abbas@sunb4.cs.uiuc.edu (03/14/90)
The Answer By Maudoodi can be considered of good quality, but it lack some explanations or failed to take in consideration the Shia point of view, since the author himself is Sunna. Nevertheless, the answer of Maudoodi shows a great deal of knowledge. > by khan@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu > Sunnah Shia Conflict [part deleted] > Your worry started from this Hadith, INNI TAARIKU FEEQUM THAQALAIN.... > First of all, you should know that this hadith is narrated through various > sources, many of which are weak and some are strong. The strongest source > and most detailed one is through Zaid Bin Arqum in Sahih Muslim. It is > told in it that the Prophet, giving a speach at Khum, said: "People, I am a > human; it is possible that Allah might call me back soon and I am leaving > two heavy things among you. First is the book of Allah which contains > Guidence and Light; So hold it tight." Here the prophet persuaded the > odeans to follow the book of Allah, then he said: "And the second thing is > my family; I remind you of Allah in matters of my family." In this hadith, > there is no indication that after Qur'an only prophet's family is incharge > of teaching religion and their following is necessary. Here we see was the logic of Maudoudi is missing. First, a doubt of the source of the hadith. The problem is how can we discuss any thing if we could not prove for sure if the hadith is correct or not. So we can only start by assuming the correctness or the uncorrectness of the hadith. No if we assumed wrong, then we are done. If we assumed right, we have to agree about its meaning. Second, we see that what Maudoudi provided as understanding for the hadith, does not agree with what Shia understand from it. Maudoudi said that there is no indication that after Qur'an only prophet's family is incharge of teaching religion and their following is necessary. But the fact of the matter, that also there is no indication that the opposit should be true. Also it failed to say that if we did not following them, in other word we automatically proving them not saying the truth (lying), sincle logically we can say a rule and its opposit are both true at the same time. The Sunna argument come to the seen here, saying that it is uncorrect that a certain hadith was taken from the family, instead of saying the family was lying. So if Shia said the temporary marriage is allowed in Islam using a source as Imam Ali, Sunna will say that it is not allowed, but also say Imam Ali did not say such thing, instead of saying that Imam Ali was lying. So come back to the land of no return, by reaching the conclusion of not agreeing on the same hadith we cannot prove who is wrong and who is correct (of course every sect believe that he is the correct one). > Instead, we learn from this that the two HEAVY things have been explained > in two meanings. Qur'an is HEAVY because it IS the source of guidence and > leaving it would lead to disaster and humiliation. And prophet's family is > HEAVY because the families of the greatests of mankind have always been the > cause of test for the followers. Some have made Dieties out of them; some > have opposed them and have persecuted them, so that the respect that the > followers feel toward the family of their guide could be supressed. That's > why the prophet of Islam said that, "I remind you of Allah in the matters > of my family", meaning fear God while dealing with them; avoid the > favoristic or opposing behavior toward them. The argument failed to see, that we should interpret the hadith this way and not in the following way: Why both of them The QUran and the family are heavy in the same way and not differently as Maudoudi said. Can't they both be a source of guidance and leaving both of them would lead to disaster and humiliation. After all the prophet could have used different adjective for each of the two if he did not mean they have the same power. The question is how can the words of God, be equivalent to the family who are human being like us. Simple, when we see that was is value of the Quran if we understood it wrong. What is the use of a lock if we do not have the right key to open it. So Here the family play an important role is the understanding of the Quran, which can best be provided by the family of the Prophet. After, all how can we say that the friend of somebody understand him better than the people who lived with them. So we can also say as explanation for the hadith that the two HEAVY things were the Word OF God and its best meaning (and no body can really understand the full meaning), or The Quran and The Family. I do not agree with the explanation of Maudoudi. Why should the prophet advise to fear God in dealing with his family only, should'nt we fear God in dealing with any muslim in the exact way either family or not. So it is not the dealing we are worry about, but something else the family had is Understanding of Islam. > Second, even if we accept that the prophet advised people to learn religion > from his family, how could it still imply only the family of Ali. The > family of the prophet also contains his wives, Aal-e-Ja'far, Aal-e-Aqeel, > Aal-e-Abbas, and all the Banu Hashim, on all of whom the prophet had > forbidden any SADAQA. The argument is that Shia do not divide the familly, But since the Shia consider Imam Ali is the legitamate Kalife after the Prophet and the head of the Prophet family after the death of the prophet. And so Imam Ali is considered the speaker of the familly. In any case up to my knowledge, there was one major disagrement in the familly between Ali, and one of the prophet wife, and it was mainly political. > Thirdly, the prophet didn't only say, "I leave among you two heavy > things...", but he also said, "follow my Sunnah and the rightly guided > Caliphs", and also said, "My companions are like starts whichever you > follow you'll find guidance". Then why should one take some of the > Prophet's sayings and leave the others. Why not learn from the family of > the prophet, and also from the rightly guided caliphs and the other > companions of the prophet. The two keywords here are "Sunnah" & "rightly guided Caliphs". The Question what is Sunnah and what is not. Both Sect Shia and Sunni, believe that they are following the Sunnah. The other word is rightly guided Caliphs. But who said that Shia agreed to began with about the the Caliphs was right. So unless All muslims agreed about who was a right Caliphs, no body can claim that the rightly guided Caliphs was not followed. After all it is like asking a person to follow a certain president x who he believe reached the position in the wrong way. > Fourth, It makes no sense that what the prophet achieved in company of > hundereds, thousands of people, and what hundereds of thousands saw from > their own eyes, should be narrated only through the family of the prophet > and many who particpated in all of this and saw it closehand should be > ignored. Even from the family of the prophet, the people who really saw > him were his wives, who witnessed his family life. Among the men, nobody, > except Ali, had the opportunity of the prophet's company as much as Abu > Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ibn Mas'ud and many other companions of the prophet. > Then why should one ONLY follow the family of the prophet. The argument here also does not make any sense for me. The problem is we are not talking here about where you put your hands when you pray, as I see it does not matter where you put them as far as you do the complete pray. And Muslims agreed family or else about most of the rules which can be seen. We are talking about rules which need understanding. Millions of people could be listening to a person and only one person may have understood what the speaker is saying and only few big topics had a problem. And only those few topics Shia take the prophet family understanding and not the companions. Frankly, if a person had the choice of two understanding of a rule, who should he choose, a person who was the first man (male) to take Islam after the prophet, who lived with the prophet, the cousin of the prophet, the husband of the daughter of the prophet,etc. or choose a companion of the prophet who did not take directly Islam, till a certain time. > So to avoid this question, a group had to say that except a few, the rest > of the companions were hypocrates. But only a deeply prejudiced person > could say such a thing, who does not care that the history is > contradicting everything that he says, and who does not care about the bad > effects on the Prophet and his mission. Who, in his right mind, can > believe that the people on whom the Prophet, for 23 years, depended and > trusted completely and succeeded in such a miraculous mission along with > them, are all hypocrates. If so, then was the prophet unware of this till > the end. If that is the case, then the prophet's ability to judge a person > seems very weak. And if it is wrong, and it is wrong, then why shouldn't > all of their knowledge about religion be respected. No body is talking about that the companions were hypocrates even that some people blindly said. But should not be considered as a part of the Shia doctrine. The other point about who the prophet depended and trusted completely does not have to do anything with understanding Islam. I can always depend and trust people who do not even understand 50% of what I am saying. Do you think the prophet gave the Muslims, an exam of foqh. There was not problem during the prophet life since every time they had a problem the prophet solved. But what happened to those questions the Prophet did not explained or did explain for some people. > The reason for your second problem (talking to the person who asked the > question) is that somebody has mistold you that the Sunnah has not > consulted the prophet's family and has not taken Hadith from them. This > mistake is definately in the Shia practice that they followed only one > source (the family of the prophet--what they considered to be the family > of the prophet) and depend on it and ignore all the other sources. But, > the Sunnah has not made this mistake. They also obtain the knowledge from > the prophet's family and also from other companions of the prophet. And > then, after a complete research they decide which openion is correct and > more respected. So they solved the problem again by choosing one opinion. The question is how did they decide who to take in and who to put out. The mostly used way is to check the correctness of a hadith, and base on what you consider correct and what you don't. So how do you prove a certain hadith is correct is the beginning of the problem. Who do you consider a reliable source is different between Shia and Sunna. And Who said that the Shia made this mistake Maudoudi is talking about. There are different school in Shia same as in Sunna. The only thing they argue about who is reliable as a source of a hadith. ANd this relaibility let to all these differences and not who made a mistake. > For example, take Imam Abu Haneefa; where he consulted other companions and > followers, he used to also benefit from the knowledge of Imam Baaqir, Imam > Ja'far, Zaid Bin Ali Bin Hussaid, and Mohammad Bin Haneefa. It is the same > situation with other researchers and scholars. Which book of Hadith does > not contain narrations from the family of the prophet......... But what happen to the other sources, Considered not reliable right??? [part deleted no argument]