Jump to content


- -


Photo
- - - - -

Diff Approach For Shia-sunni Debate


19 replies to this topic

#1 karbalah

karbalah

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 14 October 2008 - 05:01 PM

(bismillah)


My eyes are starting to go Cross from writing and debating and in the end having our sunni brothers give up on us using the excuse that we do not believe what sources they bring in anyways...yup

facts

1- they are right we do not believe their sources

sunni also believe that its a waste of time to get them for us since we will just say these sources are lies ,,,,wrong

facts:
1- we never put a red mark beside their hadith and say liar liars ,but what we do is bring a counter hadith ( from their own sources ,,or ayat from quran ) to show the discrepancies


sunni believe that shia will contradict anything they bring due to their own belief....naahh ,,not relay true

fact

1- shia believe that sunni have enough sunni hadiths that contradicts sunni hadith :Hijabi: ,,,


that said :
Dear Muhawir,,,( plus any sunni bro with some knowledge about what they are defending ) ,i in this post ( hope other shia too ) do solemnly swear that I will NOT say your sources are lies,,you have my promise,,but WE shia really need to know what you know,,,
you have my solemn promise that I will not accuse your stories of fabrications...( if anything i will only use other sunni sources or koran to compare facts) just list what you know,,about

1- wisdom of abu baker\
2- modesty of abu baker
3-knowledge of abu baker
4-abu baker and quran
5-nice stories of abu baker

I really want to know what you read that made you SO attached to abu baker and omar.

bec in all my 6-16yrs,,,nothing stuck in my mind in my schooling in Kuwait schools!!!!

do not play the waste card with me,,you are here to use your knowledge and throw it at us despite what we think ,,you have nothing to loose,,you got all our sarcasm,,and fun poke at sahaba that you can take and nothing is new to you in this forum.

so what have you got to loose?????

#2 MohammadMufti

MohammadMufti

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 01:52 AM

1- we never put a red mark beside their hadith and say liar liars ,but what we do is bring a counter hadith ( from their own sources ,,or ayat from quran ) to show the discrepancies


That's useless because half the time you bring "counter" ahadith, you either don't know their shurooh which you ignored before setting off arguing or you use narrations which we don't take as authentic or the ones with most arjah.

You said, "shia believe that sunni have enough sunni hadiths that contradicts sunni hadith". That's because we recorded everything. Be it from Khawwarijj or Rawafid. The trouble now is that our "Salafi experts" (who don't know even what Salafiyuwn are) completely disregard 'ilm ad dariyah. I don't care if in your religion you don't give a damn for 'ilm ar rijaal - but for Ahlus Sunnah (as per the Qur'aan), it figures very importantly. Narrating rubbish won't convince any Sunni except the ignorant ones (and the Ahbash as we can see...)

bec in all my 6-16yrs,,,nothing stuck in my mind in my schooling in Kuwait schools!!!!


From what you told me, you were Habashi. Ahbash are not Sunna' - of course nothing stuck.

do not play the waste card with me,,you are here to use your knowledge and throw it at us despite what we think ,,you have nothing to loose,,you got all our sarcasm,,and fun poke at sahaba that you can take and nothing is new to you in this forum.


If you will make the thread in Thinkers Forum, show me one of the mods who will agree to moderate our thread and make sure nobody but the two of us post in it and that we will discuss only from Sunna' sources (we'll discuss what qualifies in the thread. Also, I beg you, please use some proper sentence structure. Try to organize each point in a paragraph and don't overuse "?". I honestly can't bother myself to decipher a post where half of it is so sloppy even if/when you have something important to say (this is not an insult - I've already said that before - I find the English rules of language very important!). Than I'm willing to do so (one topic at a time starting with 6 inshaAllah). I don't like this section - as you can see, your brothers/sisters openly lie about Sunna' sources, pretend they know more about our 'ilm ad dariyah than us, and generally when they are refuted have no shame either to admit it - only to launch invectives. If you agree to that (and whatever "rules" we establish).

#3 karbalah

karbalah

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 02:15 PM

That's useless because half the time you bring "counter" ahadith, you either don't know their shurooh which you ignored before setting off arguing or you use narrations which we don't take as authentic or the ones with most arjah.



ok I know that there are a lot of sunni hadiths that are not authentic or the shurouh might indicate dif meaning than what the hadith really means.

I need to ask you a favour
1) how can you tell if a hadith is authentic from sahih bukhari if it does not indicate it in the original book?
2) do we only need rely on shurooh to make sure it is authentic?
3)can you lease give me an example oh a hadith were we ignored the shurooh since you and bro mouhawir always point that out to us ,,,

give me a hadith that shia use and ignore the shurooh that could indicate diff meaning hence shia should not use as a contradiction in debates.

You said, "shia believe that sunni have enough sunni hadiths that contradicts sunni hadith". That's because we recorded everything. Be it from Khawwarijj or Rawafid. The trouble now is that our "Salafi experts" (who don't know even what Salafiyuwn are) completely disregard 'ilm ad dariyah. I don't care if in your religion you don't give a damn for 'ilm ar rijaal - but for Ahlus Sunnah (as per the Qur'aan), it figures very importantly. Narrating rubbish won't convince any Sunni except the ignorant ones (and the Ahbash as we can see...)



1- shia are not salafi : shia re the pioneers in ilm as dariyah.pioneers in this field, it must be admitted that the Shi`ah had taken a lead in this field. The first writer to compile a book on this subject was Abu Muhammad `Abd Allah ibn Jibillah ibn Hayyan al-Kanani (died 219/834).

sunni can not prove otherwise!!!!
shia have ilm al rijal as part of their hawza studies ....which means that a hadith is dissected into microscopic fragments before it is considered authentic
2- you claim we recorded everything ,,did that recording happen at the time after the prophet saaw passed away or by sahih 100 years after ??
3- i understand your anger and frustration at the sarcasm and cut remarks we shia throw at the sahaba,,but does this make us from a diff religion???
4- ilm ar rijaal THAT WE DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT :

The most important books compiled by Shi`ah scholars on `ilm al-rijal are five. They are:

Kitab al-rijal by Abi al-`Abbas Ahmad ibn `Ali al-Najashi (died 450/1058), which later became known merely as "al-Najash", gives accounts of lives of narrators who have compiled books, giving little attention to others. Though the biographical accounts are given in an alphabetical order, the compilation is not very orderly. However, later, through the efforts of Kazim al-Ansari (died 1006/1597-8), Mulla `Inayat Allah Quhpa'i (died 1016/1607- 8) - the author of Majma` al-rijal - and Shaykh Dawud ibn al-Hasan al-Bahrayni (died 1104/1692-3), these defects have been removed.
Kitab al-fihrist, by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Tusi, known as "Shaykh al-Ta'ifah" (died 460/1067-8). This book gives the biographical accounts in an alphabetical order. Moreover, several others have worked upon it.
Kitab al-rijal, also by al-Tusi, in which he gives the names of the contemporaries of every Imam Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã in the order of their succession.
Ma`rifat akhbar al-rijal, by `Umar ibn Muhammad al-Kashshi.
Al-Du`afa' by Ibn al-Ghada'iri, Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn `Abd Allah, a scholar of the fifth century Hijrah.



bro mufti,,,are these works enough for you?? shia STARTED BEFORE SUNNI GIVING DAMN.

please reply.

From what you told me, you were Habashi. Ahbash are not Sunna' - of course nothing stuck.


nope dear bro,,sorry if it was my past bad grammar and writing that mislead you ,,i was never a habashi ,,i lived in Kuwait for 10 years they did not exist there,,i was a sunni pure and simple until the age of 16 ,,I did go to study groups for SAHARI,,and HABASHI,,,to see what they have ,,not to follow them ,,bec habashi believe that the earth is flat and they will not explain it unless you join so i wanted to know ,:)..but was never a habashi ,,and i know they are not considered MUSLIMS BUT THEY ARE sunna ,,SINCE THEY ONLY BELIVE IN THE 1ST 2 CALIPHS ,,abu baker and Omar,,but doubt othman .

If you will make the thread in Thinkers Forum, show me one of the mods who will agree to moderate our thread and make sure nobody but the two of us post in it and that we will discuss only from Sunna' sources (we'll discuss what qualifies in the thread. Also, I beg you, please use some proper sentence structure. Try to organize each point in a paragraph and don't overuse "?". I honestly can't bother myself to decipher a post where half of it is so sloppy even if/when you have something important to say (this is not an insult - I've already said that before - I find the English rules of language very important!). Than I'm willing to do so (one topic at a time starting with 6 inshaAllah). I don't like this section - as you can see, your brothers/sisters openly lie about Sunna' sources, pretend they know more about our 'ilm ad dariyah than us, and generally when they are refuted have no shame either to admit it - only to launch invectives. If you agree to that (and whatever "rules" we establish).



I have no problem with that ,,,,we can start it in thinkers forum,,and just post as one on one.

All i ask is that my replies sometimes take time because of my job . but inshallah i will do my best to be fair .

but i have to start by refuting the fact that shia pretend to know more ,,bec i know for a fact ilm al dariyah is a compulsary course you study in hawzat al najf and qum and hia schools,,and i can prove it.
shia started before sunni in that aspect ,,and dates do not lie.

iam going to start the thread in thinkers forum one on one . and i will do my best to use my best english vocabulary in-order to make it easier for you.

god bless

#4 knightstemplar

knightstemplar

    Carpe Diem - Sieze The Day!

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,725 posts
  • Location:Kenya

Posted 15 October 2008 - 02:31 PM

I don't care if in your religion you don't give a damn for 'ilm ar rijaal but for Ahlus Sunnah (as per the Qur'aan), it figures very importantly. Narrating rubbish won't convince any Sunni except the ignorant ones (and the Ahbash as we can see...)


Thats utter rubbish. There is no ayat to that effect. If Ilm-erijaal was that important, ayat 45.3, 6.75 and 30.30 have no relevance at all and to be deleted from your uthmani codex.

But its interesting that the sister also mentioned sunnis fail to deliver supporting ayat from Quran which and you did not address that point. An example would have been your rather pathetic doctrine of "differences between sunnis are blessing".

#5 karbalah

karbalah

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 02:54 PM

for those sunni-shia brothers who consider this topic o be interesting we might Be able to continue a similar open debate here to allow others to participate ,for your ideas and input ,,,

as long as we keep it fair ,,,

shia brothers with knowledge on hadith can participate here ,,so can sunni brothers-and sisters :)

#6 MohammadMufti

MohammadMufti

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts

Posted 20 October 2008 - 01:52 AM

bro mufti,,,are these works enough for you?? shia STARTED BEFORE SUNNI GIVING DAMN.

please reply.


No, they're not. Pure rubbish, and the person from whom you are finding about this al-Kanani is either a liar or ignorant since I have in my own personal library some of the earliest examples of isnaad (i.e. Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbih - definitely not a 12er work, present from the day of Tabiuwn with manuscript evidence) and also on the topic of rijaal we have Shu'ba ibn al-Hajjaj ÑÖí Çááøå ÚÜäÜå well before this al-Kanani. Major 12er "rijaal" books didn't begin until Kasashi (whom you mentioned) and this isn't even a book on rijaal in the truest sense as his primary goal was to collect the names/info of 12er authors. 'ilm al dariyah necessitates the recording of ALL men, not just people who wrote books - but also the people who narrated orally before such things reached books. Further more, you are very decietful in trying to use the work of Kanani as proof of an early 12er origin in 'ilm al rijaal. Look up the man in your own books of rijaal and what your scholars say about him. This revisionist history was thoroughly debunked by brother Mubid al Majus.

http://www.sunniforu...ead.php?t=21952

As for your 'ilm al rijaal, the members here who actually feign knowledge and play with books are utterly depressed by it.

http://www.shiachat....h...951038&st=0

Don't make baseless statements...


All i ask is that my replies sometimes take time because of my job . but inshallah i will do my best to be fair .


I will take time too - I have studies / work also.

#7 power

power

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,679 posts
  • Location:U K
  • Religion:Shia Imamiyya Ithna Ashari

Posted 20 October 2008 - 04:20 PM

No, they're not. Pure rubbish, and the person from whom you are finding about this al-Kanani is either a liar or ignorant since I have in my own personal library some of the earliest examples of isnaad (i.e. Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbih - definitely not a 12er work, present from the day of Tabiuwn with manuscript evidence) and also on the topic of rijaal we have Shu'ba ibn al-Hajjaj ÑÖí Çááøå ÚÜäÜå well before this al-Kanani. Major 12er "rijaal" books didn't begin until Kasashi (whom you mentioned) and this isn't even a book on rijaal in the truest sense as his primary goal was to collect the names/info of 12er authors. 'ilm al dariyah necessitates the recording of ALL men, not just people who wrote books - but also the people who narrated orally before such things reached books. Further more, you are very decietful in trying to use the work of Kanani as proof of an early 12er origin in 'ilm al rijaal. Look up the man in your own books of rijaal and what your scholars say about him. This revisionist history was thoroughly debunked by brother Mubid al Majus.

http://www.sunniforu...ead.php?t=21952

As for your 'ilm al rijaal, the members here who actually feign knowledge and play with books are utterly depressed by it.

http://www.shiachat....h...951038&st=0

Don't make baseless statements...




I will take time too - I have studies / work also.

YOU PEOPLE HAD NOTHING 4 ALMOST 150 200 YEARS I MEAN ABSOLUTE NOTHING IN BOOK FORM SO PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU PEOPLE WERE LEARNING YOU ARE EAVAN WORES THAN CHRISTIAN

Edited by power, 20 October 2008 - 04:21 PM.


#8 Gypsy

Gypsy

    Hal Min Nasirin Yansurna

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,509 posts
  • Interests:Exposing hypocrisy and double standards.

Posted 20 October 2008 - 06:12 PM

(salam)
We have good people here - both the Sunnis and Shias. Kuddos to you guys and gals. B)

There is one big thing that is missing here. Common Sense. :(

If Muawiyah and Ali(as) wage a war against each other, war that kills hundreds of people! Then don't tell me they love each other! :angry:

We desperately need some common sense here.

#9 MohammadMufti

MohammadMufti

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts

Posted 21 October 2008 - 12:04 AM

We desperately need some common sense here.


And you should be the first one to try and aquire some. When the North attacked the South (US civil war), did they "hate" their brothers? Brothers who were shooting at brothers because a difference of political opinion, not because they didn't love each other. Don't tell me these - literal brothers who's bond is a much weaker bond, one of blood, are closer than people bonded by the same religion...

When Hitler attacked the French, did he hate them? Pure absurdity - his ideal was to unite these Europeans. That people Aryans would die in the process was seen as a necessary and unfortunate consequence of the same. We do desperately need common sense, it starts with ridding ourselves of Zoroastrian extremist dualism.

YOU PEOPLE HAD NOTHING 4 ALMOST 150 200 YEARS I MEAN ABSOLUTE NOTHING IN BOOK FORM SO PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU PEOPLE WERE LEARNING YOU ARE EAVAN WORES THAN CHRISTIAN


L3ana 3la kadhibeen, say ameen with me. If that is the case, do tell me expert sir, when was Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabih from? If anybody should be criticized on the basis of time, it's your ilk who didn't concoct your first major book of athaar until 450...

#10 karbalah

karbalah

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 21 October 2008 - 03:50 PM

No, they're not. Pure rubbish, and the person from whom you are finding about this al-Kanani is either a liar or ignorant since I have in my own personal library some of the earliest examples of isnaad (i.e. Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbih - definitely not a 12er work, present from the day of Tabiuwn with manuscript evidence) and also on the topic of rijaal we have Shu'ba ibn al-Hajjaj ÑÖí Çááøå ÚÜäÜå well before this al-Kanani. Major 12er "rijaal" books didn't begin until Kasashi (whom you mentioned) and this isn't even a book on rijaal in the truest sense as his primary goal was to collect the names/info of 12er authors. 'ilm al dariyah necessitates the recording of ALL men, not just people who wrote books - but also the people who narrated orally before such things reached books. Further more, you are very decietful in trying to use the work of Kanani as proof of an early 12er origin in 'ilm al rijaal. Look up the man in your own books of rijaal and what your scholars say about him. This revisionist history was thoroughly debunked by brother Mubid al Majus.

http://www.sunniforu...ead.php?t=21952

As for your 'ilm al rijaal, the members here who actually feign knowledge and play with books are utterly depressed by it.

http://www.shiachat....h...951038&st=0

Don't make baseless statements...




I will take time too - I have studies / work also.


bro mufti,,,my statements are not baseless,,,I get original written dtaes for haditsh dated long before sunni dates.


you are very decietful in trying to use the work of Kanani as proof of an early 12er origin in 'ilm al rijaal. Look up the man in your own books of rijaal and what your scholars say about him. This revisionist history was thoroughly debunked by brother Mubid al Majus.



I am not fmiliar with mubid al majus any info on my decietfulness regarding Kanani so I can look into it ???




I will post them soon inshallah ,,,,it is a known fact that for us shia that imam ali sa saved hadiths while abu baker and omar burned them :

hadith in arabic,,links are to sunni sites you can not deny :
1-bu baker BURNS THE HADIHS AND PREVENTS them being written:
- ãÓäÏ ÇáÕÏíÞ (Ñ) : ÞÇá ÇáÍÇÝÙ ÚãÇÏ ÇáÏíä Èä ßËíÑ Ýí ãÓäÏ ÇáÕÏíÞ : ÇáÍÇßã ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáäíÓÇÈæÑí ÍÏËäÇ ÈßÑ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÕÑíÝíäí ÈãÑæ ÍÏËäÇ ãæÓì Èä ÍãÇÏ ËäÇ ÇáãÝÖá ÅÈä ÛÓÇä ËäÇ Úáí Èä ÕÇáÍ ÍÏËäÇ ãæÓì Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÍÓä Èä ÍÓä Úä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ÚãÑæ Úä ÚÈíÏ Çááå ÇáÊíãí ÍÏËäÇ ÇáÞÇÓã Èä ãÍãÏ ÞÇá : ÞÇáÊ ÚÇÆÔÉ : ÌãÚ ÃÈí ÇáÍÏíË Úä ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ) ÝßÇäÊ ÎãÓãÇÆÉ ÍÏíË ¡ ÝÈÇÊ áíáÉ íÊÞáÈ ßËíÑÇ ¡ ÞÇáÊ : ÝÛãäí ÝÞáÊ ÊÊÞáÈ áÔßæì Ãæ áÔÆ ÈáÛß ¿ ÝáãÇ ÃÕÈÍ ÞÇá : Ãí ÈäíÉ åáãí ÇáÇÍÇÏíË ÇáÊí ÚäÏß ÝÌÆÊå ÈåÇ ÝÏÚÇ ÈäÇÑ ÝÃÍÑÞåÇ æÞÇá ¡ ÎÔíÊ Ãä ÃãæÊ æåí ÚäÏß Ýíßæä ÝíåÇ ÃÍÇÏíË Úä ÑÌá ÇÆÊãäÊå ææËÞÊ Èå æáã íßä ßãÇ ÍÏËäí ÝÃßæä ÞÏ ÊÞáÏÊ Ðáß . æÞÏ ÑæÇå ÇáÞÇÖí ÃÈæ ÃãíÉ ÇáÇÍæÕ Èä ÇáãÝÖá Èä ÛÓÇä ÇáÛáÇÈí Úä ÇÈíå Úä Úáí Èä ÕÇáÍ Úä ãæÓì Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä Úáí Èä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ Úä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ÚãÑ Èä ÚÈíÏ Çááå ÇáÊíãí ÍÏËäí ÇáÞÇÓã Èä ãÍãÏ Ãæ ÇÈäå ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Èä ÇáÞÇÓã Ôß ãæÓì ÝíåãÇ ÞÇá : ÞÇáÊ ÚÇÆÔÉ - ÝÐßÑå æÒÇÏ ÈÚÏ Þæáå : ÝÃßæä ÞÏ ÊÞáÏÊ Ðáß æíßæä ÞÏ ÈÞí ÍÏíË áã ÃÌÏå ÝíÞÇá : áæ ßÇä ÞÇáå ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ) ãÇ ÛÈí Úáì ÃÈí ÈßÑ Åäí ÍÏËÊßã ÇáÍÏíË æáÇ ÃÏÑí áÚáí áã ÃÊÊÈÚå ÍÑÝÇ ÍÑÝÇ . ÞÇá ÅÈä ßËíÑ : åÐÇ ÛÑíÈ ãä åÐÇ ÇáæÌå ÌÏÇ æÚáí Èä ÕÇáÍ áÇ íÚÑÝ æÇáÇÍÇÏíË Úä ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ) ÃßËÑ ãä åÐÇ ÇáãÞÏÇÑ ÈÃáæÝ æáÚáå ÇäãÇ ÇÊÝÞ áå ÌãÚ Êáß ÝÞØ Ëã ÑÃì ãÇ ÑÃì áãÇ ÐßÑÊ ÞáÊ ÞÇá ÇáÔíÎ ÌáÇá ÇáÏíä ÇáÓíæØí ÑÍãå Çááå ÊÚÇáì Ãæ áÚáå ÌãÚ ãÇ ÝÇÊå ÓãÇÚå ãä ÇáäÈí (Õ) æÍÏËå Úäå Èå ÈÚÖ ÇáÕÍÇÈÉ ßÍÏíË ÇáÌÏÉ æäÍæå æÇáÙÇåÑ Çä Ðáß áÇ íÒíÏ Úáì åÐÇ ÇáãÞÏÇÑ áÇäå ßÇä ÇÍÝÙ ÇáÕÍÇÈÉ æÚäÏå ãä ÇáÇÍÇÏíË ãÇ áã íßä ÚäÏ ÇÍÏ ãäåã ßÍÏíË ( ãÇ ÏÝä äÈí ÅáÇ ÍíË íÞÈÖ ) Ëã ÎÔí Çä íßæä ÇáÐí ÍÏËå æåã ÝßÑå ÊÞáÏ Ðáß æÐáß ÕÑíÍ Ýí ßáÇãå .


ÇáãÊÞí ÇáåäÏí - ßäÒ ÇáÚãÇá - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 285


æÞÏ äÞá ÇáÍÇßã ÝÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÈßÑ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÕíÑÝí ÈãÑæ ÇäÇ ãÍãÏ ÅÈä ãæÓì ÇáÈÑÈÑí ÇäÇ ÇáãÝÖá Èä ÛÓÇä ÇäÇ Úáí Èä ÕÇáÍ ÇäÇ ãæÓì Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÍÓä Èä ÍÓä Úä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ÚãÑ Èä ÚÈíÏ Çááå ÇáÊíãí ÍÏËäí ÇáÞÇÓã Èä ãÍãÏ ÞÇáÊ ÚÇÆÔÉ ÌãÚ ÃÈí ÇáÍÏíË Úä ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ) æßÇäÊ ÎãÓãÇÆÉ ÍÏíË ÝÈÇÊ áíáÊå íÊÞáÈ ßËíÑÇ ÞÇáÊ ÝÛãäí ÝÞáÊ ÃÊÊÞáÈ áÔßæì Ãæ áÔÆ ÈáÛß ¿ ÝáãÇ ÇÕÈÍ ÞÇá Ãí ÈäíÉ åáãì ÇáÇÍÇÏíË ÇáÊì ÚäÏß ÝÌÆÊå ÈåÇ ÝÏÚÇ ÈäÇÑ ÝÍÑÞåÇ ¡ ÝÞáÊ áã ÇÍÑÞÊåÇ ¿ ÞÇá ÎÔíÊ Çä ÇãæÊ æåí ÚäÏí Ýíßæä ÝíåÇ ÇÍÇÏíË Úä ÑÌá ÞÏ ÇÆÊãäÊå ææËÞÊ æáã íßä ßãÇ ÍÏËäí ÝÇßæä ÞÏ äÞáÊ ÐÇß . ÝåÐÇ áÇ íÕÍ æÇááå ÇÚáã.
ÇáÐåÈí - ÊÐßÑÉ ÇáÍÝÇÙ - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 5
2-


sunni sites link:
1- http://www.al-eman.c...mp;SW=29460#SR1




And good luck in ur studies!

#11 karbalah

karbalah

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 21 October 2008 - 04:07 PM

oh and bro mufti,,,,lets keep it nice and easy no need to accuse me and you of lying or deceit ,,I accuse the sahaba yes,,but not you ,,,I would never lie on intention to suit my own ends,,and believe me or not I know you too do not fabricate ,,you seem to bring forth what you were taught and believin ,,I did not write a book on kanani ,,nor on ilm al hadith I get it from my sources ,,

what i got from YOUR SOURCES,,is abu baker and omar and othman ignoring the hadith till 100 years later ,,so they did not go by what the prophet asked them

what I get from you r sources is abu baker burning the hadiths

and these id o not fabricate nor lie,,they exist and are real and i read them ,,and i gave you a sunni link.

#12 power

power

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,679 posts
  • Location:U K
  • Religion:Shia Imamiyya Ithna Ashari

Posted 21 October 2008 - 04:19 PM

oh and bro mufti,,,,lets keep it nice and easy no need to accuse me and you of lying or deceit ,,I accuse the sahaba yes,,but not you ,,,I would never lie on intention to suit my own ends,,and believe me or not I know you too do not fabricate ,,you seem to bring forth what you were taught and believin ,,I did not write a book on kanani ,,nor on ilm al hadith I get it from my sources ,,

what i got from YOUR SOURCES,,is abu baker and omar and othman ignoring the hadith till 100 years later ,,so they did not go by what the prophet asked them

what I get from you r sources is abu baker burning the hadiths

and these id o not fabricate nor lie,,they exist and are real and i read them ,,and i gave you a sunni link.


THEY HAVE THIS TERRBLE HABBIT OF BURNING THEY NEARLY BURNT DOWN BIBI FATMA(AS) HOUSE HZ ABU BAKER BURN'T NEARLY 500 HADEETH SO DID HZ UMAR HZ OSMAN BURN'T THE QURAN THEY WERE DIFFINETLY IN THE WRONG JOB

#13 toocoool66

toocoool66

    SYED ALI RAZA

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Location:pakistan
  • Interests:READING ABOUT AHLUBAIT , THINKING ABOUT AHLUBAIT,TRYING TO BE A SLAVE AND MOHIB OF AHLUBAIT

Posted 21 October 2008 - 05:15 PM

assalam-o-allaikom

i was reading this post and found brother mufti saying this in reply to brother zareen post about common sense and he said:-

"When the North attacked the South (US civil war), did they "hate" their brothers?"

AND ALSO

"When Hitler attacked the French, did he hate them? Pure absurdity"

come on brother have a heart ,,,,is this how you people treat the people whom you love???though i have very little knowledge yet i have read some thing about the incident of burning of door and of course karbala as well,,,but atleast to my understanding and IQ,it was not at all an attempt to show love or respect to THEM......

does it make sense that if you love someone who is not having the same THOUGHTS as you are having ,you should KILL him,and then say "OH I WAS IN DEEP LOVE WITH HIM"..........................................

#14 Gypsy

Gypsy

    Hal Min Nasirin Yansurna

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,509 posts
  • Interests:Exposing hypocrisy and double standards.

Posted 21 October 2008 - 07:41 PM

And you should be the first one to try and aquire some. When the North attacked the South (US civil war), did they "hate" their brothers?

You mean to say these war were based on politics? If that is the case, then you Sunni have no excuse to defend Muawiyah(LA). He was a rotten human being. The first king in the Muslim history.

Edited by Zareen, 21 October 2008 - 07:44 PM.


#15 MohammadMufti

MohammadMufti

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts

Posted 21 October 2008 - 09:57 PM

oh and bro mufti,,,,lets keep it nice and easy no need to accuse me and you of lying or deceit ,,I accuse the sahaba yes,,but not you ,,,


What's that supposed to mean? How many people fight when you insult them? And how many more fight when you insult their mothers? You routinely insult and slander my mothers and those like unto them in superiority of my real mother. Than you say to keep things "nice", subhanAllah.

I would never lie on intention to suit my own ends,,and believe me or not I know you too do not fabricate ,,you seem to bring forth what you were taught and believin ,,I did not write a book on kanani ,,nor on ilm al hadith I get it from my sources ,,


I didn't accuse you of lying, I am well aware of the fact that you are just a mouth piece for actual polemicists from whom you read...

what i got from YOUR SOURCES,,is abu baker and omar and othman ignoring the hadith till 100 years later ,,so they did not go by what the prophet asked them

what I get from you r sources is abu baker burning the hadiths

and these id o not fabricate nor lie,,they exist and are real and i read them ,,and i gave you a sunni link.


I never denied them, it shows (since I imagine you accept these sources than): Sunna' collected ahadeeth well before 12ers viz Abi Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) amongst others. Complete change of tact from your earlier rubbish argument that you people invented 'ilm al dariyah (lol). Anyways, you are running away from the claims you made rather than answering brother Mubid al Majus (see link). If you can't stand by your claims, why do you make claims without researching them and just parrot liars?

As for your absurd (re)interpretation of the nature of the collections of Abi Bakr (ra), than you are very clearly lying because the narrations clearly state that he burned his text for a reason - out of fear that he might mistakenly have made a mistake in writing in any of them that leads to him wrongly attributing to the prophet (saw) something which Rasul (saw) didn't say. Emphasis than is on knowledge of memory - and there are several narrations from after this event where they recall narrations by their memory (clearly contrary to your lie that they were "ignoring the hadith". In any case, this is completely irrelevant to your original argument which you completely abandoned and ran away from...


come on brother have a heart ,,,,is this how you people treat the people whom you love???though i have very little knowledge yet i have read some thing about the incident of burning of door and of course karbala as well,,,but atleast to my understanding and IQ,it was not at all an attempt to show love or respect to THEM......


As for burning the door, than we have nothing saheeh like that. Common sense would urge you to look for authenticated material and not old wive's tales. As for killing, than I've already mentioned historical events other than these where people who differed politically went to war. It isn't an expression of hate or even dislike, regardless of whether you want to now deny the histories of the Americans and the Europeans as well as that of the Muslims.

does it make sense that if you love someone who is not having the same THOUGHTS as you are having ,you should KILL him,and then say "OH I WAS IN DEEP LOVE WITH HIM"..........................................


That's ridiculous. I didn't say they fought because they loved one another, you should look in the events rather than making claims without knowing the material. Their love towards each other is completely irrelevant towards their (differing) beliefs in what would have been best for the Ummah. As for killing someone you love, are you telling me the story of Ibrahim (as) doesn't make sense? He took Ismael (as) and was about to slaughter him even though he loved him. Why? Because he was told by God that this was the right thing to do. Just because you love someone doesn't mean you just throw your ideology and social beliefs out the window for said person's love...

#16 toocoool66

toocoool66

    SYED ALI RAZA

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Location:pakistan
  • Interests:READING ABOUT AHLUBAIT , THINKING ABOUT AHLUBAIT,TRYING TO BE A SLAVE AND MOHIB OF AHLUBAIT

Posted 22 October 2008 - 08:52 AM

assalam-o-allaikom

i have thought about it a hundred times why sunnis believe that bokhari and muslim are the most authentic books and when i ask this thing from my sunni friends they will say that because there ulema say so.........may be they dont have enough knowledge.................so i would like to ask

how can the integrity of bokhari and muslim be established in the first go???

similarly as brother mufti has said:-

"And than it was accepted by Abu Bakr ra.gif, the first man to accept Islaam. This narration actually indicates an earlier fostering of faith in the heart of Hazrat Abu Bakr as Sideeq ra.gif."

i have a copy of history of tibri(though it is urdu translation published by nafees academy karachi) and it states:-

mohammad bin sad asked his father ,"was abu bakr the first among you to accept islam?" his father said "
no, there were more than 50 people who had accepted islam.

#17 karbalah

karbalah

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 22 October 2008 - 04:17 PM

What's that supposed to mean? How many people fight when you insult them? And how many more fight when you insult their mothers? You routinely insult and slander my mothers and those like unto them in superiority of my real mother. Than you say to keep things "nice", subhanAllah

I am not insulting here if I am stating fact from history f what she did,
1- aisha fought imam Ali sa whether it was fitna or not it was stupidity ion her part and so she was wrong
2-aisha DISOBEYED the prophet saaw, when she left her house ( another mistake not insult)
3-aisha 's voice had risen above the prophet saaw ( she disobeys Allah sawt and the prophet)
4-aisha LIED about the prophet leaving a will ( did he or did he not aisha says no but you sunna says yes)
5-aisha hated othman ( not that we care ) but you just indicated hating your mothers is insult to you so she hated othman what say you now ????


so please if we discussed these topics to the bones and gave SUNNA ,,SUNNA sources,,it is not me insulting IT IS YOU.
and do not dare say the hadiths are fake since EVEN IF THEY ARE = why the heck would sunni write and INSULTING hadith in SUNNA SOURCE AND LEAVE IT THERE???

EH?


I didn't accuse you of lying, I am well aware of the fact that you are just a mouth piece for actual polemicists from whom you read...



The shoe fits both way my bro,,it is not like your knowledge comes for a fountain of wisdom that is pouring from you ... unless you are some under cover sheikh your KNOWLEDGE is also brainwashed INFOR YOU received when you were to susceptible to lies and fabrications and now they are embedded,,
YOUR INFORMATION is not a gene you carry.. you also were fed by poor Apologists,,,whom will one day answer for what they did to you.


I never denied them, it shows (since I imagine you accept these sources than): Sunna' collected ahadeeth well before 12ers viz Abi Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) amongst others. Complete change of tact from your earlier rubbish argument that you people invented 'ilm al dariyah (lol). Anyways, you are running away from the claims you made rather than answering brother Mubid al Majus (see link). If you can't stand by your claims, why do you make claims without researching them and just parrot liars?



sorry to burst your bubbles but the hadiths I posted above regarding one of abu bakers mistakes in history do not prove that sunni hadith came 1st ,,the dates were long after ,,where did you get that from ?


at least give some dates so I can prove you wrong ?
and parrot liars?

the only parrots i learned are those who got paid by muawiyah such as abu hourra to repeat the good deed so mr boukhari and muslim can finish their stamp.

nice gang they made.

I have yet to see you post an actual hadith put bu shia source that YOU PROVED A LIE OR FABRICATION,,

you keep repeating yourself like a parrot ,,liars fabricators,,deceits,,,and not one shred of evidence to back it up ,,I asked you give me an example and you never did,either quit it or start a new post with all you proof regarding shia liars .



As for your absurd (re)interpretation of the nature of the collections of Abi Bakr (ra), than you are very clearly lying because the narrations clearly state that he burned his text for a reason - out of fear that he might mistakenly have made a mistake in writing in any of them that leads to him wrongly attributing to the prophet (saw) something which Rasul (saw) didn't say. Emphasis than is on knowledge of memory - and there are several narrations from after this event where they recall narrations by their memory (clearly contrary to your lie that they were "ignoring the hadith". In any case, this is completely irrelevant to your original argument which you completely abandoned and ran away from...


ok bro
1- it is NOT MY LIE,,it is the truth,
he BURNED THE HADITH
and since you CAN NOT EVEN BEGIN to prove that abu baker WROTE THEM heck or even read them than YOU ARE REALLY DESPRATE FOR A STRAW TO HANG ON TO BEFORE YOU DRONW
1- WHERE SID IT SAY abu baker wrote them ?
2- where DID it say he READ THEM?


COME ON!!!!


AND I NEVER run ,,it go with the follow. were still talking hadiths and its ilm
ABU BAKER BURNED IT
DID HE EVEN GO THROUGH IT ,no .

WHAT kind of lame excuse did you give??and do not accuse me of lying .

I o not have to lie to prove that abu baker and omar and aisha and othman were far from perfect. or that sunna history lied.

just go into the link I gave you and see ,,
next time you accuse of lying might as well accuse the al=eman website authors,,they are pure sunni scholars it would not surprise me if they are liars :)




As for burning the door, than we have nothing saheeh like that. Common sense would urge you to look for authenticated material and not old wive's tales. As for killing, than I've already mentioned historical events other than these where people who differed politically went to war. It isn't an expression of hate or even dislike, regardless of whether you want to now deny the histories of the Americans and the Europeans as well as that of the Muslims.



I think we scanned the book it is in al tabari which i have THE ORIGINAL EDICTION ,, and no I AM NOT LYING ,,,
we scanned it and posted the source,,it is in al tabari that OMAR was standing outside the prophets saaw door with fatima sa inside shouting and screaming that he was going to burn the house of the prophet saaw down ( astaghfir Allah sawt form such bad intentions)


and you LIE when you say it is a fairy tale ,,there are at least 14 SUNNI -SUNNA sources

I do not knwo if all thsoe are fairy tales ,,,bro you are on the wring side of teh blanket ,,since you just accused you sunna of being fabricated tales
ÅÈä ÍÌÑ - áÓÇä ÇáãíÒÇä - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 268 )
ÇáÐåÈí - ãíÒÇä ÇáÅÚÊÏÇá - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 139
ÇáÐåÈí - ãíÒÇä ÇáÅÚÊÏÇá - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 139
ÇáÔåÑÓÊÇäí - Çáãáá æÇáäÍá - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 57
ÇáíÚÞæÈí - ÊÇÑíÎ ÇáíÚÞæÈí - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 2 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 126 )

ÕáÇÍ ÇáÏíä ÇáÕÝÏí - ÇáæÇÝí ÈÇáæÝíÇÊ - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 57 )

ÇáÔíÎ ãÍãÏ ÝÇÖá ÇáãÓÚæÏí - ÇáÃÓÑÇÑ ÇáÝÇØãíÉ - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 123 )


ÇáÕÝÏí - ÇáæÇÝí ááæÝíÇÊ - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 6 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 15



ÇáØÈÑí - ÇáÑíÇÖ ÇáäÙÑÉ - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 241 ) - äÔÑ ÏÇÑ ÇáßÊÈ ÇáÚáãíÉ - ÈíÑæÊ.







........

- ÇáÌæåÑí - ÇáÓÞíÝÉ æÝÏß - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 46 ) .


3 - ÅÈä åÔÇã - ÇáÓíÑÉ ÇáäÈæíÉ - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 4 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 307 ) - äÔÑ ÏÇÑ ÇáÈÇÒ - ãßÉ ÇáãßÑãÉ.

4 - ÇáØÈÑí - ÇáÑíÇÖ ÇáäÙÑÉ - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 241 ) - äÔÑ ÏÇÑ ÇáßÊÈ ÇáÚáãíÉ - ÈíÑæÊ.




ÅÈä ÃÈí ÇáÍÏíÏ - ÔÑÍ äåÌ ÇáÈáÇÛÉ - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 6 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 49

-1 - ÇáÌæåÑí - ÇáÓÞíÝÉ æÝÏß - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 74 ).
- Ç
3 - ÚÈÏÇáÑÍãä ÃÍãÏ ÈßÑí - ÚãÑ Èä ÇáÎØÇÈ - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 182 ).


Úáí ÇáÎáíáí - ÃÈæ ÈßÑ Èä ÃÈí ÞÍÇÝÉ - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 317 )






ÇáßäÌí ÇáÔÇÝÚí - ßÝÇíÉ ÇáØÇáÈ - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 411 ) - ØÈÚÉ ÇáÍíÏÑíÉ ¡ ÇáäÌÝ ÇáÃÔÑÝ



[
ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ÔåÑ ÂÔæÈ - ãäÇÞÈ Âá ÃÈí ØÇáÈ - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 3 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 358 )







ÅÈä ÞÊíÈÉ ÇáÏíäæÑí - ÇáãÚÇÑÝ - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 93 )



#18 mohalamine

mohalamine

    Jaafariyan Islamist Negro (JIN )

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Location:Cameroon

Posted 22 October 2008 - 08:46 PM

How old Exactly they had by the Time of revelation?

I did My personnal evaluation since there is no compromise in both sources- SHIA and SUNNI- about their Exact age So I proposed The mathematical Average system. thus taking the Lesser and the Upper to get the Middle. With this Method
Can one Give us The Average Age Of ALI and Abu bakr at The exact time Time each of them entered Islam?

Considering the Fact that In Shia Beliefs, Public call came 3 to 5 Years After revelation and Abu bakr Could be Islamised only at the Time of Public and General Call, Not earlier.

Let Me give my indications since the debatters are busy with Other Topics.

Minimum 8 and maximum 12 for Ali; the average is TEN (10) Years Old

When Abubakr Converted to Islam Ali(as) Had 10+3 = 13 Years Old at least which is More than 12 years that is Legal Majority for Islamic Sharia; thus Ali is not the First Child but the First Man in ISlamic Rule.

Please feel free To give Us Aboubakr's fate.

#19 karbalah

karbalah

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 23 October 2008 - 03:12 AM

How old Exactly they had by the Time of revelation?

I did My personnal evaluation since there is no compromise in both sources- SHIA and SUNNI- about their Exact age So I proposed The mathematical Average system. thus taking the Lesser and the Upper to get the Middle. With this Method
Can one Give us The Average Age Of ALI and Abu bakr at The exact time Time each of them entered Islam?

Considering the Fact that In Shia Beliefs, Public call came 3 to 5 Years After revelation and Abu bakr Could be Islamised only at the Time of Public and General Call, Not earlier.

Let Me give my indications since the debatters are busy with Other Topics.

Minimum 8 and maximum 12 for Ali; the average is TEN (10) Years Old

When Abubakr Converted to Islam Ali(as) Had 10+3 = 13 Years Old at least which is More than 12 years that is Legal Majority for Islamic Sharia; thus Ali is not the First Child but the First Man in ISlamic Rule.

Please feel free To give Us Aboubakr's fate.



unfortunately he is dead but I think if he was alive to day he would have a lot to answer for.

abu baker used to worship idols when imam Ali sa was sitting and learning from the prophet's lap.

#20 toocoool66

toocoool66

    SYED ALI RAZA

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Location:pakistan
  • Interests:READING ABOUT AHLUBAIT , THINKING ABOUT AHLUBAIT,TRYING TO BE A SLAVE AND MOHIB OF AHLUBAIT

Posted 23 October 2008 - 06:31 AM

assalam-o-allaikom

brother mufti you said:-

"As for burning the door, than we have nothing saheeh like that. Common sense would urge you to look for authenticated material and not old wive's tales."

i hope this will be useful for any brother looking for this topic...

http://www.answering...se/en/index.php

now coming on to another point which you made and that is:-

"As for killing someone you love, are you telling me the story of Ibrahim as.gif doesn't make sense? He took Ismael as.gif and was about to slaughter him even though he loved him. Why? Because he was told by God that this was the right thing to do"

of course i accept this point that hadrat ibrahim loved his son and had to go for the slaughter because it was an order of Allah and that is why he had even blind folded himself (as he loved him)..

now

what i dont understand is ........ are you trying to say that yazid ,for example ,was ordered by Allah to do what he had done?or that he was compelled due to some orders of Allah?do prove your point from authentic history if you think so...........and do mention it whether yazidis had also blind folded themselves or not.......
same thing for hadrat umar........(i dont want to write more about hadrat umar as it may hurt the feelings of sunnis,but i would like if you comment on it,if you dont want to ,it is upto you.....)

i am really sorry that my words would have hurt the feelings of many people but i just want to know the sunni view point about these incidents.............................



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users