The Straight Path

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About The Straight Path

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia - Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Private

Recent Profile Visitors

1,718 profile views
  1. Did Abu Bakr Really Lead The Salat? In this book, the author is thoroughly investigating the Sunni reports on the alleged leadership of salat by Abu Bakr during the fatal illness of the Messenger. He will be analyzing the bewildering contradictions between the so-called “sahih” Sunni ahadith on the claim; and he will be questioning the historicity of the whole episode. In particular, he will be examining the correct implications of leadership in salat, according to orthodox Sunni Islam. Does it indicate superiority? Does it confer the khilafah? Do our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah really have any case, even if the tale about Abu Bakr had been true? https://www.al-islam.org/did-abu-bakr-really-lead-salat-toyib-olawuyi Allaho A3lam Wsalam
  2. The term "Shia" has been used as a political term (Shia of Muawiya, Shia of Uthman etc) but it has also been a religious term since Prophet S.A.W himself said that the Shia of Imam Ali A.S would be allowed into Paradise in an authentic hadith. Obviously the term "Asna Ashri" came much later, but Zurarah was still a Shia and a "Rafidha". Even Shias today don't really use the term Asna Ashri at first, they usually simply say that they are Shias. The term "Ahlul Sunnah" also came much later, does this mean that Umar, Muawiya etc was not from the Ahlul Sunnah just because the term wasn't invented yet? As for Zurarah r.h, he is excused according to authentic narrations. محمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن الحسين، عن صفوان، عن يعقوب بن شعيب قال: قلت لابي عبد الله عليه السلام: إذا حدث على الامام حدث، كيف يصنع الناس؟ قال: أين قول الله عزوجل: " فلولا نفر من كل فرقة منهم طائفة ليتفقهوا في الدين و لينذروا قوهم إذا رجعوا إليهم لعلهم يحذرون " قال: هم في عذر ما داموا في الطلب وهؤلاء الذين ينتظرونهم في عذر، حتى يرجع إليهم أصحابهم. Muhammad b. Yahya from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from Safwan from Ya`qub b. Shu`ayb. He said: I said to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام: If something were to happen to the Imam, what should the people do? He said: Where is the saying of Allah عزوجل, “…if a contingent from every division remained behind, they could devote themselves to the study of religion, and admonish the people when they return to them – that thus they [may learn] to guard themselves [against evil]” (9:122). He said: They are excused, so long as they are seeking; and those who wait for them are excused, until their companions [who are devoted to the study of religion] return to them. (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 976) (sahih) (صحيح) Please show me a statistic or something to prove your underlined claim. The true Shias of the Imams A.S being in a minority is not something strange or new (look at Imam Hussan A.S, barely 70 people r.a against thousands of other "muslims"). Again, the name "Twelvers" was not used by the Shias of the Imams A.S, one of the reasons was probably that they had to believe in the Imam of their time. If you're trying to say that the true Shias of the Imams A.S didn't have the same beliefs etc (Imam Ali A.S being the successor, the Imams A.S being chosen by God and so on) then you'll have to prove that. It's common sense that Shias would use a term such as "twelvers" after all the twelve Imams A.S had been born. I'm done, Wsalam
  3. Yes there are liars, ghullats etc in some hadiths like there in Sunni hadiths, and such hadiths are disregarded. That's why we have hadith sciences where hadiths will be graded, by looking at the isnads and comparing them to the Quran. If you believe that Shias (specially the classical scholars) take hadiths from Ghullats etc, then you do not know anything about Shia Islam brother. Also please show us how the "first century Shias" in firaq ul shia of naubakhti didn't believe Ghadeer to be the appointment of Imam Ali A.S as the successor. I also want to remind you that not everyone who called themselves Shias at the time of Imam Ali's A.S caliphate were "true Shias" as it was a political term during the Imam Ali A.S / Muawiya dispute. Please show proof for the red bolded statement. As for the rest, nothing worth responding to honestly, just accusations without proof. Wsalam
  4. A bad comparison. The 3rd shahada is something that came much later and was not originally something that was practiced among the Shias (that's why classical shia scholars were against it) whereas Taraweeh is something that has been among the Ahlul Sunnah from the beginning, and where some scholars even considered it obligatory (even though there are no real proof for praying Taraweeh the way it is done today). Also the majority who say the third shahada today do it with the intention of it not being part of the adhan (even though I personally feel one shouldn't do it at all since there are no proof that the Prophet S.A.W or his Ahlulbayt A.S did it). Wsalam
  5. I'm amazed how far people will go to misinterpret narrations to simply disregard them, SubhanAllah Yes Ghadir was one of those declarations, what is meant here is Imam Ali A.S calling them after they all instead decided to follow Abu Bakr as their Caliph. So instead of fighting about it, he decided to be quiet as the outcome could have been bad. This is the patience Amir al Mumineen A.S had. This is a known reason and has been mentioned in several narrations if I'm not mistaken. In what way Allah SWT knows best. I would be careful to call it a "very bad reason" as it is very much likely from the Imam a.s (the chain is authentic). Fear Allah brother. Yes he concealed his matter when the majority decided to follow someone else as the Caliph, not that his matter (his nomination) was concealed (because Ghadir etc was about his nomination). The narration talks about what Imam Ali A.S did afterwards. Can't believe I have to explain this, the narration is self evident. A claim with no evidence at all. Brother you can not call everything a fabrication just because it doesn't suit your view. Anyway in conclusion the narration says that Imam Ali A.S had patience instead of fighting for his own right, where the result would have been much worser. A shorter version of the hadith with a different chain can be found here: http://purifiedhousehold.com/why-imam-ali-as-did-not-rise-up/ @Qa'im Brother since you're an expert in hadiths please feel free to correct if I've said anything wrong, or if you feel that you can add something more to the discussion. Wsalam
  6. 5th Contradiction: Some people claim that tradition of Abu Dhar is speaking of another incident of Tarawih than incident of Aisha and Zaid bin Thabit etc. (i.e. Prophet prayed Tarawih twice in his life). The facts and questions are: It is a pure conjecture that Prophet prayed Tarawih twice. Why then Aisha and other Sahaba unaware of this 2nd time of Tarawih incident? Please name your Salaf Fuqaha who have claimed that Abu Dhar's 3 night incident is separate one from the 3 night incident of Aisha? If Abu Dhar's 3 night incident is different than Aisha's 3 night incident, then please tell us which incident happend first and which incident happened 2nd. If the incident of Abu Dhar happened 2nd, does it mean that "Sunnah" of Prophet (saw) has been "abrogated" for you people where Prophet (saw) recommended by pointing especially towards this so called Tarawih prayer that people go to you homes and pray your Nawafil there? Why then Abu Bakr didn't start this 3 day "alternative" Tarawih during his Caliphate? Why then Abu Bakr, Umar & Uthman didn't bring their WIVES and families in that Tarawih Prayer? Please remember, what to talk about Wives and Families, it has been proved without any doubt that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman themselves never prayed Tarawih. https://web.archive.org/web/20160909053335/http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2466:tarawih&catid=180:fiqh-issues&lang=en&Itemid=108 The fact that the Prophet S.A.W stopped praying there once he knew about them praying behind him shows his view about this. Why not then follow what the Prophet S.A.W said and instead pray at home? That is his true Sunnah. One important point is that these hadiths do not tell us that we should complete the whole Quran in the prayer, pray 8 or 20 raakats etc. Simply, there are no evidences that the Prophet S.A.W actually commanded us to pray this prayer (specially in the way it is done today) and therefore we can not call it an established Sunnah. And that's why the Ahlulbayt A.S considered it an innovation (including Imam Ali A.S). It's not a narration, it's a statement from a scholar. I don't think there is anything more to say about this topic, the reader is free to decide. Wsalam
  7. This narration contradicts the other ones from Sahih Bukhari & Muslim and therefore should be disregarded: 1st Contradiction: Abu Dhar's tradition claims they were "Alternative" nights. While the traditions of Aisha and Zaid bin Thabit etc. they all are unanimous that those 3 nights were not alternative nights. 2nd Contradiction: Abu Dhar's tradition claims that Prophet (saw) himself gathered his family and People during all these 3 nights. While all the traditions of Aisha and Zaid bin Thabit etc. are unanimous that Rasool (saw) didn't order any one to pray during night, but people (who used to stay in Mosque) saw Prophet Muhammad (saw) praying at door of his room, and they at their own gathered behind the wall. And Rasool (saw) didn't even know that people are standing their with intention of Congregation. 3rd Contradiction: Abu Dhar's tradition claim that Prophet (saw) prayed Tarawih Prayer 3rd night so long as the time of FAJR prayer approached. While all other authentic Traditions, who are close to Tawattur, they tell that Prophet (saw) didn't even came out at his door during that 3rd night. And in morning people started throwing stones at his door. Upon that Prophet (saw) came out and he was in anger and he (saw) told people that this Tarawih (or Tahajjud) prayer is better to be prayed at their homes. And this order is till Qiyammah and no one could abrogate it after death of holy Prophet (saw). Moreover, Prophet (saw) himself became furious upon Imam who prolonged the Congregational Prayer. How could then tradition of Abu Dhar be correct when it is telling a lie upon Rasool (saw) that he went against his own instructions and prayed till FAJR in congregation. Here is the tradition once again where Prophet (saw) becoming furious upon prolonging the Congregational prayers. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 672: Narrated Abu Mas'ud: A man came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I keep away from the morning prayer because so-and-so (Imam) prolongs it too much." Allah's Apostle became furious and I had never seen him more furious than he was on that day. The Prophet said, "O people! Some of you make others dislike the prayer, so whoever becomes an Imam he should shorten the prayer, as behind him are the weak, the old and the needy.'' 4th Contradiction: The tradition of Abu Dhar claims that Prophet (saw) prayed only for 3 "ALTERNATIVE" nights of 23rd, 25th and 27th. If this tradition of Abu Dhar is really correct then questions are: Then real Sunnah of Prophet is only 3 nights and that too 3 alternative nights. Why then you people don't ONLY pray for these 3 "Alternative" nights? Please give proper answer why you neglect this Sunnah of "alternative 3 nights". Why have you then extended it to 30 "Contineous" nights? 5th Contradiction: Some people claim that tradition of Abu Dhar is speaking of another incident of Tarawih than incident of Aisha and Zaid bin Thabit etc. (i.e. Prophet prayed Tarawih twice in his life). The facts and questions are: It is a pure conjecture that Prophet prayed Tarawih twice. Why then Aisha and other Sahaba unaware of this 2nd time of Tarawih incident? Please name your Salaf Fuqaha who have claimed that Abu Dhar's 3 night incident is separate one from the 3 night incident of Aisha? If Abu Dhar's 3 night incident is different than Aisha's 3 night incident, then please tell us which incident happend first and which incident happened 2nd. If the incident of Abu Dhar happened 2nd, does it mean that "Sunnah" of Prophet (saw) has been "abrogated" for you people where Prophet (saw) recommended by pointing especially towards this so called Tarawih prayer that people go to you homes and pray your Nawafil there? Why then Abu Bakr didn't start this 3 day "alternative" Tarawih during his Caliphate? Why then Abu Bakr, Umar & Uthman didn't bring their WIVES and families in that Tarawih Prayer? Please remember, what to talk about Wives and Families, it has been proved without any doubt that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman themselves never prayed Tarawih. Now time for opponents to prove that tradition of Abu Dhar is better than all other traditions of Aisha and Zaid bin Thabit and does not contradict them and other Sunnahs of Rasool (saw). Have Sunnies ever heard a term "Shadh" شاذ. It means that even if a tradition is authentic, but it contradicts the more authentic Tradition , then it should be abandoned. In case of Abu Dhar's tradition, it is contradicting tons of much more authentic Sunni Traditions. Therefore it is only Munafiqah to still keep on sticking to it instead of rejecting it and following True Sunnah of Prophet (saw). Some scholars of Ahlul Sunnah as gone as far as declaring it obligatory or makrooh to not pray it: Hanafi Fiqh Al-Durre Mukhtar, vol 1, page 659: Offering Tarawih (in Jammah) is unanimously (Ijma) Sunnat-e-Mua'akida and it is not allowed to neglect it. Fatawa Alamgiri, vol 1, page 116: It is Sunnat-e-Kiffaya to offer the Tarawih Prayer in Congregation (Jammah). If all the people of Masjid and community don't offer it then all of them are Sinners. Mawlana Wahiduz Zaman, while commenting on Sunnan Abu Dawud: "Imam Abu Yousuf and Malikia prefer to offer this prayer at home". Sunnan Abu Dawud, vol 1, page 557, published Lahore (translated by Mawlana Wahiduz Zaman) Mawlana Anwar Kaashmiri writes: "Imam Malik, Imam Yousuf, Imam Tahawi and some companions of Imam Shaf'i prefer that like other Nawafil it is better to offer Tarawih at homes without congregation, while Rasool (saw) said that prayers are better at homes except compulsory one." Imam Nawawi writes: “The scholars agree on its merit, but they differ on whether it is better to pray it in one’s home individually or in congregation in a mosque.” Al-Nawawi, the famous commentator of Sahih Muslim, then goes on to list scholars who support the second and dominant view. He then writes: “Malik, Abu Yusuf, some Shafi’i scholars, and others say that it is better to pray it individually in the home”. Strange that there are scholars among Ahlul Sunnah who believe that it is better to pray it in congregation while the Prophet S.A.W himself clearly said in authentic hadiths that it is better to offer it at home.. Even Ibn Umar was against Taraweeh: Professor Dr. Muhammad Rawas (who is professor in one University of Saudia and has compiled a big Encyclopedia upon Fiqh of Sahaba and other early Ulama) writes about Abdullah Ibn Umar: "Abdullah Ibn Umar (the son of Umar Ibn Khattab) did not pray Tarawih with people in Mosque, but he used to offer them individually at home. Reference: Encyclopedia of Fiqhs, vol 7 (Under Fiqh of Abdullah Ibn Umar) This same Saudi Professor writes further in his Fiqh Encyclopedia: "One person came to Abdullah Ibn Umar and asked if he should pray Tarawih behind an Imam. Abdullah Ibn Umar asked him if he could recite Quran. He answered: "Yes". Upon this Abdullah Ibn Umar told him why he want to stand queitly like a donkey behind Imam... Go and offer it at your home." Reference: Fiqh Encyclopedia, vol 7, under fiqh of "Abdullah Ibn Umar. Authorm Dr. Muhammad Rawas, Professor in Dehran university of Saudia Also narrated by Abdul Razzaq: Translation: What did Ahlulbayt A.S think of Taraweeh? There is a well known Sunni Alim "Shawkani". He is even respected by Salafies/Wahabies. Even he accepted this that Aima of Ahle Bait (as) deemed Tarawih to be Misguided Innovation. Al-Shawkani, Nayl al-Awtar, volume 3, page 50: “The progeny of the Prophet (s) say that congregation in Tarawih is an INNOVATION”. Alhamdullah, this is the belief of the Shias. https://web.archive.org/web/20160909053335/http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2466:tarawih&catid=180:fiqh-issues&lang=en&Itemid=108 May Allah SWT guide us to the truth, Ameen Wsalam
  8. Yes: “Abu Ja’far (as) has said that: ‘The people, when they did what they did, they pledged their allegiances to Abu Bakr, nothing prevented Amir-ul- Momineen (as) calling the people to himself except that he looked around at the people and feared for them that they would renege from Al-Islam, and resort to worshipping the idols and not testify that there is no god except Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and that Muhamamd Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå is the Rasool Allah, and it was more beloved to him (as) than he should agree with them upon what they had done rather than them reneging against the whole of Al-Islam. But rather, destroyed is the one who does what they did. So, as for the one who did not do that, and entered into what the people had entered into without knowledge or enmity against Amir-ul- Momineen (as), so for that they have neither blasphemed nor exited from Al-Islam, and it is for that reason that Ali (as) concealed his matter, and had to pledge allegiance unwillingly, when he did not find any helpers’.” Sanad: Humeyd Bin Ziyad, from Al-Hassan Bin Muhammad Al-Kindy, from someone else, from Abaan Bin Usmaan, from Al-Fazel, from Zurara Source: Kitab Al-Kaafi, Volume 8, Hadith #14902 Grading: – Bahboody – Sahih بهبودي صحيح – Majlisi, As Reliable مجلسي كالموثق [Mira’at Al-Uqool, Alammah Majlisi, Volume 26, Page 326] Nothing strange here, feel free to read this article about the matter: http://purifiedhousehold.com/why-imam-ali-as-did-not-rise-up/ Not sure why you're trying to make it seem like they were agreeing with your view that the Prophet S.A.W didn't appoint Imam Ali A.S as his successor.. Wsalam
  9. JazakAllah kher brother, amazing research!
  10. That's your view but it does not mean that it is correct. According to most of your narrations, everything was fine and many of them got along etc. and Imam Ali A.S was happy. According to our narrations, that was not the case. There are proofs brother, but wether you will consider them as authentic or not is another story.
  11. The narration doesn't say that they were abrogated. Rather it says that the paper got eaten after the Prophet's s.a.w death. Those narrations may be interpreted as "abrogations" by your scholars in the same way that most of our scholars may interpret such narrations or simply discredit them. Doesn't matter wether it was about smaller or bigger issues, tahreef is tahreef. Just because those kind of narrations are attributed to the Imams A.S doesn't mean that they were actually said by them... They are most likely fabricated. Majlisi may have held that opinion and believed the hadith is Sahih but as shown by brother Nazer it is most likely weak. The Prophet S.A.W left both the Quran & Ahlulbayt A.S to follow, doesn't make sense that the Quran would be corrupted. Alhamdullah that not all Shia scholars held that view, and most likely the Imams A.S and their true Shias didn't believe in that either (and that's why we have a lot of narrations on the importance of the Quran etc.). Our books are not only filled with "tahreef" narrations. By playing the same game: https://web.archive.org/web/20160909122831/http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1852:ibn-abbas-tahrif-beliefs-a-serious-challenge-to-efendi-al-nasibi&catid=153:quran&lang=en&Itemid=121 How could your scholars authenticate such a narration brother? Obviously I don't believe that Ibn Abbas r.a believed in tahreef but still, why did they consider such a narration as authentic? https://web.archive.org/web/20160909122826/http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1853:imam-malik-s-tahrif-belief-another-trap-for-efendi&catid=153:quran&lang=en&Itemid=121 https://web.archive.org/web/20160909122819/http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1855:tahrif-trapping-efendi-al-nasibi-in-his-own-cage&catid=153:quran&lang=en&Itemid=121
  12. You know that the author only quoted that part which was apparently said by a Shia scholar right? The whole article is a refutation about there being "no clear nass" on Imam Ali A.S being the successor. The author also gives examples as why Imam Ali A.S didn't or couldn't use the Ghadeer as a strong argument due to the circumstances. Read the whole brother. So when the objections of the Shí'a community against the learned scholar increased, in the last days of Ramadhan 1418, he issued a general circular addressed to the Shí'as via the Internet: "I am taking this opportunity to state in the most ABSOLUTE terms that not only do I believe in the unequivocal authenticity of the event of al-Ghadir which took place on the 18th of Dhul-Hijja, 11AH/632 CE; I believe that the statement by the Prophet 'Everyone whose master I am, also has 'Ali as a master,' to be the explicit designation of the Imam 'Ali to the office of the Leadership of the Muslim Community, as upheld by the Twelver Shí'a faith. https://www.al-islam.org/shiism-imamate-and-wilayat-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi/appointment-ali-explicit-or-implicit#fref_0c61e888_12 Wsalam
  13. I suggest you read this by brother @Islamic Salvation about those particular hadiths:
  14. travel

    Doesn't it depend though if he travels before or after the Duhr prayer? According to Sayyed Sistani one should keep fasting if one begins traveling after the Duhr prayer.
  15. Salam Alykom I suggest you read this article: http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/06/narjis-mother-of-12th-imaam-story-is_20.html @Islamic Salvation @Qa'im What do our authentic hadiths say about Imam Mahdi's A.J mother?