Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

hi its based on reading of it on quran this vers recitetes in two parts

وَقَرْ‌نَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّ‌جْنَ تَبَرُّ‌جَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَىٰ ۖ وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتِينَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللَّـهَ وَرَ‌سُولَهُ ۚ

Waqarna fee buyootikunna walatabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati al-oola waaqimnaassalata waateena azzakatawaatiAAna Allaha warasoolahu 

And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. 

 

after "waraoolahu" in Arabic text is a ج sign on  "hu" that means you can stop there a second that 

 

لَهُ ۚ

and "waraoolahu" recites  (-U) "waraoolah"

& then you continue

إِنَّمَا يُرِ‌يدُ اللَّـهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّ‌جْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَ‌كُمْ تَطْهِيرً‌ا

innama yureeduAllahu liyuthhiba AAankumu arrijsa ahlaalbayti wayutahhirakum tatheera

Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification

 

that divide this verse in two part 

the first part is about wives of Prophet(pbu) 

second part refers to 5 (as)

that pause is optional but meaning of the verse wether you recite it continuous or with that pause  is same

 

image.png.f72093bdd346714cb338a68e96f74f26.png

the dot after 'Messenger" in meaning shows that verse contains to parts that not attached to each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_verse_of_purification

but unfortunately some guys mix this two part and deceive that  verse as one part

salam brother. i am well aware of the translation as well as the arabic of the verse and know that this verse refers to the 5 people of the household. nobody is denying that or confusing the verse as talking only about the wives of the prophet pbuh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2017 at 12:05 PM, just a muslim said:

salam all. im back with one of my questions.

since sunnis and shias both agree on the quran, our main difference is due to our different hadith literature. hence, most of my questions revolve around hadith literature. and i know there have been questions asked previously about why should one choose sunni/shia hadith over the other, but i ask it again because i ask from a different perspective. and if any old member finds that i am repeating some old post, please link me to that post so i can benefit from it.

okay so, before you read on, please try to be objective. look at it like this. if you believe you are on the truth, then your arguments should always be superior to me, and you should be able to prove hujjah upon me no matter which sect i belong to, and that hujjah should be from my own sources. or at the very least, from sources which we both agree on. 

so, shias have ahadith. going back to the infallibles. and even though it wont matter, but let's not call them infallibles for now. FOR NOW. i repeat, FOR NOW. dont take this to your heart and try to move past it okay? okay. so, the ahadith go back to the imams. and there is a chain for every hadith. correct? so, my question is: why do you trust what the narrator is saying? because he is thiqa/honest/truthful/reliable/trustworthy? who told you that? your books of rijal? why do you trust those? why trust whatever is written in them? why trust the authors of those books? for all you know, and please hold tight to your seats and try not to lose it as i dont mean any disrespect or offence, it could be the work of the devil, men who had no good intention and just wanted to create division among the ummah? how do you know it wasnt that? why do you trust them?

P.S. this is not some form of hidden attempt to "prove" shiism wrong and give dawah to sunnism. no. i am just trying to understand why you guys believe what you believe. 

because they make sense and follow logic... where as the other party doesn't... even in today's world you will see the new sources of the two different sides and you can plainly see one is full of lies working for the $... can you guess which one... 

P.s Im an ex sunni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kirtc said:

because they make sense and follow logic... where as the other party doesn't... even in today's world you will see the new sources of the two different sides and you can plainly see one is full of lies working for the $... can you guess which one... 

P.s Im an ex sunni

1. if the sunni hadith make sense to someone else, is he right to follow/accept it? and the same point you made, he feels that way but the other way around.

2. does that imply that accepting something(read: hadith) as religion is based upon sense and logic and not it being from Allah? does that mean that you reject those verses of the quran which dont make sense or defy logic? safe to say you dont reject it. because you believe it is from Allah. i apply the same logic to hadith. doesnt matter if it makes sense to me. if it is the truth, i accept (and not saying here that sunni hadith is truth). sacrificing your son like a lamb certainly doesnt make sense, but Ibrahim a.s. did it because it was a command from Allah. so, if the prophet pbuh said it, we accept it, even if our brain/understanding isnt good enough to properly understand it and "make sense" of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

1. if the sunni hadith make sense to someone else, is he right to follow/accept it? and the same point you made, he feels that way but the other way around.

2. does that imply that accepting something(read: hadith) as religion is based upon sense and logic and not it being from Allah? does that mean that you reject those verses of the quran which dont make sense or defy logic? safe to say you dont reject it. because you believe it is from Allah. i apply the same logic to hadith. doesnt matter if it makes sense to me. if it is the truth, i accept (and not saying here that sunni hadith is truth). sacrificing your son like a lamb certainly doesnt make sense, but Ibrahim a.s. did it because it was a command from Allah. so, if the prophet pbuh said it, we accept it, even if our brain/understanding isnt good enough to properly understand it and "make sense" of it.

subhan Allah.. everything makes sense and is logical in shia hadiths.. 

does it make sense that the army of the caliph of islam kills the grandson of the Prophet saaw?

Edited by kirtc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, just a muslim said:

which ahadith are you talking about? and how do i verify them in light of quran?

I ma certainly talking about those hadiths which mention the names of ahlul kissa and the other members of the purified family of the prophet saaw.  You are jsut trying to reject the hadiths of the prophet saaw that are authneic and etsbalsihedb one. Moreover, Shia hadith are found according to the  verses of Quran that i have already proven in my reaecrh mentioned in last post.

you are just trying to reject the hadith like hadith rejecters and as per your onw words they are misguided, This is a hypocrisy  on your part i think. the link of your words is given below:

The verses of Quran are sufficient to compare with the hadith for their authenticity.  I have presented my research already that has a proven method. The knowledge of Quran is not limited to its language of Arabic alone the statistics of the verses of quran are also evidence for truth with the condition that one has to be mindful.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, just a muslim said:

also, with all due respect and no offense, your post in the link you shared is absolute non-sense. i say this because if this is how the quran portrays its miracle, then i would recommend you to look into the number 19 instead of 14, and then come and tell me that the muslim brotherhood is not false, because they have much stronger "miracles" and "proofs" in the quran like what you showed in your post.

if you are referring to something other than your argument for number 14 in your post, please enlighten me.

You are just trying to reject he truth explained  in the hadiths that have been verified  and confirmed inline with the evidence from the quran.

Why should i look for number 19?  Rashid khalifa a sunni scholar conducted the research about this number 19 and after some years of his research he claimed himself to be prophet saaw.Yyou can find  about him and his research at internet. I certainly reject such nonsense suggested from your side.

I have not conduced the research about then number 14 but i have docudted for the 1 out of 73 saved sect and Quran provided number 47, and from there number 14 was evolved and further proofs have been given in that thread. Since you were not able to mention any reasonable / logical  objection on it so that was not digested by your slef. I quote the link for  your words in that thread to make my point clear:

My posts well responded your illogical approach: like the one given below:

Just to make the final words from my side the other thread that provides that Shia are the right path followers. The link is given below and in this thread you are almost speechless about the truth explained in its posts:

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2017 at 5:20 AM, just a muslim said:

 

salam.

you are slightly mistaken about the way sunnis view the quran and abrogation. there are 3 types of abrogations: 1. verse and ruling both abrogated. 2. verse abrogated but ruling stays. 3. verse stays but ruling abrogated. the third kind remain in the quran today as well ofc, for example the verses of khumr being permissible under certain conditions. the first and second types are the ones that are mentioned in the ahadith. but this conversation has slightly derailed. i hope you dont mind my going back to the original point.

 

Apply any one of the three conditions and explain how this justifies that Caliph Umar wanted to add something to the Quran but did not out of fear of the people. One would think, fear of Allah would prevent him from adding/deleting/editing the Quran.

On 11/21/2017 at 5:20 AM, just a muslim said:

question was, how can we trust the shia narrators/versions of ahadith? i will do you one good. i will stop presenting the sanad argument. and even though you said i believe in the quran because of sunni hadith, i dont. ofc not. anyway, i will ask the same question about the sunni narrators. how can we trust them? so that we have no reason to trust either of the narrators. fair enough? all we have and believe in is the quran.

you were pretty explicit in saying your belief in the Quran is based on sunni hadith. I can quote you if needed.

On 11/21/2017 at 5:20 AM, just a muslim said:

so the next questions that comes up are two: 1) which version should we trust and accept, the sunni or the shia? and 2) without relying on either shia or sunni hadith, how can we justify different variants of the quran available today or how do we know which is the actual quran? 

Neither. You should not accept shia sources nor sunni sources simply because they are shia or sunni. Each narration deserves to be evaluated on it's own merit.

On 11/21/2017 at 5:20 AM, just a muslim said:

i know you might think i am repeating myself. but i am not. also, i want to outline one possible response from you before hand. you might say that the quran itself says that Allah wants to rid the ahlul bayt of rijs. to purify them. and the ahlul bayt tell us that the quran which is prevalent among the masses is the actual quran. but the problem with that answer is that the verse of purification is for the 5, or the ahlul kisa, not for the remaining imams. and the only way you know that the remaining imams are included in this verse is because of ahadith narrated by shia narrators. which we decided, along with sunni narrators, cant be trusted. and hence this response to the second question doesnt hold.

well, how about this then. Once all Sunnis and Shias decide to follow Allah in the tradition of the Prophet and explanations of the Ahlul-Kisa, then we can discuss how and who else this applies to.

On 11/21/2017 at 5:20 AM, just a muslim said:

P.S. i dont believe uthman arranged the order of the surahs. i believe the order of the surahs was decided by the prophet pbuh, not by the companions. as for the hadith in abu dawud and tirmidhi which basically says uthman placed surah taubah and anfal together of his own, it is a weak hadith.

This we can agree upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Apply any one of the three conditions and explain how this justifies that Caliph Umar wanted to add something to the Quran but did not out of fear of the people. One would think, fear of Allah would prevent him from adding/deleting/editing the Quran

'Umar bin Al-Khattab said:
"The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stoned, Abu Bakr stoned, and I stoned. If I didn't dislike that I add to the Book of Allah. I would have written it in the Mushaf, for I fear that there will come a people and they will not find it in the Book of Allah, so they will disbelieve in it."
Grade Sahih (Darussalam)  
Reference  : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1431
In-book reference  : Book 17, Hadith 11
English translation

 : Vol. 3, Book 15, Hadith 1431

 

1. the hadith above, speaking of the same event/occasion, has no mention of the fear of people. 

2. it says here clearly that he would have written it in the mushaf, not "added" to the quran. one can still write in the mushaf without adding the quran, like adding footnotes, which i believe ibn abbas also did in his personal mushaf(adding footnotes). even the hadith you quoted from sunan abi dawud says that "i would have written it". it doesnt say i would have "added" it, just that the people would've feared that. 

3. even if we were to take the "fear of people" issue, it could easily refer to the ignorant uneducated class of people who would say that the quran has been changed simply because there were footnotes in the mushaf. the quran is the book of Allah as well as the speech of Allah. writing something in the mushaf doesnt mean changing/adding to the quran. 

hope that clears it.

9 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

you were pretty explicit in saying your belief in the Quran is based on sunni hadith. I can quote you if needed.

please do. i cant remember where i said it if i did. i believe in the quran because of it's miraculous nature. not because of sunni hadith. but, if one were to ask me to prove that the book today is the same as that revealed to the messenger pbuh, i would be unable to do so without sunni RIJAL(still not sunni hadith).

9 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Neither. You should not accept shia sources nor sunni sources simply because they are shia or sunni. Each narration deserves to be evaluated on it's own merit.

what do you mean? who decides if the narration is good on its own merit? 

also, i disagree. we should accept each narration based on whether it is true or not. whether it actually happened or is a lie. cant use "aql" or reason to judge the authenticity of a hadith. because if it actually is from the messenger pbuh, and a revelation from Allah, then it doesnt necessarily have to satisfy our reason or logic. just like there are miraculous stories in the quran, which dont make sense and seem illogical. but we believe in them because they are from Allah. if you were to reject things based on reason/logic, we would end up reject a big part of quran.

10 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

well, how about this then. Once all Sunnis and Shias decide to follow Allah in the tradition of the Prophet and explanations of the Ahlul-Kisa, then we can discuss how and who else this applies to.

excellent. just one question though. how will we know what is the tradition of the prophet pbuh and the explanations of ahlul kisa? i mean, if somebody claims X is a tradition or explanation, how will we determine whether it truly is what he says or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi at that era nobody write footnote on Holy Quran

this is not just about Holy Quran in many Sunni Narrations the Umar tried to change everything that he could change it as Athan/Azan

way of praying & etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, just a muslim said:
'Umar bin Al-Khattab said:
"The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stoned, Abu Bakr stoned, and I stoned. If I didn't dislike that I add to the Book of Allah. I would have written it in the Mushaf, for I fear that there will come a people and they will not find it in the Book of Allah, so they will disbelieve in it."
Grade Sahih (Darussalam)  
Reference  : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1431
In-book reference  : Book 17, Hadith 11
English translation

 : Vol. 3, Book 15, Hadith 1431

 

1. the hadith above, speaking of the same event/occasion, has no mention of the fear of people. 

2. it says here clearly that he would have written it in the mushaf, not "added" to the quran. one can still write in the mushaf without adding the quran, like adding footnotes, which i believe ibn abbas also did in his personal mushaf(adding footnotes). even the hadith you quoted from sunan abi dawud says that "i would have written it". it doesnt say i would have "added" it, just that the people would've feared that. 

3. even if we were to take the "fear of people" issue, it could easily refer to the ignorant uneducated class of people who would say that the quran has been changed simply because there were footnotes in the mushaf. the quran is the book of Allah as well as the speech of Allah. writing something in the mushaf doesnt mean changing/adding to the quran. 

hope that clears it.

Well, you've quoted a sahih hadith and so did I.

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas said:
‘Umar b. al-Khattab gave an address saying: Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him. We read it and memorized it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death. I am afraid the people might say with the passage of time: We do not find the verse of stoning in the Books of Allah, and thus they stray by abandoning a duty which Allah had received. Stoning is a duty laid down (by Allah) for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. I swear by Allah, had it not been so that the people might say: ‘Umar made an addition to Allah’s Book, I would have written it (there).
Sunan Abi Dawud
Book 40, Hadith 68
Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/68

1) Both can be wrong but both can't be right. Thereby throwing the whole authenticity of sunni hadith argument into the garbage.

2) The one quoted makes no mention of mushaf. "added it", "written it" - no difference.

3) Didnt Caliph Umar walk around Medina with a sword ready to punish people. Wasnt he the one who loved the Prophet (saw) so much that he was ready to kill sahaba who dared to say the Prophet (saw) was dead. He feared people???

All you have cleared is that Sunni criteria for "sahih" leaves much to be desired.

14 hours ago, just a muslim said:
please do. i cant remember where i said it if i did. i believe in the quran because of it's miraculous nature. not because of sunni hadith. but, if one were to ask me to prove that the book today is the same as that revealed to the messenger pbuh, i would be unable to do so without sunni RIJAL(still not sunni hadith).
On 10/20/2017 at 9:11 PM, just a muslim said:

3. i believe if i dont trust the sunni version, i cant have the quran. simple as that.

On 10/25/2017 at 9:22 PM, just a muslim said:

what i mean is, if i dont believe the sunni rijal system, i cant be sure that the quran is preserved even to the dot.

 

14 hours ago, just a muslim said:
what do you mean? who decides if the narration is good on its own merit? 

also, i disagree. we should accept each narration based on whether it is true or not. whether it actually happened or is a lie. cant use "aql" or reason to judge the authenticity of a hadith. because if it actually is from the messenger pbuh, and a revelation from Allah, then it doesnt necessarily have to satisfy our reason or logic. just like there are miraculous stories in the quran, which dont make sense and seem illogical. but we believe in them because they are from Allah. if you were to reject things based on reason/logic, we would end up reject a big part of quran.

Bold is what I mean by merit.So are we agreeing that that there are no such things as sahih books. Every hadith deserves to be evaluated on its own to verify its veracity.

15 hours ago, just a muslim said:
excellent. just one question though. how will we know what is the tradition of the prophet pbuh and the explanations of ahlul kisa? i mean, if somebody claims X is a tradition or explanation, how will we determine whether it truly is what he says or not?

 Easy enough - every tradition is measured against the Quran and only accepted if it agrees with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

Well, you've quoted a sahih hadith and so did I.

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas said:
‘Umar b. al-Khattab gave an address saying: Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him. We read it and memorized it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death. I am afraid the people might say with the passage of time: We do not find the verse of stoning in the Books of Allah, and thus they stray by abandoning a duty which Allah had received. Stoning is a duty laid down (by Allah) for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. I swear by Allah, had it not been so that the people might say: ‘Umar made an addition to Allah’s Book, I would have written it (there).
Sunan Abi Dawud
Book 40, Hadith 68
Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/68

1) Both can be wrong but both can't be right. Thereby throwing the whole authenticity of sunni hadith argument into the garbage.

you are unaware of how ahadith work. i dont know about how the shia hadith sciences work. but in sunni sciences, unlike the quran, ahadith are not preserved word for word. the general meaning of the ahadith is preserved. the same event can be narrated by multiple people, causing multiple chains. those chains can have slight differences in wording but not in meaening. to pick up those word differences and throwing the whole authenticity of sunni hadith into the garbage is not correct. 

On 11/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

2) The one quoted makes no mention of mushaf. "added it", "written it" - no difference.

like i said, general meaning is taken.

On 11/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

3) Didnt Caliph Umar walk around Medina with a sword ready to punish people. Wasnt he the one who loved the Prophet (saw) so much that he was ready to kill sahaba who dared to say the Prophet (saw) was dead. He feared people???

All you have cleared is that Sunni criteria for "sahih" leaves much to be desired.

again. wordings dont matter. general meaning matters. and even if we say that he did say fear of people, it doesnt have to be taken literally. it could easily be interpreted as something acceptable. 

the reason i am going to "such great lengths" to protect this narration and the person in question is because there are numerous other narrations which bear witness to the goodness of Umar. you may not believe those narrations. but try to understand it from a sunni perspective(because you are trying to show me how the sunni perspective is illogical i think), like for examplle such a narration, or anything of the like, existed about any of the imams, the shias would either reject it by saying that it goes against the quran, or they would make taweel of the hadith. 

On 11/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

Bold is what I mean by merit.So are we agreeing that that there are no such things as sahih books. Every hadith deserves to be evaluated on its own to verify its veracity.

on a side note, the two books are called sahih because an over whelming majority of hadith scholars have verified those books and every narration with a full chain in it and found it to be authentic, according to sunni standards. that is why these two books have been accepted, as a whole, generally, by the sunni community. there are at least two more books by the name of sahih, called sahih ibn hibban and sahih ibn khuzaimah. but none of them have been accepted as sahih books on the whole because they have false narrations in them. 

On 11/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

Easy enough - every tradition is measured against the Quran and only accepted if it agrees with it.

three problems with it. 

1. the quran doesnt discuss EVERY issue.  so for example, and i put a simple one forward to explain my point, whether to fold hands in prayer or to leave them by the side. the quran is silent about this matter. so if we come across two ahadith each claiming one of the two things, how will we judge which one is correct?

2. by doing so, we might end up rejecting something which in our eyes is going against the quran but in reality it actually isnt. how will we know that a hadith really IS going against the quran and we are not just mistaken about it?

3. that sort of defeats the purpose of a hadith. hadith is something attributed to the prophet pbuh, right? if we treat his words the same as we would anyone else's, what makes his words any better? and how can then it be the basis of islamic law? 

also, and you can make this point number 4, if we are judging a hadith by the quran, we are admitting that a good sanad alone is not sufficient to provide knowledge of a certain event. how can then we be sure that a hadith, even if it agrees with the quran, is actually the saying of the prophet pbuh? someone could have made it up. or rather, someone could have messed up since the chain is authentic, eliminating chances of fabrication. for example, we have a hadith saying to recite surah ikhlas thrice every night. even though you may say this is a good deed and agrees with the quran in general, how can we be sure that the prophet said thrice and not twice? since twice would also have been in agreement with the quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi when you compare shia hadiths with sunni hadiths the shia hadiths have the least contradictton between all shia books there may be some weak hadiths

But generally true & non of narrators doesn't accept each other but in Sunni hadith even in Sahih books there is contadictions between them & they reject each other  too & everything that says something positive about Shia Islam is hides by most of sunni scholars & at the end shia scholars can even show the shia islam from sunni hadiths beside the Holy Quran & other religious books but nowadays sunni muslims  says that there is no sunni or shia in Holy Quran just be muslim but Shias can prove themselves from Holy Quran .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi when you compare shia hadiths with sunni hadiths the shia hadiths have the least contradictton between all shia books there may be some weak hadiths

But generally true & non of narrators doesn't accept each other but in Sunni hadith even in Sahih books there is contadictions between them & they reject each other  too & everything that says something positive about Shia Islam is hides by most of sunni scholars & at the end shia scholars can even show the shia islam from sunni hadiths beside the Holy Quran & other religious books but nowadays sunni muslims  says that there is no sunni or shia in Holy Quran just be muslim but Shias can prove themselves from Holy Quran .

salam brother. you are making bold and general claims there which cant be discussed here. but i will make a separate thread for you if you want so we can talk about it. i think i can respond to most of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, just a muslim said:

you are unaware of how ahadith work. i dont know about how the shia hadith sciences work. but in sunni sciences, unlike the quran, ahadith are not preserved word for word. the general meaning of the ahadith is preserved. the same event can be narrated by multiple people, causing multiple chains. those chains can have slight differences in wording but not in meaening. to pick up those word differences and throwing the whole authenticity of sunni hadith into the garbage is not correct. 

like i said, general meaning is taken.

Lol. you are simply flip-flopping to get around the fact that 2 hadith about the same event are different. "Fearing people" is different from 'fearing Allah".

Mighty convenient and dare I say typical MO of sunnis. When it suits you, you take the literal and exact meaning of a hadith. Other times, you take a general meaning.

5 hours ago, just a muslim said:

the reason i am going to "such great lengths" to protect this narration and the person in question is because there are numerous other narrations which bear witness to the goodness of Umar. you may not believe those narrations. but try to understand it from a sunni perspective(because you are trying to show me how the sunni perspective is illogical i think), like for examplle such a narration, or anything of the like, existed about any of the imams, the shias would either reject it by saying that it goes against the quran, or they would make taweel of the hadith. 

Conveniently, you and sunnis in general forget that no other sahabi was more rude and insulting to the Prophet (saw) during his lifetime than Caliph Umar. There is absolutely no hadith (even fake ones) that show our Imams saying or doing anything insulting towards the Prophet (saw).

5 hours ago, just a muslim said:

on a side note, the two books are called sahih because an over whelming majority of hadith scholars have verified those books and every narration with a full chain in it and found it to be authentic, according to sunni standards. that is why these two books have been accepted, as a whole, generally, by the sunni community. there are at least two more books by the name of sahih, called sahih ibn hibban and sahih ibn khuzaimah. but none of them have been accepted as sahih books on the whole because they have false narrations in them. 

maybe they mean generally sahih but not literally sahih.

5 hours ago, just a muslim said:

three problems with it. 

1. the quran doesnt discuss EVERY issue.  so for example, and i put a simple one forward to explain my point, whether to fold hands in prayer or to leave them by the side. the quran is silent about this matter. so if we come across two ahadith each claiming one of the two things, how will we judge which one is correct?

2. by doing so, we might end up rejecting something which in our eyes is going against the quran but in reality it actually isnt. how will we know that a hadith really IS going against the quran and we are not just mistaken about it?

3. that sort of defeats the purpose of a hadith. hadith is something attributed to the prophet pbuh, right? if we treat his words the same as we would anyone else's, what makes his words any better? and how can then it be the basis of islamic law? 

also, and you can make this point number 4, if we are judging a hadith by the quran, we are admitting that a good sanad alone is not sufficient to provide knowledge of a certain event. how can then we be sure that a hadith, even if it agrees with the quran, is actually the saying of the prophet pbuh? someone could have made it up. or rather, someone could have messed up since the chain is authentic, eliminating chances of fabrication. for example, we have a hadith saying to recite surah ikhlas thrice every night. even though you may say this is a good deed and agrees with the quran in general, how can we be sure that the prophet said thrice and not twice? since twice would also have been in agreement with the quran.

1) What? The Quran does not discuss every issue? Then which sahabi made the call that "hasbonallah kitaballah" - the Book of Allah is enough. Clearly, he was clueless about islam. So you don't take islam from him but from the people whom the Prophet (saw) mentioned he is leaving behind aka AhlulBayt.

2) Refer to #1.

3) Only my sunni brothers would have this dilemma. "The Prophet spoke naught but what was revealed to him" - so you dont treat his words like the words of ordinary men. Moreover, He didn't contradict the Quran.

4) That is exactly my point. You can't take all hadith at face value. In your case, reciting surah iklaas 2 or 3 times will be the fine because you are not going against the Quran. Remember, everything is allowed unless it is forbidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

Lol. you are simply flip-flopping to get around the fact that 2 hadith about the same event are different. "Fearing people" is different from 'fearing Allah".

Mighty convenient and dare I say typical MO of sunnis. When it suits you, you take the literal and exact meaning of a hadith. Other times, you take a general meaning.

and if i were to bring you two ahadith from shia literature talking about the same thing with differences in the wordings, one mentioning something extra or the other missing something? i really think you dont know how hadith sciences work.

On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

Conveniently, you and sunnis in general forget that no other sahabi was more rude and insulting to the Prophet (saw) during his lifetime than Caliph Umar. There is absolutely no hadith (even fake ones) that show our Imams saying or doing anything insulting towards the Prophet (saw).

might i ask upon what narrations you are basing your conclusion that umar was the rudest companion and most insulting? cause that is factually an incorrect statement. by your standards and mine.

On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

maybe they mean generally sahih but not literally sahih.

now who is picking and choosing the literal meaning of a word at one place and the general meaning of it at another?

On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

1) What? The Quran does not discuss every issue? Then which sahabi made the call that "hasbonallah kitaballah" - the Book of Allah is enough. Clearly, he was clueless about islam. So you don't take islam from him but from the people whom the Prophet (saw) mentioned he is leaving behind aka AhlulBayt.

oh come on. really? first of all, i dont know who said that if they did. secondly, there is this thing called context. and finally, can you tell me where the quran tells us how to pray? or how much zakah to pay? or how many times to pray? or how people at the north and south pole are supposed to pray as they have a day of 6 months and a night of 6 months? 

On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

2) Refer to #1.

refer to the response above.

On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

3) Only my sunni brothers would have this dilemma. "The Prophet spoke naught but what was revealed to him" - so you dont treat his words like the words of ordinary men. Moreover, He didn't contradict the Quran.

4) That is exactly my point. You can't take all hadith at face value. In your case, reciting surah iklaas 2 or 3 times will be the fine because you are not going against the Quran. Remember, everything is allowed unless it is forbidden.

i want to know what the prophet pbuh said. if he said 3 times, then doing it 2 times believing it to be from the prophet is a mistake, if not bidah. 

ofcourse the prophet pbuh wont contradict the quran. but the narrators after him could commit mistakes. all of them arent masoom like the imams and hence are not protecteed from committing mistakes. 

are you saying that every single word he uttered was revelation? like even when he would have said something like, what is for food today, or i am going to sleep?

Edited by just a muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all of his words are not revelation as in Holy Quran says he is like other persons eats & sleeps but he does it in the best way that we must try to act like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

and if i were to bring you two ahadith from shia literature talking about the same thing with differences in the wordings, one mentioning something extra or the other missing something? i really think you dont know how hadith sciences work.

If you did, I would say one of them is wrong and the other is right.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

might i ask upon what narrations you are basing your conclusion that umar was the rudest companion and most insulting? cause that is factually an incorrect statement. by your standards and mine.

Who openly questioned the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) at Hudaibiya?
Who questioned the Prophet's (saw) at his deathbed?

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

now who is picking and choosing the literal meaning of a word at one place and the general meaning of it at another?

lol. I was being sarcastic.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

oh come on. really? first of all, i dont know who said that if they did. secondly, there is this thing called context. and finally, can you tell me where the quran tells us how to pray? or how much zakah to pay? or how many times to pray? or how people at the north and south pole are supposed to pray as they have a day of 6 months and a night of 6 months? 

Clearly the fine art of sarcasm is lost upon you.

The Quran is a reference guide. It tells us to pray salah. Hadith and the AhlulBayt explain how to pray, when to pray, etc.

The "hasbon kitaballah" goes to Caliph Umar to refused to bring pen&paper to Prophet Muhammad (saw) saying the book of Allah is enough when clearly it is not.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

i want to know what the prophet pbuh said. if he said 3 times, then doing it 2 times believing it to be from the prophet is a mistake, if not bidah. 

It would be bidah if the Prophet (saw) forbade 2 times. Otherwises, it is just reciting a surah.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

ofcourse the prophet pbuh wont contradict the quran. but the narrators after him could commit mistakes. all of them arent masoom like the imams and hence are not protecteed from committing mistakes. 

The fact that narrartors could make mistakes is ample proof of why we don't believe in sahih hadith. You look at each hadith on its own merits.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

are you saying that every single word he uttered was revelation? like even when he would have said something like, what is for food today, or i am going to sleep?

[Shakir 53:1] I swear by the star when it goes down.
[Shakir 53:2] Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray;
[Shakir 53:3] Nor does he speak out of desire.
[Shakir 53:4] It is naught but revelation that is revealed,
[Shakir 53:5] The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him,

So why dont you tell us based on the above? The Prophet's (saw) knowledge came from Allah so everything he did, he did with the knowledge and understanding given by Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×