses their reconciliations with [see in post#3]:

    *the word used by mawla álī is mahlan ya-bn ábbās! which is an interjection used by arabs when asking someone to withhold or let go; in taj al-arus: mahlan ya rajul means: 'desist, relax and don't be hasty.'
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2008
    Umar99 likes this.

Share This Page