|
|
In the Name of God بسم الله
Atheism/Other Religions
Discuss atheism, non-Abrahamic faiths (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc), and other religious/spiritual philosophies.
2,293 topics in this forum
-
- 45 replies
- 7.1k views
-
- 4 replies
- 405 views
-
- 1 reply
- 0 views
-
- 3 replies
- 581 views
-
- 6 replies
- 5 views
-
- 1 reply
- 143 views
-
- 0 replies
- 208 views
-
- 1 reply
- 201 views
-
- 0 replies
- 188 views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 1 reply
- 916 views
-
- 1 reply
- 980 views
-
- 0 replies
- 517 views
-
- 1 reply
- 836 views
-
- 2 replies
- 770 views
-
- 116 replies
- 12.3k views
-
- 10 replies
- 4.6k views
-
- 10 replies
- 903 views
-
- 14 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 690 views
-
- 10 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 32 replies
- 3.6k views
-
- 69 replies
- 6.6k views
-
- 0 replies
- 342 views
-
- 7 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- Guest
-
- 8 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 1 reply
- 835 views
-
- Guest
-
- 3 replies
- 943 views
-
- 1 reply
- 645 views
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Posts
-
Thank you for telling your story, I read it all. About the OP: sorry, I did not read it carefully, I thought you wrote it. But you posted it here, so I take it that you share its view, that the twelve were Sahaba who later fought Ali (رضي الله عنه). If this is not so, please tell me which parts you do not accept. This is the question of this thread. About your Mashayikh. I never said that the Aqaba story is a secret. It is in Sahih Muslim and in Ibn Kathir (رضي الله عنه) under Quran 9:74, so everybody can read it. If your teacher did not tell you, it does not mean they hide it. And the story gives no names, that is the point. You write that the Sahihayn describe a prophet like the Ahl al Kitab do. This is a very big topic and I think we should not put it inside this thread. But one example shows how careful we must be. You mention suicide attempts. This comes from Bukhari 6982, and the words are not from Aisha (رضي الله عنه). Al Zuhri (رضي الله عنه) says there: as far as reached us. Ibn Hajar (رضي الله عنه) says in Fath al Bari that this is from his balaghat and not connected, and that it is only in the version of Mamar. The version of Muslim does not have it at all. So it is not a sound report about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). About al Kafi, which you praise, I will write a separate post, so that we do not mix the topics. You also write that the events were not misunderstandings but one chain from Saqifa to Karbala. This is your view, but a chain of events is not a text. And you still did not answer my main points. Ali (رضي الله عنه) himself said: we did not fight them for takfir, they are our brothers who rebelled against us. And you did not show one text that all who opposed him died in nifaq. For Aisha (رضي الله عنه) you only repeat that she is guilty of nifaq as it is established in the Book of Allah, but Quran 66:4 asks the two women to repent, it does not call them hypocrites. Please answer these points. May Allah guide us all to what is right. -
By StrangerInThisWorld · Posted
By the way: I remember that some of our Mashayikh would call Hudhayfa (one of the real companions as I found out later on!) as "Sahibi Sirri Rasulillah" and that he knew the names of the hypocrites, but never more than that. This by the way is typical for them. Whenever it comes to any sensitive topic, they will give you only very superficial knowledge and often connect it with some clear misinformation in your head such that you would never understand what they are actually hiding from you. (I can't even blame them, because many of them - especially the later ones - are this superficial in their learning of Sira and Islamic history or let's say: They have so many wrong informations in their head, that they will not understand the importance of true information when they read it, because they can't distinguish it from the rest. That's all thanks to abondening the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) and thereby deviating from the straight path.) They never told us that Hudhayfa didn't know all hypocrites, but rather these twelve that tried to assassinate the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alih), which by the way means that the one asking Hufhayfa "Am I among them?" must quite obviously be one of them. Also: Saying they were not companions, but hypocrites doesn't change anything, because some hypocrites were great at hiding their Nifaq and therefore known to us as companions. Also: If 'Ammar (another real companion) recognized what they had mounted, it clearly means that these people must have been famous and known, or does he know random animals? The problem is that we don't want to count 2 and 2 together and accept the obvious. Take for example Mu'awiya: He is the leader of the rebbelious group and the callers to hellfire (and funny enough also one of the twelve hypocrites, but let's put this aside for the moment), but despite this our Mashayikh may find ways to protect him. When they saw Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alih) supplicating AGAINST him and they could not deny this happening, what did someone like Muslim do? Exactly, act as if Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alih) was WRONG and name the whole chapter accordingly (i.e. "Chapter: Whomever Is Cursed, Reviled Or Prayed Against By The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) When He Does Not Deserve That, It Will Be Purification, Reward And Mercy For Him") and narrate some worthless narrations that attack the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alih) just in order to protect Mu'awiya. This is by the way also the mindset not just of Muslim, but also of al-Bukhari, who is unable to praise the Shaykhayn or 'Uthman except by attacking Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alih). As for hiding things: Well there existed a narration by Walid bin Jumay' (one of the men of Muslim!), where some of the "major" companions are mentioned among the 12 hypocrites and it's mentioned by Ibn Hazm (funny enough while him claiming that Ibn Jumay' is "halik"). Now my big question to our Mashayikh: Where can we find this narration? Let me answer (because they won't): They simply erased it from their books, because they couldn't take this. But they had no problems to accept all kinds of insults against the Best of Creation (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alih) from the mouth of the hypocrites and happily narrate it in their books. -
This is my answer to your second post, about the Manzila hadith and the companions. You say that everything that is true for Harun is true for Ali (رضي الله عنه), so he is automatically the khalifa. But the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) himself put a limit, only prophethood is excluded, and he said it to Ali (رضي الله عنه) as a comfort when the hypocrites were talking about him. In Ibn Ishaq and on your own Wikishia the words are: they lie, I left you for what I left behind, so go back and be my khalifa in my family and yours. So it is about his family and his household. Harun was deputy of Musa while Musa was away (Quran 7:142), and he died before Musa. He was not the one who came after him. And when Qays (رضي الله عنه) asked Ali (رضي الله عنه) if the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) gave him a covenant about his march, Ali (رضي الله عنه) said no, it was an opinion he formed (Abu Dawud 4666, Ahmad 1271). Did Ali (رضي الله عنه) not know the hadith that you quote? You say the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was sure that some of his followers would turn back after him, and you point to the Quran. Two of your verses are about the disbelievers of Quraysh in Mecca. The one about most of them not believing is Quran 36:7. The one where the Messenger says that his people abandoned this Quran is in Sura al Furqan (25:30), not in Yasin. Ibn Kathir (رضي الله عنه) says about it that the polytheists did not listen to the Quran, and the next verse says that every prophet had enemies from the criminals (Quran 25:31). That is not about the Sahaba. It is true that after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) some Arabs turned back, the apostates. But the Quran speaks about them too: "Whoever of you turns back from his religion, Allah will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him" (Quran 5:54). Al Hasan al Basri (رضي الله عنه) said that this is Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and his companions who fought the apostates (Tafsir al Tabari and Ibn Kathir (ra)). You say the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) named companions who will be thrown into Hell. That is the hadith of the Pond. In Bukhari 6585 the word is rahtun, a small band of men, and in Bukhari 6586 they are the ones who turned back on their heels. Nawawi (رضي الله عنه) lists the views of the scholars: hypocrites and apostates, or those who apostatized after him, or people of big sins and innovations. Qadi Iyad (رضي الله عنه) says it means the Arab apostates like the followers of Musaylima and al Aswad. Al Khattabi (رضي الله عنه) says that none of the Sahaba apostatized, only some rough Bedouins, and the small form ushayhabi in some versions points to a small number. No name is given. "Considerable" is your word. And it does not say that the opponents of Ali (رضي الله عنه) are among them. You say that if we take the Book of Allah and the Ahl al Bayt as the basis, everything becomes clear. I agree, so let us take what the Ahl al Bayt said. Ali (رضي الله عنه) said to his opponents that they did not fight them for takfir and they did not fight him for takfir, and that they are our brothers who rebelled against us (narrated in your books through Jafar al Sadiq (رضي الله عنه) from his father (ra)). Hasan (رضي الله عنه) made peace with Muawiya (رضي الله عنه), and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) called the two sides two big groups of Muslims (Bukhari 2704). You say that whoever contradicts Ali (رضي الله عنه) is in error. We Sunnis say that Ali (رضي الله عنه) was in the right at that time, and Nawawi (رضي الله عنه) writes that the others had their own ijtihad. But an error is not nifaq. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that a mujtahid who is wrong still gets a reward (Bukhari 7352, Muslim 1716). And Ali (رضي الله عنه) himself called his march an opinion that he formed. I see that you jumped from the twelve hypocrites to many other topics now. You still have not shown a text for your three steps: that the twelve were Sahaba, that the opponents of Ali (رضي الله عنه) were among them, and that Ammar (رضي الله عنه) believed this. New topics do not replace this. Please let us stay with one topic at a time. And if you have a stronger proof, please bring it.
-
As I promised, here is my answer to your accusations against Aisha (رضي الله عنه). Your other post I will answer separately. First Sura al Tahrim. You say it shows that she is guilty of nifaq. But in Quran 66:4 the two women are called to repent, and Umar (رضي الله عنه) says they are Aisha (رضي الله عنه) and Hafsa (رضي الله عنه) (Tirmidhi 3318). It is about a secret of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The verse asks them to repent, it does not call them hypocrites. A mistake is not the same as nifaq. You wrote in bold that her repentance is not in the Quran. The Quran does not list the repentance of every person, but a lot is said about her. When Allah ordered the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to give his wives the choice (Quran 33:28-29), he started with her, and she said: I choose Allah, His Messenger and the Home of the Hereafter (Bukhari 4785). The same verses promise a great reward to those who do good. When she was dying she said: I did a hadath after the Messenger, bury me with his wives (al Mustadrak, no. 6717 in the Ilmiyya print, and al Dhahabi accepts it). Al Dhahabi (رضي الله عنه) explains in Siyar A'lam al Nubala that she meant her march to Basra, that she regretted it completely and repented, and that she acted with her own understanding and a good aim, like Talha (رضي الله عنه) and Zubayr (رضي الله عنه). And Ammar (رضي الله عنه), whom you trust, said at Jamal that she is the wife of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in this world and in the next (Bukhari 3772). Then the medicine. It is in Bukhari 4458 and Muslim 2213. Aisha (رضي الله عنه) says that they poured medicine into his mouth when he was ill, and he pointed that they should not. They said it is only the dislike of a sick man for medicine. When he recovered he said that everyone in the house should get the same, except Abbas. The text says medicine. Poison is only your guess, and you wrote it yourself with "most probably". If it was poison, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would not order that everybody in the house gets it. Now Jamal. We Sunnis say that Ali (رضي الله عنه) was the rightful khalifa, and that Aisha (رضي الله عنه) did not go out to fight. Ibn Taymiyya (رضي الله عنه) writes in Minhaj as Sunna (4/316) that she went to make peace, that Ali (رضي الله عنه), Talha (رضي الله عنه) and Zubayr (رضي الله عنه) were close to an agreement, and that the fighting started because the killers of Uthman (رضي الله عنه) were afraid of it. So the blood of the dead is not only on her. You quote the hadith about dying without allegiance, but Ali (رضي الله عنه) himself did not treat her like this. After the battle he sent her back to Madinah with honour, and even the Al Mahdi Institute writes this. You write that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said Ammar (رضي الله عنه) will be killed by a rebellious group. We accept this (Muslim 2915). But rebellious is not hypocrite. The Quran uses the same word for one of two parties of the believers (Quran 49:9), and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) called the two sides that Hasan (رضي الله عنه) brought together two big groups of Muslims (Bukhari 2704). Nawawi (رضي الله عنه) writes that the scholars take this hadith as proof that Ali (رضي الله عنه) was right and the others were rebels with their own ijtihad, so there is no sin on them. We accept the virtues of Ali (رضي الله عنه) and we love him. We also say that hating him is nifaq (Muslim 78). But first you wrote opposed, and now you write enmity. Hating Ali (رضي الله عنه) is something different from having another opinion or fighting in a fitna. By the Shia standard Ali (رضي الله عنه) was appointed by Allah, fine. Even then the question is whether he himself called his opponents hypocrites, and he did not. In your own books he says to his opponents: we did not fight them for takfir of them, and they did not fight us for takfir of us, but we saw ourselves on the right and they saw themselves on the right. In your books it is also written that he never put any of those who fought him in shirk or nifaq, he said they are our brothers who rebelled against us (narrated through Jafar al Sadiq (رضي الله عنه) from his father (ra)). And in your Nahj al Balagha (Letter 58) he writes about the people of Sham that our Lord is one, our Prophet is one, our call in Islam is one, and the only difference is the blood of Uthman. Capital letters and the word period are not a proof. If you have a text that says everyone who fought Ali (رضي الله عنه) died in nifaq, please bring it with a sound chain.
-
-