Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TryHard last won the day on February 8 2020

TryHard had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,511 profile views

TryHard's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. interesting is that a Shia tafsir? Well either way the it is the last time they are referenced for a while in this surah. also the verse before clearly is including men.
  2. fair enough those two words seem to be referring to females though I can't confirm that it is the wives specifically as I have not found Shia tafsir on it. It could be referring to women in general to remember the word of Allah and the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but allahu a3lam. That is why I said it does not mention the wives specifically. In any case the verses after do not mention the wives nor are they referring to them specifically until many verses later. The verse before is ayat tattheer and it is clearly referring to males and females with yathihaba ankum ya ahlulbayt wa yutahirukum tatthirat specifically the ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) Fatima (عليه السلام) with the holy prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as well as Imam hassan (عليه السلام) and Imam hussayn (عليه السلام)
  3. No the verse after it does not mention wives specifically. Even if you want to argue it is still addressing them, the topic is completely different from staying home and is about remembering the Quran and Hikma (wisdom). وَٱذْكُرْنَ مَا يُتْلَىٰ فِى بُيُوتِكُنَّ مِنْ ءَايَـٰتِ ٱللَّهِ وَٱلْحِكْمَةِ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ لَطِيفًا خَبِيرًا And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the communications of Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware. (shakir) [Surah 33 verse 34] The wives are not addressed for another 20 verses afterword's even then they are not directly addressed.
  4. loll again your baseless assumption that I am not Shia astaghfirullah. Again read the Quran those kinds of assumptions are wrong O believers! Avoid many suspicions, ˹for˺ indeed, some suspicions are sinful. And do not spy, nor backbite one another. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of their dead brother? You would despise that!1 And fear Allah. Surely Allah is ˹the˺ Accepter of Repentance, Most Merciful. — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, the Clear Quran 49[12] also just curious which posts did I widely like? and are you stalking me? How about instead of making stupid baseless remarks you actually use your brain and argue against my points. Let me guess you won't do that cause that requires too much thinking for you. I understand
  5. Well in any case the messenger is still a good example as people believed in him and then betrayed him and the same happened with Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام)
  6. I meant the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) I am sure you know what I meant.
  7. many of us today are not really true shia in spirit. That is the point some of those Shia were not spiritually as strong as they should have been so when the test of karbala came they failed it. Allah protect us.
  8. That is against the facts clearly presented the fact is there were Shia that betrayed Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) and tried to repent after and other like ibn hanifiyeh became kafir. Also As I said practically speaking political shias can be seen as Shia as they like Imam Ali (as0 more than Uthman and you said they were majority Shia Uthman which is not true based on the evidence
  9. the way you see things is a stupid black and white way at looking at things. Yes in spirit they are not Shia if they betray the imam (عليه السلام) no one is arguing that. The point is ideologically they consider themselves shia and they betrayed the imam (عليه السلام). There is plenty of evidence that these betrayals happened you are just too ignorant to know of them plenty of people deviated and created their own sects who were once Shia like the waqifis. And in Karbala people betrayed imam Hussayn by abandoning him like Sulayman and Muhammad ibn Hanifiyeh And the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) are you stupid or something? you do realize people betrayed him at Saqifa and stole the Khalifa these were also people who claimed to follow him. The political shia with the imami Shia were in majority. and they betrayed the imam (عليه السلام) that has been my point all along the only one diverting things is you.
  10. I said Shia Khas. Does he say they are a minority? The hadith you posted does not say that. It simply says he wanted to save his Shia Khas not that they are a minority. Also the word Khas can mean especially. So he wanted to protect his Shia ahead of anyone else. This can also extend to his political Shia as I do not really see a reason for him(عليه السلام) to not include them as part of that condition of Shia. 1. There were people who knew who the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was and disobeyed him and there were people who supported the Imams(عليه السلام) and and believed in their imamah then deviated and betrayed them and this could have happened to imam Ali (عليه السلام) but we know it happened to imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) and I have already put a lot of evidence for people to see. 2. This does not mention shia anywhere he seems to be comparing his army size to the enemy or the disobedient ones in his army. In any case no mention of shias.
  11. Nonsense you are assuming all the Imami Shias went on his side without any evidence. The reason the imam (عليه السلام) did not have that large army from ahlul kufa is because they abandoned him. Do you read English? What language do you speak? As I have repeated my points and brought evidence from Shia pen and other places. I have repeated many times they abondened him over and over again and only some imami Shia stayed with imam Husayn the rest of the imami Shia and political Shia abandoned Muslim ibn Aqeel and imam Hussayn (عليه السلام).
  12. There is a difference between majority and All . I never said all of Ahlul Kufa were Shiaqoute me once were I said they were all shia? My argument was technically speaking in a sense you could consider the majority Shia but I never said they were all Shia No it is not. political Shias cant be Shia Muawiyah as they rejected Muawiyah that was the point and majority of Ahlul kufa seem to be the political Shia of Ali (عليه السلام) if not also Imami Shia in faith. Where the Imami Shia in minority? it is likely but imami Shia and poltical Shais both supported imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) and they were the majority in Kufa. So no contradiction. Rather you have failed to disprove what I said.
  13. The narration of Al Bayhaqi is narrated by Al Shu'bi who does not even mention where he got the narration from so it is Mursal to say the least. The one in Bukhari clearly says it is from Aisha who was actually alive during that time so we know who is narrating from who in Bukhari. In Bayhaqi on the other hand we do not know who Al Shu'bi is narrating from. Also Al Shu'bi was a Nasibi who cursed imam Ali (عليه السلام) which automatically makes him untrustworthy. Al-Baladhuri and al-Ghazali narrate from al-Sha’bi that he himself has said: “In Basra we went to see al-Hajjaj (ibn Yusof) and a group of Medina’s reciters from the children of the Muhajirin and Ansar whom Abu-Salma ibn Abdul-Rahman ibn ‘Ouf was also among, came to see him too… Al-Hajjaj was talking to them and discussing things with them and then Ali ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام) was mentioned. And he (AbuSalma) insulted Him (Ali) and we also insulted him (Ali) to please him (alHajjaj) and be safe from his wickedness...” [2] Al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 4, p. 315 Al-Ghazali, Ihyaa’ Uloom al-din, vol. 2, p. 346
  14. You did not prove they were all Shia uthman in Kufa you only showed that some existed there so the burden of proof is actually on you. As for me I showed the evidence of the letters and I gave you a link to go read http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/who-killed-imam-hussain/kufans-beliefs.html I never said all Ahlu Kufa were Shia Ali only that the majority were in support of Ali (عليه السلام) not Uthman. At least politically according to the evidence. That was not my response that was Shiapen here http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/who-killed-imam-hussain/kufans-beliefs.html I was simply quoting what they said to prove Sulayman ibn Surd was a "Shia" who Abandoned Muslim ibn Aqeel and in a way betrayed Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) did not say they were the minority he said to avoid killing his shias that is all. If they were only a minority why would Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) even go to Kufa and why would Muslim ibn Aqeel (رضي الله عنه) tell him to go to Kufa? The reality is the Imam (عليه السلام) had supporters there in the majority. If you go read the Shiapen link he will differentiate between Shia uthman, Shia Ali political Shias, And Imami Shias Were the political Shias Imami Shias? How do people know they were not? do people have proof they werent? Yes the Shia Uthman were bad but what about the political Shias who abandoned Muslim ibn Aqil (رضي الله عنه) ? they were clearly not Shia Uthman if you read the link. In fact some of those political Shias for all we know may have been Imami Shias. They definitely did not like Uthman. To call all those Shias simply political Shias EVERY SINGLE ONE without proof for each one is strange to say the least. The bare minimum we can say is the majority of ahlul kufa supported Imam Hussayn (عليه السلام) and even some of the ones who were Imami Shias abondend him like Muhammad ibn Hanifiyeh and Sulayman ibn Sard.
  • Create New...