Ahl al-kalam versus Imam Shafi
-
The Philosophy of the Kalam. Harry A. Wolfson (PDF) http//www.muslimphilosophy.com/books/kalam.pdf
sounds interesting. i've saved it, will read it in future. You seem to assert the Ahl Kalam are Mutazilite? I don't think that is the case though it's possible...
I've read Mutazilites accepted hadith with mass transmission/chain i.e. would this mean muttawatir hadith? i think so.
anyway they believe the Quran is created.. so it makes me wonder how they view it or if they did view it as divine. hadith wouldn't be an issue considering their views of Quran being created. but because they're considered rationalists then i guess they'd be picky in their choices. however many "scholars" were considered picky in their choosing.
Ahl Kalam's arguments with Shafi, from Shafi's perspective can be read in the book "hadith as scripture" by Aisha Musa.
For what reason did the Shafi group have an interest in pushing forth their belief?
The same issues we hear today "to follow the sunnah" Shafi concluded sunnah = hadith. the arguments in the book don't really talk much about sunnah but mainly talk about well how do you understand certain concepts and then fault them. no indication of battle was discussed it seemed to be political.
Peace
-
Just as a sidenote, I've never read Wolfson's Philosophy of Kalam but I do recommend his "Philo Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam" by Wolfson. It's hardcover (and expensive) so you probably want to get it from your local library. It's a good foundation for those of us who believe in a pluralist message as compatible with Islam.
Peace -
Peace be with you guys as well
Thank you for sharing the links to book.
I advise everyone to watch & learn about the past muslims who wanted to follow the Quran alone in debates with Imam Alshaf'i, in this video series of Aisha Musa Talking about her book " Hadith as Scripture" (Audio only)
http//www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF12B487B76E61E8&feature=plcp -
{I just started reading "Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought" by Daniel Brown (I think Wakas has a summary/review on his site). }
In the Holy Roman Empire, during Emperor Constantine's reign, Constantine merged pagan belief with Christianity to give birth to modern Christianity. For example, the Bible in its present form was compiled, Jesus's status of deity was decided upon, religious holidays assigned, etc. His motivation was of course political in nature, hoping to unite his kingdom. Similarly, the Sunni / Shia schism was due to political reasons (ie support of Ali versus Abu Bakr).During the time of Imam Shafi (who is responsible for the adoption of the concept of Sunna being binding upon all Muslims) there was opposition by the 'ahl al-kalam', challenging the currently accepted position of Sunna. Shafi's belief was that "sunna stands on equal footing with Quran" (Brown pg. . "Ahl al-kalam...rejected hadith altogether in favor of reliance on the Quran alone" (Brown pg. . Obviously, the Shafi group (ashab al-hadith) won the battle with ahl al-kalam. All this was happening about 200 years after hijrah.
Is anyone familar with the political climate during this struggle? For what reason did the Shafi group have an interest in pushing forth their belief? What reasons existed for the 'ahl al-kalam' to impose thier belief? Was this battle, like the Sunni/Shia and Christian example, simply a product of politics? Or was the basis for this struggle based purely on a genuine belief that each party was promoting the correct status of Sunna?
There is no difference between the Mutaziltes and Ahl Al Kalam. These are not names they made but names given to them. Anyone who only accepts the Quran as a revelation that came to Muhammad and refuses abrogation is a Quranist by definition.
The Mutaziltes did say that only a mutawatir hadith is legitimate but there are no mutawatir hadith. So the only left is to compare the hadith with the Quran and if they contradict than the hadith is refused. Also since there is no mutawatir hadith nothing can be made binding except a Quranic verse since a hadith is just speculation. Anyway you look at it the Mutaziltes and Ahl Al Kalam were Quranist. A Quranist can be known based on the sources he accepts and the place the Quran plays in his deen.
-
Bigmo you say there is no muttawatir hadith yet if you read arguments made by shafi/ahl kalam you will see they accepted certain ahadith, and some were under the clause of muttawatir. moreover no muttawatir hadith is debatable. in terms of mainstream muslim practises they adopted them unlike many Quranist today
inevitably everyone and every community has their own interpretations.
Anyway you look at it the Mutaziltes and Ahl Al Kalam were Quranist. A Quranist can be known based on the sources he accepts and the place the Quran plays in his deen.
A persons belief cannot be be purely known by the sources s/he accepts, as one can accept skewed interpretations or meanings and not to mention many may not even disclose their true beliefs.
I have come across ahadith that are not contradictory to the Quran, that are agreeable to me. That doesn't make me a sunni nor a shia.
what we do is more important than a title given to us or those before us. nevertheless it's interesting to read through history. maybe we can learn a thing or two.
peace
-
Bigmo you say there is no muttawatir hadith yet if you read arguments made by shafi/ahl kalam you will see they accepted certain ahadith, and some were under the clause of muttawatir. moreover no muttawatir hadith is debatable. in terms of mainstream muslim practises they adopted them unlike many Quranist today
inevitably everyone and every community has their own interpretations.
A persons belief cannot be be purely known by the sources s/he accepts, as one can accept skewed interpretations or meanings and not to mention many may not even disclose their true beliefs.
I have come across ahadith that are not contradictory to the Quran, that are agreeable to me. That doesn't make me a sunni nor a shia.
what we do is more important than a title given to us or those before us. nevertheless it's interesting to read through history. maybe we can learn a thing or two.
peace
There are no mutawattir hadiths.
What I meant is the Mutaziltes claimed that they will only accept Mutawattir hadith but there was no such hadith. So all people can do now is to see if a hadith agrees with the Quran or not. If you watched Aisha Musa's videos in youtube you can see she clearly shows how the Mutaziltes and Ahl Al-kalam are the same as today's Quranist.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf-6OJg7krM&feature=related
Mutaziltes and Al Al-kalam and Quranist are the same thing. The term Mutaziltes and Ahl -Alkalam were made by their enemies.
Sunnis try to make a distinction since they don't want people to feel the Quranist were around before they were around.
-
i've read her book.
ahl kalam did a physical prayer/salat unlike many Quranists today.
But many Quranist do. But in that lecture she did raise the issue of Al Shafi asking them that question about rituals and the other side understood that people by following the Quran alone will have different ways of practicing their rituals.
The 5 salat is not mutawattir hadith. It is a mutawattir practice but its origins are not known. Plus even if we assume that the first generations of Muslims practiced that way it does not mean its the only way. Remember even Sunni sources say that the prophet and his followers prayed twice a day in Mecca for years. In the end you can't make binding what the Quran hasn't.
I personally agrre about bowing and prostrating but this is different than the 5 salat. The story of the 5 salat in hadiths are unconvincing to me. Maybe early Muslims did and later authorities tried to preserve that by bringing the ascending to heaven hadith where it started with 50 and then down to 5. This seems more like an argument to defend that 5 is too cumbersome and so by saying it was intitially 50 people will shut up about the amount. In the end most Muslims are not praying because 5 salat can be cumbersome to those with busy schedules. The bowing and prostrating are stated in the Quran and the previous scriptures. But the 5 salat is not.
-
Salam Lena/Bigmo
I can't speak for all or most Quranists however I can say that Quransit today have a range of interpretations of how they do or even define salat/ruku/sujud (bowing/prostrating). There are some that do not agree with the physical aspect of bowing/prostrating.
As far as I'm aware Bigmo claims mutazilites/ahl kalam are Quranist who have been given that identity however, Ahl kalam/mutazilites did a ritual prayer as common Muslim folk do now. Whether it was 5 or 2 is irrelevant to the point I was making.
-
i've read her book.
ahl kalam did a physical prayer/salat unlike many Quranists today.please do share any cited views, as i never read the book, nor have sufficient finances nor time to read it
Here is my own understanding of Physical 3 daily salat
How to do salat from the Quran alone (video)
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TANyL4A2n0 -
Appreciate it, Thank you very much!