Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Jaane Rabb

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Location
    United Kingdom
  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,684 profile views

Jaane Rabb's Achievements

  1. Can you show me where it goes against the Quran? Ignorance is not an insult. From Cambridge dictionary - ignorant: not having enough knowledge, understanding, or information about something. Jesus himself says in verse 5:117 (did you even read 5:116-118?): Arberry: I only said to them what Thou didst command me: "Serve God, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a witness over them, while I remained among them; but when Thou didst take me to Thyself, Thou wast Thyself the watcher over them; Thou Thyself art witness of everything. As in, Jesus didn't have the knowledge as he was no longer a witness over his people when Allah had raised him. Hence his response to Allah. So, back to my question. If Jesus was to have a second coming, how could he respond to Allah in the above manner? Secondly, what are your thoughts on Sudooq's belief in Jesus' death?
  2. Check out Al Islaah's Shia channel on YouTube. They're all about taking "authentic hadith" that are in tandem with the Quran. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLdBQctu9UQ A more thorough explanation of Lordship, it's functions and exclusivity from the perspective of the Quran and authentic hadith (as stated by them): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwV6UrtJeew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cj9XD13qMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_Obj0rwmW0
  3. The unpopular belief is that Jesus is indeed deceased. 3:55 may not be entirely clear, but 5:116-118 certainly adds much weight with Jesus responding with ignorance when questioned by Allah on the Day as to the course his people took. Surely, if there was a second coming then Jesus would have observed the deviation and wouldn't have been oblivious to it when questioned by Allah on the Day. Sheikh Sudooq is also of the belief that Jesus died as stated in his book of I`tiqad: 'Our opponents (the Sunnites) have related that when the Mahdi, on whom be peace, will appear, Jesus, son of Mary, on whom he peace, will descend upon the earth and pray behind the Mahdi. Now the descent of Jesus to the earth is his return to the world after death, because Allah the Glorious and Mighty says: "Verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself" [3:55].'
  4. Depends what your definition of companion is. According to the dictionary it means someone you spend much time with. For me personally, it doesn't rule out even a hypocrite spending time with Muhammad being called a companion. Nor does one being called a companion automatically mean they're good. In fact, in the context of Surah Najm, it would appear Allah was addressing concerns/doubts of the companions of Muhammad. Thus He says that your companion Muhammad hasn't erred, nor spoken from self, it is naught but a revelation. Would explain why they weren't called "believers" here. Can't say I agree with this because of the definition of companion given above. I've definitely not had the pleasure to spend time with Muhammad and so don't consider companionship between us. Similarly, I don't consider Muhammad being a witness over us today either. Yes, Prophets are a witness over their nation just as Muhammad is a witness over his nation [4:41, 16:89]. But that witnessing ceases upon death in this world according to this verse, where Isa will say: [5:117] I only said to them what Thou didst command me: "Serve God, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a witness over them, while I remained among them; but when Thou didst take me to Thyself, Thou wast Thyself the watcher over them; Thou Thyself art witness of everything Here's a question to really think about; Is everything in the Quran addressed to you, today?
  5. Is that a serious argument? The good and the lawful aren't mutually exclusive [as you yourself have observed]: [7:157] those who follow the Messenger, 'the Prophet of the common folk, whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel, bidding them to honour, and forbidding them dishonour, making lawful for them the good things and making unlawful for them the corrupt things, and relieving them of their loads, and the fetters that were upon them. Those who believe in him and succour him and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him -- they are the prosperers.' So claiming Muhammad had prohibited something that was lawful, but not good is preposterous! What's interesting is the sequence of events in 66:1-2 fit the sequence in 5:87-89. i.e. Prohibiting the lawful. Expiation of oath. Worth pondering. Not directly in that verse, but in many other verses Muhammad is told to seek forgiveness for sins (including future ones): [4:105-106] Surely We have sent down to thee the Book with the truth, so that thou mayest judge between the people by that God has shown thee. So be not an advocate for the traitors; and pray forgiveness of God; surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. [40:55] So be thou patient; surely God's promise is true. And ask forgiveness for thy sin, and proclaim the praise of thy Lord at evening and dawn. [47:19] Know thou therefore that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness for thy sin, and for the believers, men and women. God knows your going to and fro, and your lodging. [48:2] that God may forgive thee thy former and thy latter sins, and complete His blessing upon thee, and guide thee on a straight path, The above alone is enough to put a serious question mark on infallibility. It can't get any clearer than that. As such this will seriously be my last contribution to this thread and I won't be responding to anymore replies. Wasalaam
  6. Allah refers to Muhammad as "your companion" in 53:2. So the word itself definitely exists. If he's their companion then they're his companions.
  7. There is no problem with breaking an oath as Allah has given permission to do so. What you need to ponder over is why Muhammad was made to break his oath. Why was he not allowed to keep it to please his wives? It's because the prohibition he made was a transgression. Because obedience to Allah is priority, and not obedience to wives. Because it would have set a grievous example; Tomorrow people would start prohibiting x y z for x y z person and they would give the example of Muhammad as justification, which is a problem because Allah has said you cannot prohibit what He has made lawful. It really is such a simple and clear event. Allah had declared that prohibiting the lawful is a transgression. The Prophet did that, thus transgressed. He is not above the lawmaker, thus the law applies to him as well hence why he was reprimanded and made to break the oath. If that law didn't apply to him then why reprimand and why make him beak the oath. If he wanted to please the wives why not let him. Nay, because the premise was bad. The oath he took wasn't within the bounds set by Allah. So Muhammad had to backtrack. He had to turn back (tawba) as was commanded. Clear as day for me. Wassalaam
  8. Already answered this in comments above. Allah had already defined prohibiting the lawful as a transgression in 5:87 so He didn't need to repeat in 66:1, but just reminded "...And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful". Likewise, He had already shown how to break an oath in 5:89 so didn't need to repeat that either in 66:2, but just reminded that the procedure had already been detailed. 66:1 ends with "...And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful". Same as what Allah says in: [4:105-106] Surely We have sent down to thee the Book with the truth, so that thou mayest judge between the people by that God has shown thee. So be not an advocate for the traitors; and pray forgiveness of God; surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. So when we know prohibiting the lawful is a transgression and Allah has mentioned that He is All Forgiving. Then it's pretty clear. But when you want to try and believe in infallibility, then you will try all that you can to make these verses fit into that view. As for me, I just want the Truth no matter what it is. The Quran is the Truth and that's the only infallible source that we have.
  9. Everything one needs to be a submitter and believer is detailed in the Qur'an. It's a traditionalist claim that Allah left gaps in the Qur'an or purposely made it puzzling, and it's exactly just that; claims. The Quran testifies to completely the opposite. Here's some verses to give thought: [3:138] This [Qur'an] is a clear statement to [all] the people and a guidance and instruction for those conscious of Allah. [6:114] [Say], "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?"... [11:1] Alif, Lam, Ra. [This is] a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail from [one who is] Wise and Acquainted. [12:111] ...Never was the Qur'an a narration invented, but a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of all things and guidance and mercy for a people who believe. [17:9] Indeed, this Qur'an guides to that which is most suitable and gives good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a great reward. [2:185] The month of Ramadhan [is that] in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion. [7:203] "...This [Qur'an] is enlightenment from your Lord and guidance and mercy for a people who believe." [16:102] Say, "The Pure Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth to make firm those who believe and as guidance and good tidings to the Muslims." [45:11] This [Qur'an] is guidance. And those who have disbelieved in the verses of their Lord will have a painful punishment of foul nature. [45:20] This [Qur'an] is enlightenment for mankind and guidance and mercy for a people who are certain [in faith]. [86:13] Indeed, the Qur'an is a decisive statement [26:2] These are the verses of the clear Book. [27:1] Ta, Seen. These are the verses of the Qur'an and a clear Book [28:2] These are the verses of the clear Book. [43:2] & [44:2] By the clear Book [22:16] And thus have We sent the Qur'an down as verses of clear evidence and because Allah guides whom He intends. [58:5] ...And We have certainly sent down verses of clear evidence... [2:266] ...Thus does Allah make clear to you [His] verses that you might give thought. [38:29] [This is] a blessed Book which We have revealed to you, that they might reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding would be reminded. [47:24] Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts? [69:48] And indeed, the Qur'an is a reminder for the righteous. After reading these verses, are you seriously going to tell me that the Quran is not clear and that we need someone to explain it to us. Again, everything one needs to be a Muslim and Mu'min are clearly defined in the Quran. Allah has given the framework with which we need to work within and reason to achieve that. And it's exactly what we do in this day n age for all the new issues at hand. Hadith doesn't give certainty, it gives doubt. It creates more problems than anything. It is sad that you make these claims without having actually tried studying the Qur'an first. The Qur'an must absolutely be studied exclusively and without preconceived views. How is one to seek guidance from it when you've already decided that it must fit a certain narrative. Let's not be of those that Muhammad will complain about on the Day of Recompense: [25:30] And the Messenger has said, "O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur'an as [a thing] abandoned." Sorry, but that's beliefs based on mere fancies. The Shia hadith corpus has been known for its extensive amount of contradictory reports and weak narrators as admitted by scholars themselves: Allama Berujardi, a recent Shia marja, said: “To believe in the authenticity of the narrations reported by the Muhammads (authors of ‘The Four Books’) is impossible, especially with the reports of weak narrators among them. Rather, the weak are far more (than the authentic), whereas the authentic, reliable ones in those books are like the white hair on a black cow.” Ja’far al-Subhani says in al-Rasael al-Arba’ah: "When we read the two books (of Hadith): Wasael al-Shia and Mustadrak al-Wasael for example, we see that there is no chapter or Fiqhi section which is free from conflicting narrations, this has caused some of those who converted to the Imami Madhab to leave it." The teacher of Shaikh Tusi is said to have left Shiaism as reported in Rasael fi Dirayat al-Hadith by abu al-Fadl al-Babili and Tahtheeb al-Ahkam: "Then he (al-Tusi) mentions about his teacher abu al-Hassan al-Harouni al-‘Alawi that he used to believe in the truth (Shia Madhab), and that he took Imamah as his religion, but he left it when he became confused because of the conflicting narrations, and he abandoned the Madhab." Yusuf al-Bahrani says in al-Hadaeq al-Nadirah: "Only a small amount of the rulings of the religion were known for sure, because their narrations were mixed with the narrations of Taqqiyah, as was admitted by Thiqat al-Islam Muhammad bin Ya’aqoub al-Kulayni may Allah fill his grave with light in his collection al-Kafi." Hurr Al-Amili states in Wasa’il Ash-Shi’a, 30:260-61: 1) The science of rijal (men) should not be used. 2) The science of rijal in shi’ism was a recent innovation, and elsewhere he states that it was invented because of the Ahlus-Sunnah’s continual criticism of the shias for not having and following a system for deriving laws from ahadith. 3) If the system was actually applied, very few, if any, shia ahadith would prove to be sahih (authentic), hasan (good) or muwathaq (trusted) – and the entire shia collection of hadith would prove to be weak. Please see above. The Fuqaha have simply made a barrier between you and Allah's Communication [Quran] which is unsubstantiated. They've certainly made you reliant upon them and made a job out of it for themselves. They're no different from anyone else who has been spoon fed a narrative since birth and carry on working within that mindset. Just as it is with fuqaha from all the other sects. God has given you the ability to use reason and He's given you His Book which claims to be fully detailed, a clear Book with clear evidences, a guidance and a mercy. It is the only infallible source available today. It is the only authority among us today. So strive to learn from the Word of God, and beware from man-made inventions and forgeries. Only the Quran and Allah's guidance can help you from that in this era we live in. [3:79] It belongs not to any mortal that God should give him the Book, the Judgment, the Prophethood, then he should say to men, 'Be you servants to me apart from God.' Rather, 'Be you masters in that you know the Book, and in that you study.' [9:31] They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. Wassalaam
  10. No matter how sahih the hadith, no one can claim with a 100% certainty that X personality ever uttered those words. Hence the hadith corpus will and can never be on equal footing with the Quran, which is al-Furqaan. It verifies the other, the other doesn't verify it. How can one compare the Book of Allah with books forged by man which have no established authority and no authority to guide the Quranic discourse. One free from contradictions, the other full of them. It's unbelievable to think that for one to understand the Quran, they also need [say] all the volumes of al-Kafi with them too. The fact of the matter is, the Ahlul Bayt aren't around to whom was given authority as per Hadith al-Thaqalayn. All you have are remnants of their sayings in books that also consist of forgeries, contradictions and falsifications that have been attributed to them. How can anyone be comfortable taking their religious fundamentals and beliefs from these books. None of these books have been given authority, so why treat them as authoritative. They were transmitted by man hence are fallible sources. And according to the Quran, to obey the unauthorised is to then associate with Allah [6:121]. The whole thing about authenticating narrators is a sham too. You verify the hadith by the chain. But how to verify the reports of a narrator's trustworthiness. Literally using hadith to verify hadith. Then the situation of sahih hadith that contradict the Quran. What does that say for the sahih collection and the grading system. Big problem. If there's one thing I recommend as a study, is to read for once in your lifetime, the Quran plainly without any outside influence and with a mindset to seek guidance. Because it testifies to itself being a clear Book, with clear evidences, a guidance and mercy for mankind. It testifies that there are decisive verses that are the foundation of the Book and ambiguous verses that the perverse use to mislead. No where in the Quran does it say that you cannot get a grasp of the message without an external explainer. That is a sectarian invention. Couple your study with meditation over all verses, use of reason and ultimately the guidance of Allah, who guides whom He wills [24:46]. http://corpus.quran.com/ - One of the best resources for studying the Quran. Peace.
  11. 6:108 "Abuse not those to whom they pray, apart from God, or they will abuse God in revenge without knowledge. So We have decked out fair to every nation their deeds; then to their Lord they shall return, and He will tell them what they have been doing." Fact that Sunnis don't curse the saints of the Shias in retaliation is commendable.
  12. When your time is up, then your time is up. He who gives protection, can take it away too when He wills. The bigger question is, how did Ali know he was going to be killed when the Quran says this: [31:34] Surely God -- He has knowledge of the Hour; He sends down the rain; He knows what is in the wombs. No soul knows what it shall earn tomorrow, and no soul knows in what land it shall die. Surely God is All-knowing, All-aware.
  13. 48:2 "...and guide thee on a straight path" Being on the straight path doesn't mean ones guidance ends. 66:1 is again sufficient proof for this. Muhammad was on the right path. Yet he made two errors; 1. He listened to his deviant wives [unless we say he didn't know they were deviants], 2. He prohibiting on himself that which Allah made lawful. So Allah corrected him and he was compelled to dissolve the oath. The guidance has been given by Allah and it is up to everyone to follow that guidance. Part of the guidance and being on the right path is seeking the forgiveness of Allah for one's errors, which Muhammad is commanded to do several times and which I've referenced several times too, but will now quote: [4:105-106] Surely We have sent down to thee the Book with the truth, so that thou mayest judge between the people by that God has shown thee. So be not an advocate for the traitors; and pray forgiveness of God; surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. [40:55] So be thou patient; surely God's promise is true. And ask forgiveness for thy sin, and proclaim the praise of thy Lord at evening and dawn. [47:19] Know thou therefore that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness for thy sin, and for the believers, men and women. God knows your going to and fro, and your lodging. And of course [48:2]. The obedience is made obligatory to "the Messenger". You'll find it mentioned about two dozen times "obey the Messenger" and not once would you find "Obey Muhammad". The role of a Messenger is to convey the message. Ultimately, that is what we are obligated to follow, the message. And so too Muhammad himself has been obligated to follow the message [6:50, 6:106, 7:203] because upon Allah, everyone relies: [7:203] And when thou bringest them not a sign, they say, 'Why hast thou not chosen one?' Say: 'I follow only what is revealed to me from my Lord; this is clear testimony from your Lord, guidance, and mercy for a people of believers.' Committing an error and repenting is submission to Him, long as one is Godfearing [explained further below]. Otherwise, none of us are on the right path and we're all deviants. In which case we shouldn't say "Keep us on the right path" but instead pray for infallibility since that's the only way to be on the right path. It's beyond human nature, which the Prophets themselves were; human: [18:110] Say: 'I am only a mortal the like of you; it is revealed to me that your God is One God. So let him, who hopes for the encounter with his Lord, work righteousness, and not associate with his Lord's service anyone. [41:6] Say: 'I am only a mortal, like you are. To me it has been revealed that your God is One God; so go straight with Him, and ask for His forgiveness; and woe to the idolaters...' Islam taught us pure monotheism and we should stick to it. Quranically, Only Allah can be said to be perfect and flawless. Prophets are human beings and they committed errors. To claim that Prophets have not committed any errors ever, despite the Quran saying otherwise, would be ridiculous because that would elevate their status to divine. Human nature is what we as human beings can relate to. We repent for our shortcomings as did the Prophets. At the same time, the best characteristics of the Prophets are acknowledged. Whatever minor errors they committed is between them and their Lord, and which an Merciful God would have forgiven. 1. [2:151] "...We have sent among you, of yourselves, a Messenger, to recite Our signs to you and to purify you, and to teach you the Book and the Wisdom...". This is repeated in a number of verses "recites the verses and purifies you". It is the message and submission to Him that is the purifier, that which purified the Messenger and the believers. Being purified doesn't mean infallible however: [24:21] "O believers, follow not the steps of Satan; for whosoever follows the steps of Satan, assuredly he bids to indecency and dishonour. But for God's bounty to you and His mercy not one of you would have been pure ever; but God purifies whom He will; and God is All-hearing, All-knowing." Again, this doesn't mean that the believers that were purified became infallible. As a rule of thumb, we're told to avoid the major sins, repent for minor offences, and seek purity not through self but through being Godfearing: [53:32] "Those who avoid the heinous sins and indecencies, save lesser offences surely thy Lord is wide in His forgiveness. Very well He knows you, when He produced you from the earth, and when you were yet unborn in your mothers' wombs; therefore hold not yourselves purified; God knows very well him who is godfearing." Just because Allah has given leave for minor errors, doesn't mean we can intentionally commit them on a daily basis. Only the Godfearing will be purified and forgiven for their shortcomings. 2. Allah could've exposed the wives without Muhammad having to make a prohibition and oath. Just like Allah exposed the wives in 66:3 when Allah informed Muhammad. 3. Allah had already commanded Muhammad to seek forgiveness for his sins as quoted above [4:105-106, 40:55, 47:19, 48:2]. So why repeat the command? Instead He reminds Muhammad that "Allah is Forgiving and Merciful". Alas, he is required by Allah to seek expiation. If it wasn't a transgression, why not let the Prophet carry on with his oath this time should he wish to please his wives? Nay, obedience to Allah is the priority over all else. Thus the expiation required. Especially as a lesson to everyone else, lest they too start prohibiting things upon themselves to please another. 4 & 5. As your quoted verse shows, Allah is the Protector of all the Muslims. This verse is being addressed to the believers [see the prior verse]. It doesn't mean we have infallibility. I think we have had a fruitful discussion brother. I hate for this to become a round of replying just for the sake of replying. There's enough here to think over. My sincere advise to you is to put your Shi'i beliefs on one side, pick up the Quran and ask it to guide you. This is true guidance. For a thorough and unbiased study, read the Shia translation (which I'm sure you have), and read other translations such as Sahih, Arberry [a non-Muslim Arabic and Islamic scholar] and see where that takes you in your journey. If you only rely on Shia sources, then already you are undertaking a biased study and living in an echo chamber. On the other hand. If you don't care for this advise and want to continue believing what you do, you're free to do so. I, myself take The Furqaan as my guide, lest I am accused of denying the verses of the Book: [57:19] "...But those who have disbelieved and denied Our verses - those are the companions of Hellfire" Wassalaam.
  14. Muhammad's past and later sins are between him and His Lord. I can only state from the Quran. 66:1 is a clear example of a transgression. The revelation of 48:2 in the timeline would decide whether the transgression in 66:1 was before of after. Not that it matters, it's irrelevant. As for your for 2nd question. Again, you fail to think about the verses on a timeline. The Prophetic mission has a timeline from start to finish. Likewise the Quran was revealed gradually to both Muhammad and the people as per 25:32 [which we have discussed to death before]. Muhammad was first guided to the straight path himself [see 93:7, 42:52, 12:3, 6:14, 40:66], after which he then was on the straight path post submission. Same as the believers - "O you who have believed" - is after they have been guided and accepted Islam, not before. There is no gotchya here, no contradiction. Just pointless debating on your part. Please refrain from such endeavour. Wassalaam.
  • Create New...