The Infinite Loop of the Rafida

Society Religion & Philosophy
61

[QUOTE]
First, it's not true that there aren't Shia who don't consider all of Al-Kafi to be authentic. For instance Sharafudeen Al-Musawi even declared its content to be mutawatir (besides being sahih).

[/QUOTE]

Provide a reference.

[QUOTE]
But you know you are very strange. When I say your books contain thousands of lies, some Rafidi pops up and calls this a "bunch of accusations", when I bring the reference, another one pops up and starts defending this fact. Seems you are here to contradict whatever is being said.

[/QUOTE]

You know, contrary to what you might believe we are seperate individuals. Two "Rafidis" are seperate individuals equally susceptible to misunderstanding their religion as you nasibis. But thats ur problem isnt it. From the start you assumed shias are a single multiheaded beast and hence each one equally understyanding their faith and equallt responsible for the other. Regarding the other brother who thought that shias consider Kafi to Sahih from start to finish, he is mistaken. Its as simple as that. Get over it.

[QUOTE]
Who told you that we can't defend them? I challenged your brother 1010 to open a new thread solely dedicated to this topic and he refused. This shows that he isn't really looking for an answer, rather he is simply trying to distract from the actual topic of this thread since no Rafidi is able to answer it. As I said this is a common habit, and shows weakness.

[/QUOTE]

I dont know about bro 1010 but give me a two weeks to get over my current commitments and I'll happily oblige you. Do remind me though.

Regarding your explanation of the verb YAZAKARU , you have assumed that Quran uses only a single meaning of a word throughout, although this isnt true.

[QUOTE]
As for the second verse you are presenting, it doesn't relate to the topic whatsoever. It isn't even talking about the Quraan, so I won't answer it in this thread although even here your argumentation that it refers to the Aimmah can be easily destroyed (that's why your scholars like Al-Qummi considered this verse to be manipulated, wal3iyazu billah). But this leads us away from the main topic.

[/QUOTE]

You know its quite amusing that whenever you get cornered you say "this is leading us away from the topic". Off topic comments which u can answer u do, ignoring their irrelevance.
The verse I presented to you was in support of the translation of verse 3:7 that you were arguing on. So if you found verse 3:7 relevant (since you did argue regarding that) then why is the second verse irrelevant?

[QUOTE]
The same applies to your two questions about the "unclear" verses, this is not our topic. The question here is whether you understand the "clear" verses and whether you are allowed to do Tafsir for these verses without relying on "authentic narrations" by your Aimmah. Don't sidetrack.

[/QUOTE]

My god man. Read the above again. Your telling me my questions about the unclear verses are "off topic". One of the questions I asked you was how you identify the clear verses. And in the following sentence you are telling me that topic is "whether you understand the "clear" verses and whether you are allowed to do Tafsir for these verses without relying on "authentic narrations" by your Aimmah."
I dont think I need to explain to you why exactly your embarrasing urself here. So I'll paste my two questions again:

"1-how you can identify which are the clear verses of the Quran?
2- Whats the purpose of ALlah revealing verses of the Quran whose meaning none but He know? "

I've alread explained the relevance of the first question. heres the relevance of the second. According to the translation I presented I maintain that there have been men who understand the whole quran from start to finish. You maintain otherwise. I ask you whats the logic behind your position since it seems quits illogical.
This time why dont u actually face up to the questions instead of running away screaming "off topic! off topic!"

62

.

63

Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,

[QUOTE]
Suppose there is an ayat in the quran, regarding Hijab. Suppose there is something attributed to an Imam/the Prophet in one of our compilations. Should that attribution run contrary to the Quran's ayat, we reject that attribution. Since we believe Quran to be infallible, whereas any other line in any other book, not so.
[/QUOTE]

You know what you have just done? Confirming the second assumption that I relied on - nothing more.

Let me use your own example to explain the problem again. Your scholars have said that you aren't allowed to do any Tafsir of a verse without "authentic narrations" by your Aimmah since only they understand the Quraan. So how do you want to know that any narration contradicts this verse about Hijab if you don't understand the verse in the Quraan and the real meaning of the verse is exclusively understood by the Aimmah?

[QUOTE]
Provide a reference.
[/QUOTE]

Al-Muraja'aat, P. 335, Al-Muraja'a N. 110

[QUOTE]
You know, contrary to what you might believe we are seperate individuals. Two "Rafidis" are seperate individuals equally susceptible to misunderstanding their religion as you nasibis.
[/QUOTE]

So now I'm a nasibi?

[QUOTE]
From the start you assumed shias are a single multiheaded beast and hence each one equally understyanding their faith and equallt responsible for the other. Regarding the other brother who thought that shias consider Kafi to Sahih from start to finish, he is mistaken.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't think someone who doesn't even know Sheikh ul Ta'ifah Al-Tussi can judge his brothers in sect.
And no I never considered you to be a multiheaded beast, for a beast might be frightening, yet you aren't.

[QUOTE]
I dont know about bro 1010 but give me a two weeks to get over my current commitments and I'll happily oblige you. Do remind me though.
[/QUOTE]

inshaAllah

[QUOTE]
Regarding your explanation of the verb YAZAKARU , you have assumed that Quran uses only a single meaning of a word throughout, although this isnt true.
[/QUOTE]

Bring me a single verse that supports your claim. I brought you my proof, now it's your turn if you want to refute it.

[QUOTE]
You know its quite amusing that whenever you get cornered you say "this is leading us away from the topic". Off topic comments which u can answer u do, ignoring their irrelevance.
[/QUOTE]

That's a nice theory or claim, but the problem is would I have challenged 1010 for instance to open a new thread solely dedicated to the topic to which he tried to distract if I was cornered? And to make you happy, I invite you to open a new thread solely dedicated to the interpretation of this verse.
As a matter of fact, it shows that you are cornered when you bring up irrelevant issues and fail to answer the main question of this thread.

[QUOTE]
The verse I presented to you was in support of the translation of verse 3:7 that you were arguing on. So if you found verse 3:7 relevant (since you did argue regarding that) then why is the second verse irrelevant?
[/QUOTE]

It doesn't support it in any way. The first one talks about understanding the Quraan which might have to do with our topic, so I replied to it. When you failed to answer you came up with the second verse, which talks about obedience towards Ulul Amr (remember the first verse was about Al-Rasikhuna fi 'ilmi and Ulul Albab). These are two completely different matters.

[QUOTE]
One of the questions I asked you was how you identify the clear verses. And in the following sentence you are telling me that topic is "whether you understand the "clear" verses and whether you are allowed to do Tafsir for these verses without relying on "authentic narrations" by your Aimmah.
I dont think I need to explain to you why exactly your embarrasing urself here."
[/QUOTE]

It's not me who is embarrassing himself rather it's the one who fails to understand what this thread is about. Both of your questions don't contribute to the infinite loop in any way. They simply have nothing to do with it. Basically you tried to argue that you understand the clear verses, while ONLY the "unclear" can be exclusively understood by the Aimmah.

You can't prove this argument by trying to convince me that indeed the Aimmah understand the unclear verses because I never assumed you don't believe in this. Yet the problem is that your scholars obviously don't agree with your assumptions according to which anybody is able to understand certain verses without the Aimmah's narrations. That's the point! I hope you understand.

Anyway, if you are interested to know more about "unclear verses" and get an answer to your question, you are free to open a new thread.

wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda

64

[QUOTE]
Well, I don't think someone who doesn't even know Sheikh ul Ta'ifah Al-Tussi can judge his brothers in sect.
[/QUOTE]

Do you even know the meaning of the words your using. I'm not "judging" him. I am saying he made a mistake. Grab a dictionary before u use words u dont understand.

[QUOTE]
And no I never considered you to be a multiheaded beast, for a beast might be frightening, yet you aren't
[/QUOTE]

oh brother. your not very bright are you? or mature for that mater.

[QUOTE]
Bring me a single verse that supports your claim. I brought you my proof, now it's your turn if you want to refute it.

[/QUOTE]

are u claiming that the Quran uses the same meaning of every word in it throughout its text?

[QUOTE]
That's a nice theory or claim, but the problem is would I have challenged 1010 for instance to open a new thread solely dedicated to the topic to which he tried to distract if I was cornered? And to make you happy, I invite you to open a new thread solely dedicated to the interpretation of this verse.
As a matter of fact, it shows that you are cornered when you bring up irrelevant issues and fail to answer the main question of this thread.

[/QUOTE]

This is turning into a "I-knoe-u-are-but-what-am-I" conversation. You are saying I brought up irrelevant stuff although I explained the relevance of what I said. Instead of refuting it logically you say "As a matter of fact, it shows that you are cornered when you bring up irrelevant issues ". Is that all the reasonig u can give?

[QUOTE]
It doesn't support it in any way. The first one talks about understanding the Quraan which might have to do with our topic, so I replied to it. When you failed to answer you came up with the second verse, which talks about obedience towards Ulul Amr (remember the first verse was about Al-Rasikhuna fi 'ilmi and Ulul Albab). These are two completely different matters.

[/QUOTE]

Not at all. For god to make obedience to these Ulul-ul-Amr mandatory on a muslim after Himself and the prophet(pbuh) entails these people being superior to everyone else. Also. if there are men (Ulul-Albab) who understand the Quran from end to end and know the meaning of all of Allah's revelation they are surely superior to those who do not know. Both of these matters are clear. So Ulul-Amr and Ulul-Albab must refer to the same individuals. And hence the relevance of the second verse I introduced.

[QUOTE]
It's not me who is embarrassing himself rather it's the one who fails to understand what this thread is about. Both of your questions don't contribute to the infinite loop in any way. They simply have nothing to do with it. Basically you tried to argue that you understand the clear verses, while ONLY the "unclear" can be exclusively understood by the Aimmah.

[/QUOTE]

:) Now that you've come this far and cant answer my questions your trying to take this argument back. You urself argued on the verse regarding Ulul_Albab. We had a difference of opinion regarding that ayat's translation. Until then everything was relevant to you. I asked you two questions which are directly related to the meaning of that verse a I explained in my earlier post. And when you couldnt come up with an answer that can save face for you, suddenly you call foul and try to recap everything before then. I suggest you go through this thread again to see where exactly you went wrong. coz u sure as hell came riding in here with guns blazing. And now your calling everything irrelevant.

65

Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,

[QUOTE]
Do you even know the meaning of the words your using. I'm not "judging" him. I am saying he made a mistake. Grab a dictionary before u use words u dont understand.
[/QUOTE]

So to declare that someone made a mistake is not a judgment? Interesting indeed.

[QUOTE]
are u claiming that the Quran uses the same meaning of every word in it throughout its text?
[/QUOTE]

No, I was simply asking you to prove that the word was ever used in the meaning you are relying on. Seems you can't.

[QUOTE]
You are saying I brought up irrelevant stuff although I explained the relevance of what I said. Instead of refuting it logically you say "As a matter of fact, it shows that you are cornered when you bring up irrelevant issues ". Is that all the reasonig u can give?
[/QUOTE]

That's simply not true. You told me that I obviously don't have answers to your irrelevant questions and that therefore I declared them to be irrelevant, so I reminded you of my invitation to open a new thread solely dedicated to these questions yet you somehow ignored it. Furthermore I did explain to you why these questions are irrlevant, yet unfortunately you are blinding yourself.

[QUOTE]
Not at all. For god to make obedience to these Ulul-ul-Amr mandatory on a muslim after Himself and the prophet(pbuh) entails these people being superior to everyone else.
[/QUOTE]

Again that's what you believe, but it is not a necessity. Moreover even if we agreed to your claim, then it doesn't mean Ulul Amr understand the unclear verses for there is no specification of their superiority in the verse. But even if we agreed that indeed Al-Rasikhuna fil 'ilmi understand the unclear verses, it doesn't mean that you understand the clear ones. At least it is not a proof for that. Do you understand why all this argument is irrelevant now?

[QUOTE]
Now that you've come this far and cant answer my questions your trying to take this argument back.
[/QUOTE]

See above, I challenged you to open a new thread for all these questions that don't relate to the topic. If you aren't brave enough for that, then please spare us such nonsense.

[QUOTE]
urself argued on the verse regarding Ulul_Albab.We had a difference of opinion regarding that ayat's translation. Until then everything was relevant to you.
[/QUOTE]

Here is my very first answer to the matter:

"So your question who these people are doesn't relate to the topic.** Anyway, they are the scholars."**

It was you who kept riding on it, so I responded to give you a chance of actually making a reasonable point that relates to the topic, but unfortunately you didn't and only kept trying to take the discussion about unclear verses further. Therefore I say, if you have something to add to the discussion specifically about the infinite loop, then do so. Otherwise open a new thread if you want to continue the discussion about these verses. It's up to you.

BTW, there is no need to start getting furious and making ridiculous comments. You are neither the first nor the last Rafidi who couldn't answer the simple problem of the infinite loop in your sect, so I do understand why you are trying to distract from this topic. Likewise Tijani was confronted with the same problem, and he failed. So cheer up.

wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda

66

Musanna wants to say whatever he wants to say to others, but when someone replies he immediately comes up and say "this is not pertinent to the topic".

He calls weak ahadith of Kafi to be "lies", and when some lies are shown to him from his own books, he says it is "not pertinent to the topic"!!

If it was not pertinent then why the hell did he bring it in discussion anyway?

67

[QUOTE]
So to declare that someone made a mistake is not a judgment? Interesting indeed.

[/QUOTE]

No its not, its a simple fact. Like someone saying the skyis red, I dont need to know the PERSON to say he is mistaken. In other words, I am not judging THE PERSON who made the mistake, just stating a fact.

[QUOTE]
No, I was simply asking you to prove that the word was ever used in the meaning you are relying on. Seems you can't.

[/QUOTE]

First of all I am not talking about that particular word, but any word. Second of all if u are not denying it why should I substantiate? And I'll quote urself on this when a brother asked you to prove urself. YOU SAID:
"You know we are talking about basics, it's like telling me before starting a debate about the sun, prove the existence of the sun to me. Well, why should I do so if you don't deny it? Why should I waste my time looking for the sources if you agree with the assertions anyway? This is foo foo dust."

hehe foo food dust. (?)

[QUOTE]
That's simply not true. You told me that I obviously don't have answers to your irrelevant questions and that therefore I declared them to be irrelevant, so I reminded you of my invitation to open a new thread solely dedicated to these questions yet you somehow ignored it. Furthermore I did explain to you why these questions are irrlevant, yet unfortunately you are blinding yourself.

[/QUOTE]

(sgh) I apologize to everyone who has to endure this but theres no way to respond to him but to repeat what he continues to not understand.
The thing is that those irrelevant questions were called irrelevant by YOU not me. so why are u telling me that since you have declared them irrelevant I must open a new thread? Its you who deem them irrelevant without explaining why. I consider them very relevant and explained more than once why.

[QUOTE]
Again that's what you believe, but it is not a necessity. Moreover even if we agreed to your claim, then it doesn't mean Ulul Amr understand the unclear verses for there is no specification of their superiority in the verse. But even if we agreed that indeed Al-Rasikhuna fil 'ilmi understand the unclear verses, it doesn't mean that you understand the clear ones. At least it is not a proof for that. Do you understand why all this argument is irrelevant now?

[/QUOTE]

Actually I explained very clearly why Ulool-ul_Amr and "Al-Rasikhuna fil 'ilmi " are one and the same. You have given any thing to refute my logic. Just given statements. and somehow end it with a very smug question. Once again, I tell you read my posts more carefully.

[QUOTE]
See above, I challenged you to open a new thread for all these questions that don't relate to the topic. If you aren't brave enough for that, then please spare us such nonsense.

[/QUOTE]

(sigh) ok lets try it in capitals this time. Maybe the bigger characters will help in your understanding.
I DIDNT SAY THEY ARE IRRELEVANT. YOU SAID THEY ARE IRRELOEVANT. i CONSIDER THEM TO BE VERY MUCH BELONGING TO THIS THREAD. YOU DONT. WHY SHUD I OPEN A NEW THREAD.

there. I even used small sentences. who says I'm not a nice guy?

[QUOTE]
Here is my very first answer to the matter:

"So your question who these people are doesn't relate to the topic. Anyway, they are the scholars."

It was you who kept riding on it, so I responded to give you a chance of actually making a reasonable point that relates to the topic, but unfortunately you didn't and only kept trying to take the discussion about unclear verses further. Therefore I say, if you have something to add to the discussion specifically about the infinite loop, then do so. Otherwise open a new thread if you want to continue the discussion about these verses. It's up to you.

[/QUOTE]

Yet subsequent to this you argued with me over that verse for quite some time, until you became stuck, then you recalled again that this is off topic. Secondly, I've explained the logic behind my assertion that these verses are relevant. You on the other hand, give fatwas of irrelevance left and right without an iota of justification.

[QUOTE]
You are neither the first nor the last Rafidi who couldn't answer the simple problem of the infinite loop in your sect, so I do understand why you are trying to distract from this topic.
[/QUOTE]

Your really hyped up on this "infinite loop" arent you. And quite frankly, I can understand why none of us "rafidis" could answer ur bull, probably because our answers were irrelevant. right?

[QUOTE]
Likewise Tijani was confronted with the same problem, and he failed. So cheer up.

[/QUOTE]

Actually when Tijani was asked this he answered the guy very clearly. That guy still didnt understand (because secretly he was a jew working against the Muslim Umma). So Tijani then challenged that guy to a mubahla. That jewish spy died exactly one year after the mubahla yet Mr Tijani still lives on!
(If you can continue to give unsubstantiated Bull****, I might as well join you)

68

Musanna's loop consists of two questions. First one says:

[quote]
1. Only Aimmah understand Quraan.
[/quote]

Picard replied:

[quote]
The Quran says that there are some verses in it whose meaning is clear and some verses in it whose meaning is hidden. The Quran itself says that the meaning of the hidden verses is known only to the "Ulool-ul-Amr".
[/quote]

Musanna says:

[quote]
No, the verses whose meaning is not clear except for Allah (swt) are only known to Allah (swt) and nobody else.
[/quote]

That's plain stupid.

Quran was sent to man. Then why would Allah send something to us which we can not understand at all?
Why would Allah give us verses which nobody can understand except Allah? What's the reason?

And talk about the TEACHER who is bringing the verses to us, but who does not know what that means himself!! So a teacher is teaching his pupils but he himself does not know what actually does it mean?!

Can Musanna quote any of the verse which Prophet declined to answer using the excuse that it is meant for Allah alone?

69

Let's look at first statement of Musanna's loop again:

[quote]
1. Only Aimmah understand Quraan.
[/quote]

To keep the records straight, let me complete it by saying: Only Allah, Paighambar, and Imams (appointed by Allah) understand Quran *fully*.

70

One of the ways to determine the authenticity of Prophet’s hadith is by comparing it to Quran:

" 2. A Hadith must not be against the Quran…"

Hence one way to authenticate hadith of Prophet is to compare it with Quran.

Now let’s see two statements of Musanna’s loop put together:

In the first statement, I replace the word “Aimmah” with “Allah”, and in the second statement I replace the word “Aimmah” with “Prophet”.

Musanna’s loop would not look like following:

**1. Only Allah understand(s) Quraan.
2. Authenticity of Statements of the Prophet determined by Quraan comparison.

Problem:

You can’t determine the authenticity based on something which only those people understand whose statements you want to authenticate.

—> INFINITE LOOP.**

So you want to determine authenticity of Hadith, based on Quran which only Allah understands?

—> INFINITE LOOP…

71

Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a al-Houda,

how amusing to see Rafida getting furious for their failure to answer a simple problem.

[QUOTE]
I am not judging THE PERSON who made the mistake, just stating a fact.
[/QUOTE]

according to YOUR opinion he did a mistake, thus you were judging him.

[QUOTE]
First of all I am not talking about that particular word, but any word. Second of all if u are not denying it why should I substantiate?
[/QUOTE]

I do deny that the translation you are relying on is correct. I didn't ask you to show me in general that a word can have different meanings, this is out of question, but rather we were talking about a specific word for which you suggested a certain meaning based on a far fetched translation. So I asked you to prove that this specific word was ever used in the Quraan with this meaning, and you failed up to now.
So you are trying to mix up up a general fact with a specific demand. Is it because you are trying to hide your failure in bringing a single verse that would support the translation you are relying on?

[QUOTE]
The thing is that those irrelevant questions were called irrelevant by YOU not me. so why are u telling me that since you have declared them irrelevant I must open a new thread? Its you who deem them irrelevant without explaining why. I consider them very relevant and explained more than once why.
[/QUOTE]

I elaborately explained why they are absolutely irrelevant. Here is a quick reminder:

Even if you believe that indeed the Aimmah understand the unclear verses, then it doesn't help you solving the infinite loop, because it doesn't mean that YOU are allowed to interpret the other verses. Was this simple enough for you?

As a matter of fact your belief that the Aimmah understand the unclear verses is even included in the first asumption of the infinite loop. So you are confirming it, not refuting it. So I thank you for underlining the validity of the first asumption of the infinite loop, but I was actually looking for a refutation.

[QUOTE]
Yet subsequent to this you argued with me over that verse for quite some time, until you became stuck, then you recalled again that this is off topic.
[/QUOTE]

Seems your exams are giving you a hard time...

Read again:

"It was you who kept riding on it, so I responded to give you a chance of actually making a reasonable point that relates to the topic, but unfortunately you didn't and only kept trying to take the discussion about unclear verses further. Therefore I say, if you have something to add to the discussion specifically about the infinite loop, then do so. Otherwise open a new thread if you want to continue the discussion about these verses. It's up to you."

[QUOTE]
Actually when Tijani was asked this he answered the guy very clearly. That guy still didnt understand (because secretly he was a jew working against the Muslim Umma). So Tijani then challenged that guy to a mubahla. That jewish spy died exactly one year after the mubahla yet Mr Tijani still lives on!
[/QUOTE]

LOOOOL, tell me what's the name of this guy and where did you hear this from? You know because the one who asked Tijani this question actually never made a mubahala with Tijani, and I heard him just a few weeks ago. I love Rafidi fairy tales, very amusing!

now 1010,

first of all, concerning your first posting, I won't answer it here because it doesn't relate to the topic. Open a new thread if you are interested in the answer, or get some more lessons as to how to distract from the topic more professionally.

[QUOTE]
Musanna's loop would not look like following:

  1. Only Allah understand(s) Quraan.
  2. Authenticity of Statements of the Prophet determined by Quraan comparison.

Problem:

You can't determine the authenticity based on something which only those people understand whose statements you want to authenticate.

---> INFINITE LOOP.

So you want to determine authenticity of Hadith, based on Quran which only Allah understands?

---> INFINITE LOOP...
[/QUOTE]

Very nice. Now I will show you what a real direct refutation of a problem is, not what you keep doing by bringing up other topics.

The problem with your infinite loop is that the first assumption is wrong. We believe that we do understand the clear verses of the Quraan, so we can easily compare them with the Ahadeeth and I challenge you to bring me a single Sunni scholar who declared that Tafsir of verses is only allowed by relying on narrations like I did when I presented the Rafidi loop. Problem solved.

wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda

72

Oh, I forgot this one:

[QUOTE]
He calls weak ahadith of Kafi to be "lies", and when some lies are shown to him from his own books, he says it is "not pertinent to the topic"!!
[/QUOTE]

Tijani called them lies, so blame him, not me.

73

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
The problem with your infinite loop is that the first assumption is wrong. We believe that we do understand the clear verses of the Quraan, so we can easily compare them with the Ahadeeth
[/quote]

Same goes with us. We also understand the clear verses. Who can say that he does not understand verses like those in Surah Ikhlas?

The problem is that you take one of our statement which is about mutashabeh verses, and claim that they are about ALL the Quran.

But as we saw that with your general assumption in mind, the "infinite loop" you are claiming is as applicable on Ahle Sunnat as could be on others.
And the answer you give to make it "finite" is what would be given by Shias as well.

[quote]

and I challenge you to bring me a single Sunni scholar who declared that Tafsir of verses is only allowed by relying on narrations like I did when I presented the Rafidi loop. Problem solved.

[/QUOTE]

Dear, problem is solved from our side alone, not yours.

Only those tafasir of verses are required from Imams which are mutashabeh.
Allah says that there are clear verses in Quran, and it is obvious that clear verses need no interpretation. The interpretation is required when the verses are mutashabeh.
Now we say that the complete understanding of mutashabeh verses can be done only by Allah, Paighambar, and Imams (i.e. Rasikhoona fil ilm).

But you have a problem here. You say that interpretation of these verses is not known to anyone except Allah, not even Prophet. Hence to you, there interpretation is not possible at all.
And then you claim that for authenticity of hadith, we have to compare them with Quranic verses! But you yourself know that only Allah knows interpretation of mutashabeh verses, and you yourself don't know which verses are mutashabeh. So how are you going to authenticate ahadith based on Quran? ---> INFINITE LOOP...

74

Is it infinite loop or circular logic?

75

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
Oh, I forgot this one:

Tijani called them lies, so blame him, not me.
[/QUOTE]

And in turn I told you of a few "lies" from your own books. But it is ok for you to allege something, while its reply becomes OFFTOPIC to you!

How strange!

76

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Is it infinite loop or circular logic?
[/QUOTE]

It is infinite loop. According to Musanna

77

Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a al-Houda,

[QUOTE]
Same goes with us. We also understand the clear verses. Who can say that he does not understand verses like those in Surah Ikhlas?
[/QUOTE]

Sheikh ul Ta'ifah Al-Tussi. He declared:

"Know that the narrations in the reports of our companions are obvious that it is NOT ALLOWED TO DO TAFSIR EXCEPT WITH THE AUTHENTIC NARRATIONS BY THE PROPHET (SAWS) AND THE AIMMAH (RA), whose statements is a Hujja like the statements of the Prophet (saws), AND THAT IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK FROM ONE'S OPINION." (Al-Tibyan, Vol. 1, P. 4)

And he actually continues by quoting a narrration which says:

"Who interpreted the Quraan according to his opinion and was right, is wrong."

So was your great Sheikh Al-Tussi lying when he declared that the reports of our companions are obvious about the fact that Tafsir is ONLY allowed based on narrations by the Aimmah?

And note that he was not talking about unclear verses, but about all verses in general! If you don't believe it, read the context.

[QUOTE]
But you have a problem here. You say that interpretation of these verses is not known to anyone except Allah, not even Prophet. Hence to you, there interpretation is not possible at all.
[/QUOTE]

We simply don't compare Ahadeeth with unclear verses. :)

[QUOTE]
And in turn I told you of a few "lies" from your own books.
[/QUOTE]

we don't consider them to be lies since we don't accept your interpretation.

[QUOTE]
But it is ok for you to allege something, while its reply becomes OFFTOPIC to you!
[/QUOTE]

once again I tell you, I didn't allege anything. I simply told you what Tijani said, if you have a problem with that blame him, not me.

wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a al-Houda

78

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
Sheikh ul Ta'ifah Al-Tussi. He declared:

"Know that the narrations in the reports of our companions are obvious that it is NOT ALLOWED TO DO TAFSIR EXCEPT WITH THE AUTHENTIC NARRATIONS BY THE PROPHET (SAWS) AND THE AIMMAH (RA), whose statements is a Hujja like the statements of the Prophet (saws), AND THAT IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK FROM ONE'S OPINION." (Al-Tibyan, Vol. 1, P. 4)

[/quote]

That's what your problem is. You don't understand the context in which it was said, and make it all general.

What Tussi said was about mutashabeh verses, because clear verses are obvious to anyone. I gave an example of Surah Ikhlas.

Even Quran says that some of its verses are CLEAR, and the problem is only with those verses which are MUTASHABEH. The clear verses need no interpretation, hence what Tussi said is only about those verses.

Can you understand this little thing, or do you need me to repeat it again, like you always need?

[quote]
And he actually continues by quoting a narrration which says:
"Who interpreted the Quraan according to his opinion and was right, is wrong."
[/quote]

It is Tussi's personal opinion. And Tussi is neither a prophet nor Imam.

[quote]

So was your great Sheikh Al-Tussi lying ...
[/quote]

What's the problem with you man? Why can't you differentiate between "lying" and "being wrong"?

I think now I understand why you were thrown out of that forum. You seem have problems in your understanding.

[quote]

And note that he was not talking about unclear verses, but about all verses in general! If you don't believe it, read the context.
[/quote]

This is what Tussi said:

"Know that the narrations in the reports of our companions are obvious that it is NOT ALLOWED TO DO TAFSIR EXCEPT WITH THE AUTHENTIC NARRATIONS BY THE PROPHET (SAWS) AND THE AIMMAH (RA)..."

So Tussi is talking about "tafsir" or interpretation. And as Quran says, only those verses require interpretation which are mutashabeh. Hence Tussi is talking about mutashabeh verses.

God! Hope at least this little thing could be understood by you.

79

*Edited. I will ask it later, if required. * :)

80

By the way Musanna, there is a thread titled "Hey Musanna".

I started it on your request. May be you overlooked it. I would like your reply in that thread as well.