Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

أبو فاطمة المحمدي

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

  1. The reports, on the apparent, attribute the errors to Abu Hurayrah. If you want to claim that he was not responsible, then you have to provide the proof. That is common sense. In other words, Prophet Sulayman - according to you - slept with 100 women in 12 hours - that is roughly 8 minutes per session. Masha Allah! How many minutes would it take to undress and dress? How many minutes would foreplay take? How many minutes would moving from room to room consume?
  2. In such a case, we go with the obvious. Abu Hurayrah gave the contradictory figures. How is it possible?
  3. Would you help us out, in that case? Which of the sub-narrators was responsible for the errors? And, besides, do you seriously believe that Prophet Sulayman slept with 100 women in one night?
  4. Farid can't stop lying. Can he? I quoted the sahih hadith of Imam al-Rida (peace be upon him) which orders us to reject any hadith which contradicts the Qur'an, or the mutawatir Sunnah, or reality. But, yeah, the hadith is not worth replying to - because the Nasibi has no reply to it. Unlike in the religion of the Nawasib, the human-made, fallible rijal system does not determine absolute truth for us. It is useful. But, we have other tools which supersede rijal in a lot of cases. In any case, I did not quote those ahadith in reply to the liar, Farid. His servant, Abul Hussain, can check that again for him. Sahl b. Ziyad is a disputed figure, and was only weakened by "some" (not "the") early Shi'a scholars. In recent years, we have scholars who have done new researches about him, and have concluded that he was thiqah. (I used to consider him da'if [based on my previous extreme rijal of al-Muhsini]. But, upon a re-examination of his case [and, of course, of others too], I am inclined to consider him thiqah, because (i) Shaykh al-Kulayni has trusted his ahadith in al-Kafi and has narrated a lot from him [which is a sign of reliability among the early Shi'ah]; (ii) Shaykh al-Tusi in his Rijal [which was later than Fihrist and Istibsar] called him thiqah and also relied upon his ahadith in al-Tahdhib; (iii) Shaykh al-Saduq has trusted his ahadith in al-Faqih; (iv) Sahl is one of the narrators of Kamil al-Ziyarat and Tafsir al-Qummi; and (v) al-Khazzar al-Qummi has authenticated his ahadith in Kifayat al-Athar). Even if we reject the other three reports (and we do not), we still reject your "authentic" hadiths. You have graded them based upon their sanad only. In our madhhab, the matn is more important than the sanad, and it must be authentic before the hadith can be authentic. In the current case, the matn of your "authentic" ahadith fails one of the tests set by Imam al-Rida (peace be upon him) and other Imams. So, we reject them. Once again, unlike in your failed sect, the rijal is not infallible and does not determine absolute for us. Any human being with the slight level of intelligence knows that it is an issue to claim that monkeys follow the Shari'ah. A liar does not always lie. For instance, there are instances when you (Farid) speak the truth, even though you are a cursed Nasibi liar. Also, according to your "sahih" hadith, Shaytan spoke the truth to Abu Hurayrah, even though he was a terrible liar. If the ahadith of 'Amr are supported by our authentic ahadith, we accept them, based upon the authenticity of the matn. The purpose is to demonstrate how the two "Sahihs" of Sunnis - al-Bukhari and Muslim - can dumb the intelligence of otherwise brilliant chaps. Imagine someone publicly claiming that monkeys practice the Shari'ah of stoning for adultery: Wouldn't it be helpful to help others too, before they become like this due to the two "Sahihs"?
  5. As-Salam 'Alaikum, It is my assumption that most - if not all ShiaChat members - are aware of the Sunni belief that Abu Hurayrah possessed an infallible hyper-memory. He never forgot anything he ever heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family), especially after the latter supposedly prayed for him. The Ahl al-Sunnah consider Abu Hurayrah to be an extremely knowledgeable Sahabi, and his ahadith form the bedrock of Sunni Islam itself. This great scholar, in this hadith of Sahih Muslim, shared part of his rare knowledge with us: حدثني أبو الربيع العتكي وأبو كامل الجحدري فضيل بن حسين (واللفظ لأبي الربيع) قالا حدثنا حماد (وهو ابن زيد) حدثنا أيوب عن محمد عن أبي هريرة قال :كان لسليمان ستون امرأة فقال لأطوفن عليهن الليلة فتحمل كل واحدة منهن فتلد كل واحدة منهن غلاما فارسا يقاتل في سبيل الله فلم تحمل منهن إلا واحدة فولدت نصف إنسان فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم: لو استثنى لولدت كل واحدة منهن غلاما فارسا يقاتل في سبيل الله Abu al-Rabi’ al-‘Ataki and Abu Kamil al-Jahdari Fudayl b. Husayn – Hammad b. Zayd – Ayyub – Muhammad – Abu Hurayrah: Sulayman had SIXTY women and he said: “I will go around to all of them tonight, and each of them will become pregnant, and each one of them will give birth to a boy who will become a knight who will fight in the Cause of Allah.” But, none of them became pregnant except one, who gave birth to a malformed child.” The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “If he had said ‘insha Allah,’ each of them would have given birth to a boy who would become a knight who would fight in the Cause of Allah.” According to Abu Hurayrah, Prophet Sulayman (peace be upon him) had only sixty women. Please, note that the word "women" is generic. So, we can safely conclude that the wives and concubines of this noble prophet were sixty in number. Abu Hurayrah narrated directly from Prophet Sulayman. This is strange, since there was a gap of centuries between them. In any case, Abu Hurayrah narrated that Prophet Sulayman promised to sleep with all his sixty women in one night. I do not know how many hours constituted the nighttime back then. But, we can assume that it was 12 hours. In that case, one can further assume that each sex session lasted an average of 15 minutes or a little less. However, when Abu Hurayrah narrated the story again, he made some modifications, as recorded by the same Sahih Muslim: وحدثنا عبد بن حميد أخبرنا عبدالرزاق بن همام أخبرنا معمر عن ابن طاوس عن أبيه عن أبي هريرة قال :قال سليمان بن داود لأطيفن الليلة على سبعين امرأة تلد كل امرأة منهن غلاما يقاتل في سبيل الله فقيل له قل إن شاء الله فلم يقل فأطاف بهن فلم تلد منهن إلا امرأة واحدة نصف إنسان قال فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم: لو قال إن شاء الله لم يحنث وكان دركا لحاجته ‘Abd b. Humayd – ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hammam – Ma’mar – Ibn Tawus – his father – Abu Hurayrah: Sulayman b. Dawud said: “Tonight, I will go around to SEVENTY women and each of them will give birth to a boy who will fight in the Cause of Allah.” It was said to him: “Say ‘insha Allah,’” but he did not say it. He went around to them, but none of them gave birth except one woman, who gave birth to a malformed child.” The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “If he had said ‘insha Allah,’ he would not have broken his oath, and that could have been a means of fulfilling his wish.” Abu Hurayrah added ten more women. It then becomes unclear exactly what the noble prophet (i.e. Sulayman) actually said. Did he promise to sleep with sixty women or with seventy? Also, the number of minutes per sex session reduces with this new "seventy" figure. Of course, Abu Hurayrah is not done yet. When he narrated the same incident one more time, as documented by al-Bukhari, he made further changes: حدثني محمود حدثنا عبد الرزاق أخبرنا معمر عن ابن طاوس عن أبيه عن أبي هريرة قال :قال سليمان بن داود عليهما السلام لأطوفن الليلة بمائة امرأة تلد كل امرأة غلاما يقاتل في سبيل الله فقال له الملك قل إن شاء الله فلم يقل ونسي فأطاف بهن ولم تلد منهن إلا امرأة نصف إنسان. قال النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم: لو قال إن شاء الله لم يحنث وكان أرجى لحاجته. Mahmud – ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ma’mar – Ibn Tawus – his father – Abu Hurayrah: Sulayman b. Dawud, peace be upon them both, said: “Tonight, I will go around to ONE HUNDRED WOMEN. Each woman will give birth to a boy who will fight in the Cause of Allah.” The angel said to him: “Say ‘insha Allah.’” But, he did not say it, and he was caused to forget. Then, he went round to them, and none of them gave birth to a child except one woman, who gave birth to a malformed child. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “If he had said ‘insha Allah,’ he would not have broken his oath, and that would have been a means of attaining what he hoped for.” So, did he promise to sleep with sixty women, or seventy, or one hundred? Abu Hurayrah, apparently, could not make up his mind on this. There are two possible explanations here. Either he forgot (which would deflate Sunni claims about his infallible hyper-memory) or he lied. I will leave the judgment of that to the readers. But then, one wonders. How many minutes did each sex session last, with one hundred women, in 12 hours?
  6. Does that really matter? Would it have made any difference if he had been a Sahabi? Would a lie become true simply because a Sahabi had narrated it? Besides, he accepted Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). However, it is not recorded that he met the Messenger of Allah. Well, why has al-Bukhari recorded it in his Sahih? He declared explicitly that the she-monkey committed adultery. This claim of his was either true or a false accusation against an innocent monkey . Al-Bukhari obviously recorded the athar because he believed 'Amr's accusation of zina against the she-monkey. Are you then saying that 'Amr was a Muslim when he witnessed the trial of the she-monkey?
  7. Actually, he declared explicitly that the she-monkey had committed adultery. He did not mention that as a guesswork or his "interpretation." He gave it as a fact. The question is whether he was lying or telling the truth - about the adultery of the she-monkey. Where is the chain of narration of this? He declared explicitly that she had committed adultery. He did not say: "I think..." or "It seems ..." He said, "She had committed adultery." There is a difference between these statements. Animals and birds talking do occur due to Allah's miracles, and His beloved servants hear them. Examples are in the Qur'an. Meanwhile, in this case of al-Bukhari's hadith, the narrator was a kafir. Don't tell me he was a saint who could hear animals?! You mean that narration in Sahih al-Bukhari is a huge lie? Also, are you suggesting that the video clip from "the Shia scholar" and the narration of al-Bukhari are of the same category?
  8. If it suggests that all monkeys today are descendants of the Israelites, then it is certainly a fabrication. That is my judgment on it.
  9. You mentioned that hadith first. I would think you were going to quote it. Anyway, I have no reason to spend my precious time searching for a fabricated hadith.
  10. I already told you. If a hadith contradicts reality, it is a fabrication. If you think that monkeys started existing only 4000 years ago, then there is nothing I can do about that.
  11. حدثني محمد بن قولويه، والحسين بن الحسن بن بندار القمي، قالا :حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله، قال: حدثني محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد، عن يونس بن عبد الرحمن، ان بعض أصحابنا سأله وأنا حاضر، فقال له: يا أبا محمد ما أشدك في الحديث، وأكثر انكارك لما يرويه أصحابنا، فما الذي يحملك على رد الأحاديث؟ فقال: حدثني هشام بن الحكم أنه سمع أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: لا تقبلوا علينا حديثا الا ما وافق القرآن والسنة، أو تجدون معه شاهدا من أحاديثنا المتقدمة، فان المغيرة بن سعيد لعنه الله دس في كتب أصحاب أبي أحاديث لم يحدث بها أبي، فاتقوا الله ولا تقبلوا علينا ما خالف قول ربنا تعالى وسنة نبينا صلى الله عليه وآله فانا إذا حدثنا، قلنا قال الله عز وجل، وقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله. قال يونس: وافيت العراق فوجدت بها قطعة من أصحاب أبي جعفر عليه السلام ووجدت أصحاب أبي عبد الله عليه السلام متوافرين، فسمعت منهم وأخذت كتبهم، فعرضتها من بعد على أبي الحسن الرضا عليه السلام فأنكر منها أحاديث كثيرة أن يكون من أحاديث أبي عبد الله عليه السلام .وقال لي: ان أبا الخطاب كذب على أبي عبد الله عليه السلام لعن الله أبا الخطاب، وكذلك أصحاب أبي الخطاب يدسون هذه الا حديث إلى يومنا هذا في كتب أصحاب أبي عبد الله عليه السلام، فلا تقبلوا علينا خلاف القرآن فانا ان تحدثنا حدثنا بموافقة القرآن وموافقة السنة، انا عن الله وعن رسوله نحدث، ولا نقول قال فلان وفلان، فيتناقض كلامنا، ان كلام آخرنا مثل كلام أولنا، وكلام أولنا مصادق لكلام آخرنا، فإذا اتاكم من يحدثكم بخلاف ذلك فردوه عليه وقولوا أنت اعلم وما جئت به، فان مع كل قول منا حقيقة وعليه نورا، فما لا حقيقة معه ولا نور عليه فذلك من قول الشيطان. Muhammad b. Qulawayh and al-Husayn b. al-Hasan b. Bandar al-Qummi – Sa’d b. ‘Abd Allah – Muhammad b. ‘Isa b. ‘Ubayd: One of our companions asked Yunus b. ‘Abd al-Rahman, while I was present, saying, “O Abu Muhammad, why are you strict concerning ahadith, and why do you frequently reject what our companions narrate? What is your reason for rejecting ahadith?” So, he replied, “Hisham b. al-Hakam told me that he heard Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, saying: ‘Do not accept any hadith which is attributed to us except what agrees with the Qur’an and the Sunnah, or except if you find corroboration for it from our earlier ahadith. This is because al-Mughirah b. Sa’id, may Allah curse him, has interpolated into the books of my father’s companions ahadith which my father never narrated. Therefore, fear Allah, and do not accept anything which is attributed to us if it contradicts the Word of our Lord, the Most High and the Sunnah of our Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, for we, whenever we narrate, we say: {Allah, the Almighty, the Most Glorious, said} and {the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, said}.’” Yunus said: “I came to Iraq and found some of the companions of Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, and I also found that the companions of Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, were numerous. So, I heard (ahadith) from them and also collected their books; and I later presented them to Abu al-Hasan al-Rida, peace be upon him, and he rejected a lot of their ahadith, stating that they were not ahadith of Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him. And he said to me, ‘Verily, Abu al-Khattab lied upon Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him. May Allah curse Abu al-Khattab and the companions of Abu al-Khattab. They are interpolating these ahadith, up till this day of ours, in the books of the companions of Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him. Therefore, do not accept anything attributed to us which contradicts the Qur’an, because whenever we speak, we speak what agrees with the Qur’an and the Sunnah. We narrate from Allah and from His Messenger. And we never say {so-and-so said}; otherwise our words would contradict. Verily, the words of the last of us is the same as the words of the first of us, and the words of the first of us confirm the words of the last of us. So, whenever anyone comes to you with a hadith which contradicts this, reject it from him and say {You know, and what you have brought}. This is because with every statement from us there is reality, and upon it is light. As such, whatsoever has no reality with it and no light upon it, then it is from the words of Shaytan.”
  12. According to a sahih hadith of Imam al-Rida (peace be upon him), any hadith that contradicts the Qur'an, or contradicts reality, is a fabrication.
  13. Well, according to our reports, when Allah transforms anyone into an animal, he dies within three days, without leaving any offspring. 'Allamah al-Majlisi, may Allah be pleased with him, stated this in his Bihar: أقول: قد ورد في أخبارنا أيضا موافقا لما روي عن ابن عباس، كما في تفسير العسكري عليه السلام: كانوا كذلك ثلاثة أيام، ثم بعث الله عليهم ريحا ومطرا فجر بهم إلى البحر وما بقي مسخ بعد ثلاثة أيام، وأما التي ترون من هذه المصورات بصورها فإنما هي أشباهها لاهي بأعيانها ولا من نسلها. وروى الصدوق في العلل بإسناده عن عبد الله بن الفضل قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام قول الله عز وجل " ولقد علمتم الذين اعتدوا منكم في السبت فقلنا لهم كونوا قردة خاسئين " قال: إن أولئك مسخوا ثلاثة أيام، ثم ماتوا ولم يتناسلوا، وإن القردة اليوم مثل أولئك، وكذلك الخنزير وسائر المسوخ ما وجد منها اليوم من شئ فهو مثله، لا يحل أن يؤكل لحمه (1) (الخبر). وروى في العيون بإسناده عن علي بن محمد بن الجهم قال: سمعت المأمون يسأل الرضا عليه السلام عما يرويه الناس من أمر الزهرة، وأنها كانت امرأة فتن بها هاروت وماروت، وما يروونه من أمر سهيل: أنه كان عشارا باليمن. فقال عليه السلام: كذبوا في قولهم أنهما كوكبان، وإنهما كانتا دابتين من دواب البحر، فغلط الناس وظنوا أنهما الكوكبان، وما كان الله ليمسخ أعداءه أنوارا مضيئة، ثم يبقيهما ما بقيت السماء والأرض، وإن المسوخ لم يبق أكثر من ثلاثة أيام حتى ماتت، وما تناسل منها شئ، وما على وجه الأرض اليوم مسخ، وإن التي وقعت عليها اسم المسوخية مثل القرد والخنزير والدب وأشباهها، إنما هي مثل ما مسخ الله عز وجل على صورها قوما غضب الله عليهم ولعنهم، بإنكارهم توحيد الله وتكذيبهم رسله (الخبر) (2). أقول: فقد ثبت بهذه الاخبار أن هذه الحيوانات ليست من نسل هؤلاء المسوخ ولا من نوعهم، وإنما هي على صورهم. وقد عرفت أن المسخ ليس تناسخا، لان الروح لم ينتقل إلى بدن آخر، وإنما تغيرت صورة البدن، وأما التناسخ بمعنى انتقال It is apparently an error to assume that there were no monkeys on the earth before the time of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him). There certainly were monkeys long before then - in Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Europe, Australia and so on. The few who were transformed into monkeys in Israel (in the Middle East) died three days later without producing any (monkey) offspring, as the hadiths (and also science) confirm. Moreover, as the second hadith above shows, the monkeys and pigs and others today have absolutely no link with the transformed humans of the past.
  14. It is from Tarikh Baghdad of al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, vol. 13, p. 422.
  15. A group of monkeys, according to Sahih al-Bukhari, carried out the stoning penalty on a she-monkey which committed adultery. I have shared the beautiful hadith here for information purposes only. The hadith clearly indicates that monkeys too conduct nikah among themselves, and that the capital offence of adultery exists among them too.
  16. It was during the Jahiliyyah period. Jews were the only ones who had stoning as the penalty for adultery. And these monkeys literally carried the stoning penalty for adultery. Therefore, they must have been Jews.
  17. As-Salam 'Alaikum, Imam al-Bukhari records this beautiful hadith in his Sahih: حدثنا نعيم بن حماد حدثنا هشيم عن حصين عن عمرو بن ميمون قال : رأيت في الجاهلية قردة اجتمع قردة قد زنت فرجموها فرجمتها معهم Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun: During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
  18. First question: To which of the Sunni sects did those caliphs belong? Salafism? Sufism? Malikism? Hanbalism? Shafi'ism? Hanafism? Deobandism? Barelvism? If you pick any of these sects, what then does that say about the others? Second question: Makkah and al-Madinah are in the hands of Wahhabi anthropomorphists today. Are you saying that anthropomorphism is therefore correct? Allah also initially praised the Banu Israel. The verses are in the Qur'an. He preferred them above all the worlds. Yet, when Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) left them temporarily, more than 99% of the Israelites became idolaters and oppressed his Ahl al-Bayt, within just forty days. Then, Allah cursed those who did not repent among them. The same situation - or almost the same - happened in this Ummah. There are NO such verses in the Qur'an. By contrast, please tell us what this ayah means: وَقَلِيلٌ مِّنْ عِبَادِيَ الشَّكُورُ But very few of My slaves are thankful. (34:13) Are you saying that "very few" refers to 800 million people?! In that case, what do you say about this report about the view of Imam Malik concerning Imam Abu Hanifah: أخبرنا بن رزق أخبرنا أبو بكر الشافعي حدثنا جعفر بن محمد بن الحسن القاضي قال: سمعت منصور بن أبي مزاحم يقول سمعت مالكا يقول إن أبا حنيفة كاد الدين ومن كاد الدين فليس له دين. Ibn Rizq – Abu Bakr al-Shafi’i – Ja’far b. Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Qadi – Mansur b. Abi Muzahim: I heard Malik saying: “Verily, Abu Hanifah plotted against the religion, and whoever plots against the religion has no religion.” In case you are wondering: the report has a sahih chain.
  19. The semantic gymnastics are still ongoing. Let us see the next absurdity. We have already "learned" that: 1. To wipe means to wash. 2. If you are commanded to wipe, you can still wash anyway. What new absurdity is coming this time? That "wipe" in the verse is not "a mandatory command"?! One wonders why some folks are finding it terribly difficult to comprehend or accept the simple word: "wipe."
  20. This article may make some sense http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/publications/articles/2010/Belle_AAS10_Syed.pdf
  21. I have only seen that claim. But, I have not seen its evidence. So, I cannot confirm his later repentance. I also once read that his descendants now live in Samarra, in Iraq, and are Twelver Shi'is. That too, I cannot confirm.
  22. Akhi, as you probably know, the "sayyid" status of a lot of these "sayyids" is highly questionable. So, at times, you cannot be really sure whether that "sayyid" is truly a descendant of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) or not. Perhaps, he is only a remnant of a long-stretching Hindu lineage. Secondly, the brother of Imam al-Hasan al-Askari (peace be upon him) who nearly destroyed Shi'ism through his mammoth lies was also a sayyid - a genuine one actually. Are we really to respect that liar, who knowingly denied the birth of Imam al-Hujjah (ajfs) in order to steal his inheritance? Are we to respect him despite that he denied his Imam, and aligned with the enemies of Allah? These so-called "sayyids" have turned themselves into an upper caste within the caste-less, non-racist religion of Allah. They go as far as forbidding intermarriage with the muminun, simply on account of their alleged relationship with the Messenger of Allah. No believer can respect such deviants.
  23. There is no caste system in Islam, in case you haven't noticed.
  • Create New...