Studying Islam

Post Reply

Username

Invalid Username or Password

Password

Format

Message Icon

Message

- Forum Code is ON
- HTML is OFF

Smilies

[quote]Quote: I would like to see yours interpretation of these ahadith.Further more If you think authenticity of all these ahadith ever challenged, then please show me how and who challenged them ever.

Reply: The interpretation that you have presented is contradicting with the ground realities. If 'Ahle Sunnah wa Aljamah' is being talked about in these Ahadith, then one can always question whether AhleSunnahwalJamah is one group? As I understand, in the subcontinent, there are three groups within this group. These are Barelvi, Deobandi, and Ahle Hadith. Technically, Ahle Hadith are probably not in it. Now the fact is there are major differences across this groups.

Fact 1: A true Barelvi never prays behind a Deobandi or Ahle Hadith Imam.

Fact 2: A Deobandi prefers not to pray behind a Barelvi Imam (A Fatwa is available on that).

Fact 3: Barelvi scholars (highest ones) have often termed Deobandi & Ahle Hadith scholars as 'Kafir'.

Fact 4: And Deobandi scholars have published material to prove that the top Barelvi scholar was a fraud.

Fact 5: Please note all of this is despite the fact that Deobandi and Barelvi both follow Hanafi Fiqh, they both follow Maturdi Aqeedah, and both consider Tasawwuf essential.

Fact 6: Both deobandi and barelvi consider Taqleed as a prerequisite for following religion, Ahle Hadith dont consider it necessary to follow one of the 4 Imams consistently.

There are other facts as well, I am sure you know them better than I do, So which one of these groups is the Prophet talking about? If there is nothing wrong with the Ahadith, there is certainly something wrong with the interpretation you presented. The differences between these sub-groups are too much to club them in one large group and call them 'majority'.

Quote: That’s you think,sunni muslims were always in the majority that’s the fact who ever study the history of Islam knows

Reply: The discussion is on the existence of 'majority' i.e. a large group holding common views on all matters of religion. For the sake of this discussion, the statement that such a majority exists or has existed is a hypothesis not a 'fact'. Atleast not for the time being. When this very thing is under discussion that whether majority exists or not, using it as a premise makes the argument a circular argument, hence making your point invalid.

Salman[/quote]

Mode

Check here to be notified by email whenever someone replies to your topic

Show Preview