بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
Why a knowledgeable Shia on a Shia forum left Shiism and came to true Islam, the Quran and Sunnah. He was asked by few Shias to explain the reason for leaving their sect. Alhamdulellah, the brother explained really well and mentioned some of the reasons.
All praise be to Allah (swt), he guides whom he wills. We pray to Allah (swt) to guide all of them towards the truth, the path of Prophet Muhammad (saw), his Ahlulbait and Companions.
I am just going to quote his full post without leaving anything or adding anything.
[Start of Quote]
Uffo.. ok FINE. I’ll post some here. : P
1) [edit: I have removed #1. I was asked about my feelings, and so I presented my subjective thoughts, which some people took offence to. For more peaceful dialogue, insha Allah, I have removed it]
2) Many of the past scholars beleived in tahreef, and they are not condemned by contemporary scholars. They are, in fact, highly respected and their books are treasured. Also, most of the contemporary scholars believe in ‘tahreef bit-tarteeb’ which is tahreef in the arrangement of the Quran (e.g. Syed Seestani, Syed Ali Milani, the Ahlul-Bayt World Assembly). Many shia members here also believe in this tahreef.
For example, here are the words of Faidh Al-Kashani:
والمستفاد من هذه الأخبار وغيرها من الروايات من طريق أهل البيت عليهم السلام أن القرآن الذي بين أظهرنا ليس بتمامه كما أنزل على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بل منه ماهو خلاف ما أنزل الله ، ومنه ما هو مغير محرف ، وأنه قد حذف منه أشياء كثيرة منها اسم علي عليه السلام ، في كثير من المواضع ، ومنها لفظة آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم غير مرة ، ومنها أسماء المنافقين في مواضعها ، ومنها غير ذلك ، وأنه ليس أيضا على الترتبيب المرضي عند الله ، وعند رسول صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم واما اعتقاد مشايخنا (ره) في ذلك فالظاهر من ثقة الاسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني طاب ثراه أنه كان يعتقد التحريف والنقصان في القرآن لأنه روى روايات في هذا المعنى في كتابه الكافي ولم يتعرض لقدح فيها مع أنه ذكر في أول الكتاب أنه كان يثق بما رواه فيه
And the words of At-Tabarsi:
إن الكناية عن أسماء أصحاب الجرائر العظيمة من المنافقين في القرآن ، ليست من فعله تعالى ، وإنها من فعل المغيرين والمبدلين الذين جعلوا القرآن عضين ، واعتاضوا الدنيا من الدين
3) The shia system of hadith is just… … HMM
There seems to be no methodology adapted. Many a time, sahih ahadith are discarded because they go against ‘common’ practices/beliefs. Many (MOST) a time, weak ahadith are simply picked out of hadith books and are accepted.
Here are the words of Hurr Al-Amili, in Wasa’il Ash-Shi’a, 30:260-61:
ويلزم بطلان الإجماع ، الذي علم دخول المعصوم فيه ـ أيضا ـ كما تقدم .
واللوازم باطلة ، وكذا الملزوم .
بل يستلزم ضعف الأحاديث كلها ، عند التحقيق ، لأن الصحيح ـ عندهم ـ : « ما رواه العدل ، الإماميّ ، الضابط ، في جميع الطبقات » .
ولم ينصوا على عدالة أحد من الرواة ، إلا نادراً ، وإنما نصوا على التوثيق ، وهو لايستلزم العدالة ، قطعا ، بل بينهما عموم من وجه ، كما صرح به الشهيد الثاني ، وغيره .
ودعوى بعض المتأخرين : أن « الثقة » بمعنى « العدل ، الضابط » .
ممنوعة ، وهو مطالب بدليلها .
وكيف ؟ وهم مصرحون بخلافها ، حيث يوثقون من يعتقدون فسقه ، وكفره ، وفساد مذهبه ؟ !
وإنما المراد بالثقة : من يوثق بخبره ، ويؤمن منه الكذب عادة ، والتتبع شاهد به ، وقد صرح بذلك جماعة من المتقدمين ، والمتأخرين .
ومن معلوم ـ الذي لاريب فيه ، عند منصف ـ : أن الثقة تجامع الفسق ، بل الكفر .
وأصحاب الاصطلاح الجديد قد اشترطوا ـ في الراوي ـ العدالة فيلزم من ذلك ضعف جميع أحاديثنا ، لعدم العلم بعدالة أحد منهم ؛ إلا نادرا .
ففي إحداث هذا الاصطلاح غفلة ، من جهات متعددة ، كما ترى .
وكذلك كون الراوي ضعيفا في الحديث لا يستلزم الفسق ، بل يجتمع مع العدالة ، فإن العدل ، الكثير السهو ، ضعيف في الحديث ، والثقة ، والضعف غاية ما يمكن معرفته من أحوال الرواة .
ومن هنا يظهر فساد خيال من ظن أن آية ( إن جائكم فاسق بنبأ ) [ الآية (6) من سورة الحجرات (49) ] تشعر بصحة الاصطلاح الجديد .
مضافا إلى كون دلالتها بالمفهوم الضعيف ، المختلف في حجيته .
ويبقى خبر مجهول الفسق :
فان أجابوا : بأصالة العدالة .
أجبنا : بأنه خلاف مذهبهم ، ولم يذهب إليه منهم إلا القليل .
ومع ذلك : يلزمهم الحكم بعدالة المجهولين ، والمهملين ، وهم لا يقولون به .
ويبقى اشتراط العدالة بغير فائدة .
الخامس عشر :
أنه لو لم يجز لنا قبول شهادتهم في صحة أحاديث كتبهم ، وثبوتها ، ونقلها من الأصول الصحيحة ، والكتب المعتمدة ، وقيام القرائن على ثبوتها ، لما جاز لنا قبول شهادتهم في مدح الرواة ، وتوثيقهم .
فلا يبقى حديث ، صحيح ، ولاحسن ، ولاموثق ، بل يبقى جميع أحاديث كتب الشيعة ضعيفة
He is clear in point out that weakness and the ‘fakeness’ of the system, and that it was created as a defense reaction at the criticism of the sunnis that they have no system, and that if the system was actually applied, only a handful of ahadith would prove to be sahih, hasan or muwathaq.
And here are the words of Ayatullah Brujerdi (Taraif al-Maqal 2:380):
أخبار المحمدين بصحة ما في كتبهم جميعا في حيز المنع ، سيما مع ملاحظة إدراجهم الضعاف فيها بل هي أكثر ، ولعل الصحيح المعتبر المدرج في تلك الكتب كالشعرة البيضاء في البقرة السوداء
which rougly translates to: “To believe in the authenticity of the narrations reported by the Muhammads is impossible, especially with the reports of weak narrators among them. Rather, the weak are far more (than the authentic), whereas the authentic ones in those books are like the white hair on a black cow.”
4) The ghulat tendencies of the contemporary Ithna ‘Asharis!! There are many beliefs and practices among the current shias, that the earlier shias woulda found, just.. . For example tatbir (hitting your head with a sword), adding the wilayah to the adhan believing it to be wajib (Shirazi and another ayatollah whose name I do not recall), etc..
Look at what Allamah Ja’far Subhani says in his Kulliyat Fi ‘Ilm ar-Rijal:
وقد عرفت أن التضعيف بين القدماء لأجل العقيدة لا يوجب سلب الوثوق عن الراوي، لأن أكثر ما رآه القدماء غلوا أصبح في زماننا من الضروريات في دين الإمامية
Which roughly translates to: “You’ve known that the mechanism of weakening based on the Creed among the early scholars does not necessarily deprive the narrator of his trustworthiness. This is because what the early scholars have considered exteremism (Ghuluw) [in the past] became in our contemporary time an indispensible part of Imamiyah religion”. Trust me, there are many practices/beliefs of the shias that others just can’t belieeeeve. Even I couldn’t, as a shia.
For example, matam was unanimously considered forbidden in the earlier generations, but now it is seen as one of the ‘best deeds’ and the rewards promised for it are quite grand indeed.
e.g. Sheikh Mufid considered it haram, and declared that it was an ijma’ (a concensus of the scholars of his time) that it was haram. Look at what Ayatollah Muhammad Al-Husaini Ash-Shirazi said in Al-Fiqh (15:253): لكن عن الشيخ في المبسوط ابن حمزة بالتحريم مطلقاً
As one last example, I will present the words of Sheikh Saduq, who was vehemently against the practice of adding the wilayah in the adhan, firmly calling it the practice of the ghulat (extremists) and the mufawwadah.
“The mufawwidah, may God curse them, have forged traditions and have inserted additions to the adhan. Thus, some of them add Muhammad and the house of Muhammad are the best of creation, twice. And in some of their quotations, after I witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God, I witness that Ali is the wali of God, twice. Some of them state, instead of that, I bear witness that Ali is truly the Commander of the Faithful, twice. There is no doubt that Ali is the wali of God, that he is truly the Commander of the Faithful and that Muhammad and his house are the best of creation, but all this is not in the original adhan. I have mentioned this so that those who are suspected of tafwid and who with deception include themselves in our community may be made known.” (Man la yaduruh al-faqih, 1/188-189)
5) The misrepresentations and misquotations by shias: This is something that I find both the shias and salafis do. They incorrectly cite and misrepresent texts from the opposite side. My first disappointment was with Teejani, who has just too many lies, misquotations and misrepresentations. Sadly, I do not see him condemned or rebuked by the shia scholars for this. His books are, on the other hand, listed on all the major shia websites. My second gripe was with “A Shi’ite Encyclopedia” which again contains way too many misquotations and misrepresentations. The works of scholars should not be like this. They should present the TRUTH, and if it is not on their side, they should refrain from presenting it at all, as opposed to manipulating it.
My last, and major, gripe was with scholars like Syed Ali Al-Milani, who is a teacher at Qum, and his books are filled with lies and misrepresentations. Anyone who is curious, should go to http://www.aqaed.com and download his books. Everytime you see a reference, check it up. You will be disappointed. I certainly was… given that it wasn’t an ‘e-shia’ doing this, but a respected scholar.
6) The ‘evolution’ of shi’ism: What shi’ism is today is different from what shi’ism was right after the ghaybah. And what shi’ism was then, was different from the shi’ism of the early salaf. Shi’ism (in its present form) did not crystallize until very late, and if I may be bold enough to say this – it still has not crystallized. So what shias beleive today, may very well be discarded tomorrow.
The very concept of the shias regarding imamate, has changed. To me, this includes infallibility, the limitation to the number ’12’, their obedience being absolute, etc.
For example, Muhammad Abdullah ibn Yafur, a prominent scholar of Kufa (Najashi 213, Kashhi 162), who was very close to imam Ja’far (Kulayni 6:464 and Kashhi 10) was praised highly by the imams. Imam Ja’far was completely satisfied with him (ibid 246, 249, 250). But Ibn Yafur simply considered the imams to be ‘ulema abrar atqiya’ – pious God-fearing scholars. And as Syed Al-Badri argued, there is a different between a ‘alim and a rabbani. It is interesting to note that a number of anti-ghulat showed up at Ibn Yafur’s funeral, showing the popularity of the idea in the early shia community. These shias were labeled by the extremists as muqassireen, shia murijites, or having sunni inclinations.
Another famous scholar, Ibn Qiba Ar-Razi held the same view (Naqd Kitab Al-Ishha 34). He was a figure so high in the shia community that Najashi, Tusi and Hilli put his name in the beginning of the list of authorities of the shia school, who agreement was essential for ijma’ (concensus) for any religious question (Shafi 1:127 and 2:323). Interestingly, Ibn Qiba maintained that what happened at saqeefah was merely an error, and did not even reach the level of fisq, let alone kufr or nifaq.
As for the beleifs of the Mufawwidah, there were mass-adopted after the death of imam Ridha (a). And yet, the scholars of Qum STILL did not beleive any of these lies and forgeries. In fact, they began to label anyone who attributed supernatural qualities to the imams as ghulat and would expel them (Majlisi 52:89). (Interestingly, many shias today do not have a problem believing the imams teleported because they were made of light). Many hadith transmitters were banished because of their reporting of ahadith that were pro-ghulat and pro-mufawwidah. Haqaid al-Iman 150-51 attributed this opinion to many early imamites and says that many of them did not believe in the imams’ ismah (Abu Ali 45:346, bahrul-Uloom 3:220)
These, and many internal and external contradictions continued to the time of imam Asakari (a). I have raised some concerns in my “The Twelve Imams” thread, and other threads, as well.
It seems that the early stages of the shia imami school were very tubulent, with history and hadith being recorded much later, and being reviewed and reinterpreted even later. We do not have any relics of ‘ithna ashari shia’ beliefs from the early times. On the other hand, the abundant relics that we do have, point in the other direction.
I hope no one took any offence, as none was intended.
I was asked to present my points, and that is all I did.
[End of Quote]