65 replies to this topic

[Jhangvi]

After the debate came to end, the house is open for Ques & Ans. Debaters are requested to chair the event and refrain from commenting onto the opponent debater's comments/answers please. This session has no time limit, until the debater himself decides to leave/finish in particular.

Forum members posting their questions upon the debaters, must remember:

- restrict yourself to the debate topic's contents, do not go off-topic
- avoid bombardment of questions in one go
- be specific and to the point
- no name calling, praising or hate speech words
- avoid posting comments for the debate
- refrain from making this session a fish-market

Note: Members not following the rules of Q & A session, will be banned from this specific topic

With this all, I announce the session as open!

[Jhangvi]

Since me too is a student of knowledge, so let me pose a question....

to Farid:

During your debate, you used some terms like an'ana for which I hope many of the viewers are not aware of. Could you please elaborate it in a simple way, with 1-2 examples, so that the viewers could understand. Thanks

[Farid]

The term 'anana refers to the usage of the term 'an when narrating from another narrator.

The usage of the term is somewhat of a short cut, instead of saying longer words, like hadathana (he narrated to us) or hadathani (he narrated to me).

So, instead of saying:

a) hadathana Efendi qaal hadathana Kalaam (Efendi told us that Kalaam told us)

One can get away with saying:

b) 'an Efendi 'an Kalaam

Even though this doesn't seem to mean much, it actually does when you realize that hadith narrators spent days upon days writing nothing but hadiths with their chains, so it would cut their work load to some extent.

Edited by Farid, 08 December 2011 - 05:15 AM.

[Ebn Hussein]

An important observation, though not related to the debates topic. The name calling. Farid did not call his opponent by names nor did he mock him, on the other hand, the debater Waleed (who is over 36years old i.e. MUCH older than Farid) did not only used childish nicknames (like FariDOV), but even went so far and said things like Farid Al-Shareed (the homeless). He also posted childish youtube videos and as I said before called Farid by names, whereas Farid NEVER, not even once did such a thing. Hence, Baaraka Allaahu feek Farid.

Oh, there is one thing definately related to the topic, and I guess every reader, Shia, Sunnah, non-Muslim, whatever will have recognised it, namely that Waleed (often acting very arrogant and acting smart in my opinion) presented a good number of narrations to discredit his true master sayyidinah Abi Hurayrah (radiya Allahu 'anhu), just to find out that the narration he used was narrated AT LEAST by another Sahabi too (i.e. it is def. no invention of Abu Hurayrah), all we heard then was: "Ooops fair enough". I mean, fair enough that he acknowledged his mistake, but this should be a warning to every single enemy of Abi Hurayrah who will maybe end up like Waleed saying:"Ooops fair enough .. Oh, is it Anas bin Malik narrated it too? Ok, fair enough !!! etc etc.

What I benefitted personally (and I think all Sunnah brothers): The biggest benifit was to realising how flimsy the so called "arguments" of the Shia against Abu Hurayrah are. In many if not most cases (i.e. the Hadith the Rafidah love to attack) his Hadith are NOT unique (i.e. being narrated buy other Sahabah too, including BANI HASHIMIS like Ibn ABBAS), and if this was not the case then I merely saw bias from the Shia side.

رضي الله عن راوي السنة النبوية
أبو هريرة الدوسي اليماني

Baaraka Allaah wa jazaaka Allaahu khayr Al Jazaa' Akhi Farid and thanks to Walid, everyone has to give him some credit for at least he showed up, unlike the Zanaadiqah of [not allowed].

Members are again requested, to post your relevant queries pertaining to the debate please, since this is Ques & Ans session only, not a general/review topic.

Edited by Jhangvi, 08 December 2011 - 05:07 AM.

[m_s_a]

I have a couple of questions directed to the two debaters:

1- Did any one of the two feel at any time during the debate that the other side was the right one, even if it was only for a moment, did Farid feel that the allegations against Abu Huraira had some truth in them or did Walid feel the same about Ibrahim ibn Hashim ?

2- Are your opinions any different about the two when compared to what you thought about them before the debate ?

Edited by m_s_a, 08 December 2011 - 05:07 AM.

[Farid]

Quote

1- Did any one of the two feel at any time during the debate that the  other side was the right one, even if it was only for a moment, did  Farid feel that the allegations against Abu Huraira had some truth in  them or did Walid feel the same about Ibrahim ibn Hashim ?

Quote

2- Are your opinions any different about the two when compared to what you thought about them before the debate ?

Ironically, at the very beginning of the debate, and Allah is my witness, I used to raise my hands and ask Allah to guide me to truth if it was with Walid. However, as the debate continued, the more I realized that he was wrong in his defence of Ibrahim bin Hashim. So, it was quite the opposite. I seemed to be more hesitant regarding the weakness of Ibrahim bin Hashim, and I became more sure towards the end.

[Wasil]

Ebn Hussein, on 08 December 2011 - 04:47 AM, said:

An important observation, though not related to the debates topic. The name calling. Farid did not call his opponent by names nor did he mock him, on the other hand, the debater Waleed (who is over 36years old i.e. MUCH older than Farid) did not only used childish nicknames (like FariDOV), but even went so far and said things like Farid Al-Shareed (the homeless). He also posted childish youtube videos and as I said before called Farid by names, whereas Farid NEVER, not even once did such a thing. Hence, Baaraka Allaahu feek Farid.

Oh, there is one thing definately related to the topic, and I guess every reader, Shia, Sunnah, non-Muslim, whatever will have recognised it, namely that Waleed (often acting very arrogant and acting smart in my opinion) presented a good number of narrations to discredit his true master sayyidinah Abi Hurayrah (radiya Allahu 'anhu), just to find out that the narration he used was narrated AT LEAST by another Sahabi too (i.e. it is def. no invention of Abu Hurayrah), all we heard then was: "Ooops fair enough". I mean, fair enough that he acknowledged his mistake, but this should be a warning to every single enemy of Abi Hurayrah who will maybe end up like Waleed saying:"Ooops fair enough .. Oh, is it Anas bin Malik narrated it too? Ok, fair enough !!! etc etc.

What I benefitted personally (and I think all Sunnah brothers): The biggest benifit was to realising how flimsy the so called "arguments" of the Shia against Abu Hurayrah are. In many if not most cases (i.e. the Hadith the Rafidah love to attack) his Hadith are NOT unique (i.e. being narrated buy other Sahabah too, including BANI HASHIMIS like Ibn ABBAS), and if this was not the case then I merely saw bias from the Shia side.

رضي الله عن راوي السنة النبوية
أبو هريرة الدوسي اليماني

Baaraka Allaah wa jazaaka Allaahu khayr Al Jazaa' Akhi Farid and thanks to Walid, everyone has to give him some credit for at least he showed up, unlike the Zanaadiqah of [not allowed].

Members are again requested, to post your relevant queries pertaining to the debate please, since this is Ques & Ans session only, not a general/review topic.

yes in many cases his hadith has muta'ba'a if you want (meaning he narrated hadith wich was narrated by others ) and in these cases i think i was fair in not pushing it upon my opponent because if you followed the debate closely i did accept to drop any accusation against abu hurairah when i realize that he didn't narrate certain hadiths exclusively and i think Farid has seen how fair i am compared to many shia he debated because to me to carry on accusing abu hurairah about a hadith others also narrated is unfair.

but many hadiths i  showed were narrated by him exclusively.

Wasil, you are requested to please stick to the specific Q & A session exclusively. The debate is now over, so there is no need for commenting or quoting any further narrations or quotes. I am sorry but to remove such comments, if found (this applies both for you and Farid). I hope you would abide the norms and would concentrate on questions posed, please.

Edited by Jhangvi, 08 December 2011 - 06:24 AM.

[Wasil]

m_s_a, on 08 December 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

I have a couple of questions directed to the two debaters:

1- Did any one of the two feel at any time during the debate that the other side was the right one, even if it was only for a moment, did Farid feel that the allegations against Abu Huraira had some truth in them or did Walid feel the same about Ibrahim ibn Hashim ?

I didn't doubt Ibrahim ibn hashim (rah) but yes there was instances where Farid was right and i was wrong.

[Jhangvi]

to Wasil:

During the debate, those Ahadith of Abu Huraira [ra] which you raised, and which were answered by Farid and you accepted their Shawahid, does it means that you dropped that point?

P.S: Sorry, the answer already given by you, since technically when I posted, in back-end you replied to Ebn Hussein in his post. So, disregard my question, thanks.

[Wasil]

Jhangvi, on 08 December 2011 - 06:01 AM, said:

to Wasil:

During the debate, those Ahadith of Abu Huraira [ra] which you raised, and which were answered by Farid and you accepted their Shawahid, does it means that you dropped that point?

absolutely. as it would be unfair to accuse abu hurairah if the hadith is narrated by others.

[lotfilms]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
First off, while i generally dislike debates, i certainly learned a lot from this one.  It was a very high level debate masha'Allah so i suppose i should thank you both for that alhamdulillah.

i'll probably have more questions later one, but i suppose i start off with this one:
- Brother Farid, what evidences would you require to believe that Ibrahim al-Qummi was thiqa?
- Brother Walid, what evidences would you require to believe that Aba Hurairah was thiqa?

And flipping it on it's head:
- Brother Farid, what evidences would you require to believe that Aba Hurairah wasn't thiqa?
- Brother Walid, what evidences would you require to believe that Ibrahim al-Qummi wasn't thiqa?

Edited by lotfilms, 08 December 2011 - 03:17 PM.

[Wasil]

lotfilms, on 08 December 2011 - 03:14 PM, said:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
First off, while i generally dislike debates, i certainly learned a lot from this one.  It was a very high level debate masha'Allah so i suppose i should thank you both for that alhamdulillah.

i'll probably have more questions later one, but i suppose i start off with this one:
- Brother Farid, what evidences would you require to believe that Ibrahim al-Qummi was thiqa?
- Brother Walid, what evidences would you require to believe that Aba Hurairah was thiqa?

And flipping it on it's head:
- Brother Farid, what evidences would you require to believe that Aba Hurairah wasn't thiqa?
- Brother Walid, what evidences would you require to believe that Ibrahim al-Qummi wasn't thiqa?

salam brother lotfilms ! long time no see !!

i think the debate includes answers to your questions akhi be it directly or indirectly but if you want the meaning of wathqa to me which would answer some of your questions then I believe the thiqat must be consistent in his hadith and renown for his hadith which  must be clean and there's many signs for this like direct or indirect tawtheeq or reliance of most scholars if not all upon his hadith in a way that would make us re-assured when we say this is hadith of rasool allah (saww) or masoom (as) and other signs explained by Rijel and hadith experts.

ws

Edited by Wasil, 08 December 2011 - 03:52 PM.

[msameer]

hmm as i dont have knowledge of Ilmul Hadith and Rijal so i couldnt get much benefit from this debate, but i definitely would like to appreciate the knowledge which you both guys have and hopefully this debate will definitely help a lot for those who have keen interest in  Ilmul Rijal..

my question to both you guys (bro Farid and Wasil)
were there any point where you both had agreed upon?

bro Frarid : were there any valid points of bro Walid where you felt bit uncomfortable to answer / handle ?

bro Walid : were there any valid points of bro Farid where you felt bit uncomfortable to answer / handle ?

[Wasil]

m_s_a, on 08 December 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

2- Are your opinions any different about the two when compared to what you thought about them before the debate ?

Mine is the same wallahu alam

[Wasil]

msameer, on 08 December 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

hmm as i dont have knowledge of Ilmul Hadith and Rijal so i couldnt get much benefit from this debate, but i definitely would like to appreciate the knowledge which you both guys have and hopefully this debate will definitely help a lot for those who have keen interest in  Ilmul Rijal..

my question to both you guys (bro Farid and Wasil)
were there any point where you both had agreed upon?

bro Frarid : were there any valid points of bro Walid where you felt bit uncomfortable to answer / handle ?

bro Walid : were there any valid points of bro Farid where you felt bit uncomfortable to answer / handle ?

salam alaykom

yes we have agreed upon few things like not accusing any of the narrators if his hadith is narrated by others and solely by one of them and other things.

yes Farid cornered me badly  about the issue of nawadir al-himah and how can we know for sure who is a narrator from nawadir and who isn't but he actually helped me reach a solid theory about it so as you would say i managed to get out of the corner wallahu alam.

[adeel91]

salaam

it was great debate b/w bro Wasil and farid.

right now i am not able to understand all the terms and technicalities used in the debate but in future it will become easy.
Insha allah.

Bro, wasil did you in any of your post talked about that narrations which are about strong memory of abu hurerah? and abu hurerah spend almost 3 years with rasoul(s.a.w.w) but still he narrated lots of narrations as compare to other sahabies who remained with rasoul(s.a.w.w) during his last 23 years specially!

[Farid]

@Lotfilms: For me to hold the opinion that Abu Huraira isn't trustworthy I would have to disregard the praises of those that knew him like the sahaba and his students. I would also need clear statements from them declaring doubts in his trustworthiness.

As for Ibrahim bin Hashim, as per Sunni standards, I would need some sort of praise from Sunni scholars. Of course, I don't believe he is trustworthy in the eyes of early Shias to begin with.

[Farid]

@msameer: I only felt kind of uncomfortable when Walid asked me about a hadith in Saheeh Muslim that I believe is weak. I felt uncomfortable not because of my doubts regarding the weakness of thehadith, but rather because it is a very popular view that the Saheehain are 100% authentic. Ironically, that hadith itself is weakened by Bukhari.

Edited by Farid, 08 December 2011 - 06:03 PM.

[Wasil]

adeel91, on 08 December 2011 - 04:24 PM, said:

salaam

it was great debate b/w bro Wasil and farid.

right now i am not able to understand all the terms and technicalities used in the debate but in future it will become easy.
Insha allah.

Bro, wasil did you in any of your post talked about that narrations which are about strong memory of abu hurerah? and abu hurerah spend almost 3 years with rasoul(s.a.w.w) but still he narrated lots of narrations as compare to other sahabies who remained with rasoul(s.a.w.w) during his last 23 years specially!

wa alaikom assalam
Yes brother adeel  i did talk about this(I think it's the hadith about women and animals being jinxed or something like this ) and i don't think i missed many hadith that are really problematic . putting aside the hadiths where others narrated same hadiths as abu hurairah then the rest of the hadiths are very good examples. As for his memory then you are being nice and i don't mind accepting it because there's strong case showing Abu hurairah's bad memory but to be honest his tadlees is his main downfall but not the only one though(refer to the debate )

But as i said I am not calling him a liar even though there's strong case for this but i cannot face allah (swt) accusing him of this without complete certainty so to me i can safely say he was weak , mudallis and unreliable in what he narrated exceptionally but his hadith can be shahid and can be bearable in fadhail al-amaal and less important after scrutiny . to be fair i saw some fantastic hadiths by abu hurairah : really impressive ones and there's no doubt he heard many hadiths from rasool allah (saww) but he is not strong in hadith as i explained (plz refer to debate )

ws

just edited :: sorry brother i misunderstood your question . yes i see what you mean and no i didn't criticize him for memorizing all these hadiths as this is not a real argument because some humans can memorize better than others and people of "jazeera" (arabic island)were renown for their great  memory. some say abu hurairah didn't use to write down according to a hadith he himself was reported to have admitted this but again this is not a strong argument in my opinion  wallahu alam

Edited by Wasil, 08 December 2011 - 06:38 PM.

[syed5]

My question to both Wasil and Farid;If i remember correctly; The intent of the debate which was initiated by Farid, to bring down the hadith literature of Shia/Sunni by bringing down the most significant narrator.Since all the understanding of religion is based on hadith, by bringing down the most significant narrator the assumption is generally true that it will strike the weakness of the whole structure of belief and ideology of that particular sect.

To start with this premises, even if one assume away the shia hadith literature as compare to sunni's, even then  the shia core beliefs, i.e. Wilayat Ali and Infallibility of Ahlekisa still cannot be harmed. Since the evidence of it one also find from the core hadiths in sunni literature. The intersecting hadith literature is a composition of both sunni and shiites.

In simple terms, even if we eliminate large part of Shiite hadith literature, the core belief of shiahs will remain intact since they are also evidently manisfested in sunni hadith literature. On the contrary it is not true vice versa for sunni core beliefs of Khilafata Rashida  and about later ummavi period, since then Farid has to show evidence of sunni beliefs from shiite hadith literature. And thats why the defence of Abu Hurraira was more important to Sunnis than anything else.

And that is why Wasil demand was interesting to Farid to talk about Core belief system rather than the mere implication of this topic. If farid or anyone is interested, then i suggest Wasil can be requested to carry on another debate on more useful topic, which is the real bone of contention among Muslims of various sects.

Edited by syed5, 08 December 2011 - 06:46 PM.