أبو فاطمة المحمدي

If you want to participate in this thread, you need to state your position clearly first. Your usually fluid opinions are not welcome here. Please do not spoil the thread with your trolls.

If you can provide a reliable Shi'i report stating what you claim, then we can discuss it. I generally do not discuss wild rumours.

There is no misconception here. We all know the meaning of the word "breastfeed." Also, the term used in the Arabic of the hadith literally means to suck breast-milk directly from the breast.

That narration from al-Tabaqat is a fabrication, or at least very weak. There is al-Waqidi in its sanad, and he is da'if, in fact matruk (rejected) according to Imam Muslim and others. There are those who have accused him of telling lies, also. You cannot possibly use a narration like that to interpret a "sahih" report. Besides, the Arabic term used in the hadith (translated as "breastfeed" above) literally means to suck breast-milk directly from the breast. The Salafi cleric, Shaykh Muhammad 'Awdah al-Salman confirms this: الرضاع : لغة : بفتح الراء وكسرهًا وإثبات التاء اسم لمص الثدي وشرب لبنه . If you are going to give a secondary meaning to that word, you surely need more than the da'if - perhaps fabricated - report of al-Waqidi. Meanwhile, it seems that you are not bothered at all by the possibility of a stranger drinking the breast-milk of another man's wife. That looks strange, if you asked me.

As-Salam 'Alaikum, There is an aspect of Sunni fiqh which Sunnis do not talk about often. In fact, some of them flare up when anyone mentions the topic. I am referring to the issue of adult breastfeeding here. It is a "sunnah" that Sunnis really need to revive, in order to make life easier, especially in this modern age. Often, the Sunni woman finds herself in the same small space with non-Mahram men (i.e. men to whom she is not related by blood or marriage). This is haram for her. But, she can easily overcome legal constraints inherent in these situations by breastfeeding each of those non-Mahram men. This is a hadith graded "sahih" from the English translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, vol. 3, p. 113, # 1943, which legitimizes that: It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "Sahlah bint Suhail came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I see signs of displeasure of Abu Hudhaifah when Salim enters upon me.' The Prophet said: 'Breastfeed him.' She said: 'How can I breastfeed him when he is a grown man?' The Messenger of Allah smiled and said: 'I know that he is a grown man.' So she did that, then she came to the Prophet and said: 'I have never seen any signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhaifah after that. And he was present at (the Battle of Badr)." (Sahih) In other words, Salim - a grown man - used to enter upon Sahlah bint Suhail, the wife of Abu Hudhaifah. Abu Hudhaifah used to see them together, and he used to be displeased with their presence together. This was most likely due to jealousy. so, Sahlah went to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) to complain about this situation. Then, the Prophet gave her the solution. She only had to breastfeed Salim. She did that, and everyone became happy ever after. Now, in case a Sunni woman seeks to revive this "sunnah," she has to note that she must do it in the proper manner before it can have the desired effect. An improper breastfeed is legally invalid, and therefore will need to be repeated. So, if you really want to achieve the best result, you have to do it in the correct manner. And, what is this correct manner? The adult man must have a full fill during the breastfeed. This is stated in another "sahih" hadith from the same English translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, vol. 3, p. 114, # 1945: It was narrated from 'Aishah that the Prophet entered upon her and there was a man with her. He said: "Who is this?" She said: "This is my brother." He said: "Look at whom you allow to enter upon you, because the breastfeeding (that makes a person Mahram) is that which satisfies hunger." (Sahih) So, a few drops do not do the job at all. And, as the saying goes: whatever is worth doing at all is worth doing well.

I have no reason to do taqiyyah with you. He was a Muslim, but only a Muslim like 'Abd Allah b. Ubayy.

Abu Bakr was definitely a Muslim.

I see.

When did Yasir the Pretender become a Shi'i "scholar"? Mention real Shi'ah. Or keep shut forever. Tell me more about this fictitious book, Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah. Who is its author? When was it published? Where was it published? Could you quote the Arabic of the above text, directly from "Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah"?

Who are those Shi'ah who say only 3 or 4 Sahabah remained Muslims after the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family)? Can you give us some names, with proper references?

You still have not told us how Abu Talib (peace be upon him) was alive nine years after the Hijrah. I have been waiting for your explanation for sometime.

Here is the English translation of Imam al-Suyuti's books, Tarikh al-Khulafa: The History of the Khalifahs Who Took the Right Way. Please read from page 181. On page 183, al-Suyuti claims that Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) narrated a total of 586 ahadith from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). This is interesting, since he was with the Prophet for 23 years, and also taught the Ummah for 30 years after the Messenger of Allah. By contrast, Abu Hurayrah was with the Prophet for less than 3 years, and was never a great scholar who taught the Ummah. Yet, Abu Hurayrah managed to narrate more than 5000 ahadith.

Ibn Taymiyyah was indeed a full-blown heretic. He was a mujassim, a Nasibi and a takfiri. But, in those quotes, he was only stating facts. Nonetheless, I accept your objection, and will provide other opinions later, insha Allah. You are correct. Allah never commands the superior to follow the inferior. Hadith al-Thaqalayn proves, among other things, that the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) are superior to all members of this Ummah, without any exception. The obligation to follow them is upon the shoulders of all, without discrimination. Yet, the hadith also makes a further point. In this whole Ummah, the Ahl al-Bayt are the only ones who are never separated from the Qur'an in anything, at any moment. This is their exclusive merit; and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, never said a similar thing about any other creature. First, both caliphs did not live long after the death of the Prophet. Abu Bakr, for instance, died 2 years after the Prophet's death. So, he did not have much time to narrate. 'Umar died 12 years after the Prophet. By contrast, Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) died 30 years after the Prophet. So, his ahadith, ordinarily, should be more than theirs. Secondly, as Shi'ah, we believe that Abu Bakr and 'Umar were not so great in their knowledge. As such, even if they had lived long, they still might not have narrated more than a few ahadith.

What about the Prophet? He is not your master? Besides, you did not answer my question. How was Abu Talib alive at the time of the descent of Surat al-Tawbah, nine years after the Hijrah?

Thanks my brother. Let me explain it better to him. Our master, Abu Talib (peace be upon him) died before the Hijrah (emigration) of the Prophet to Madinah. By contrast, Surat al-Tawbah (i.e. Chapter 9) was revealed NINE years AFTER the Hijrah. So, how is it possible that Abu Talib was still alive at the time of the descent of Surat al-Tawbah nine years after the Hijrah, when he had died BEFORE the Hijrah? Your claim is exactly like this statement: "Saddam Hussain visited King Salman in Riyadh in February 2016."

Are you saying that Surat al-Tawbah was revealed during the Makkan period?!

Like?

A blatant lie. Only Nawasib make this accusation against the Shi'ah. The fact that you did not know this blows your cover.

As-Salam 'Alaikum, While doing some researches online, I stumbled upon an article written by a well-known Nasibi, Farid. As stated by him, he wrote the article to "prove" that Sunnis do not really believe in tahrif. It was his response to various Shi'i allegations of tahrif against Sunnis. However, his article actually strengthens the Shi'i accusations, and confirms perfectly that Sunnis are indeed believers in tahrif. I want to do a brief analysis of his article here. First and foremost, Farid claims that if you say there are scribal errors in the Qur'an in our hands today, you are not guilty of tahrif: To him, it is "very acceptable and rational" to say that the Qur'an was "incorrectly written." The meaning of this, is that not all the letters in the Qur'an today are from Allah. Rather, some of them are from the scribes who transcribed it. In simpler words, the Qur'an today, as we have it, is NOT perfect in its text. If you say that, you are on track - according to Farid. To justify this position, he lists examples of scribal errors alleged by Ibn 'Abbas and Umm al-Muminin 'Aishah: So, he admits that both Ibn 'Abbas and 'Aishah claimed that the Qur'an, as we have it, contains scribal errors. But, as stated earlier, Farid does not think this constitutes tahrif: Simply put, Ibn 'Abbas and 'Aishah did not believe the Qur'an in our hands to be "untouchable" or above criticism and condemnation. They did not share the view of most Muslims today, that the Qur'an in our hands is 100% perfect, and 100% from Allah. No. Rather, Ibn 'Abbas and 'Aishah believed that Zayd b. Thabit "erred in writing verses." Weirdly, Farid still goes ahead and claims that "it is important to keep in mind that this is not a belief in tahrif." Wow! Also, in his view, this belief of Ibn 'Abbas and 'Aishah "does not taint the promise of Allah to keep the Qur'an preserved." Really? Well, we do not have the "correct" versions of the Qur'an, according to Ibn 'Abbas and 'Aishah. We only have the version with scribal errors, according to the duo. Yet, the Qur'an is preserved?! Farid also seeks to give a further excuse for Ibn 'Abbas and 'Aishah: Both of them were not aware of the authenticity of the qiraat in the Qur'an in our hands. So, they were excused in their condemnation of it, and in their ascription of scribal errors to it. But, wait a minute! Does the defence of ignorance really work in the case of tahrif? That does not seem to be the standard Sunni opinion! Of course, Farid also goes into other cases, where he contradicts himself badly. For instance, he claims that the Qur'an was revealed in seven modes of recitation: The Qur'an was revealed in the tongue of the Arab tribe of Quraysh. But, the other Arab tribes had difficulty reciting it, then Allah decided to reveal or re-reveal the same verses in the dialects of the other Arab tribes too, in order to make things easier for them. Farid seems very happy about this development: So, the seven modes of the Qur'an created unity among the various Arab tribes, each being able to recite the Book of Allah in its own tongue. But, Farid soon contradicts himself on this point: The seven modes of recitation actually created disunity and rancour among Arabs. Therefore, 'Uthman wrote the Qur'an in our hands in the tongue of Quraysh only, and burnt all the six other "revealed" modes of recitation! This was to restore unity. With this, he burnt out of existence 6/7th of the original, revealed Qur'an! What we have today is only 1/7th. Yet, that is not tahrif. Right? Farid thinks he has a solution to this dilemma. According to him, even though the Qur'an now has only the Quraysh tongue. it has been written in a way that each word can be pronounced in the seven dialects of the Arabs. So, problem solved! Hurray! However, Farid has also refuted himself on this: Both 'Umar and Hisham were from Quraysh. Yet, their recitations of the same Surah differed so significantly that the former was alarmed. This suggests that the so-called seven modes were actually not dialects, after all. Moreover, according to the examples in the Arabic dialects that Farid gives, changes in spellings do occur among the Arabic dialects: With this knowledge, one can then say that the seven modes of recitation had seven different scripts, with completely different spellings in several cases. Therefore, it was absolutely impossible for the 'Uthmanic script to be recited in the different Arabic dialects. Changes in the spellings of the words are obligatory, for this to be possible. In a rather swift turn, Farid appears to have rejected the six non-'Uthmanic scripts, citing doubts about them: There is always "a possibility of a mistake" in the non-'Uthmanic recitations. So, they must be avoided. What then about Allah's promise to protect the Qur'an? Does that promise extend to the 'Uthmanic script only? Or, to the Qur'an as a whole, the whole of the so-called seven modes of recitation? Well, we know already that - according to Farid - it is not tahrif to claim that the Qur'an in our hands contains scribal errors and mistakes. What we want to know now is: is it not tahrif to claim that 'Uthman had burnt out of existence 6/7th of the unabrogated, revealed Qur'an? According to Sunni Islam, all the seven modes of recitations constituted the Qur'an during the lifetime of the Prophet, and during the lifetimes of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. When the word "Qur'an" (or any of its other titles) was mentioned, it referred to all those seven modes. When Allah promised to protect the Qur'an, was He referring to all the seven modes or to just the 'Uthmanic script? On the apparent, He meant all the seven modes. So, is it tahrif to believe that the promise actually failed with regards to six of the seven modes? All the six modes are now lost, burnt into oblivion by 'Uthman.

You only need to stick to a clear position, and then we can discuss. Jumping from here to there at will (and claiming to develop a clear position only after the discussion) give you away as someone who is either not serious, or confused, or insincere. Let us know your exact position. Then, the discussion will have some meaning: 1. You claimed that your eyes can see a being with no image, form, or body. Do you still hold that opinion? 2. You argued that the verse about faces looking towards their Lord is about optical vision. Do you still hold this opinion? 3. Do you believe that Allah can be seen with the naked eyes? 4. Do our eyes have any limits, with regards to what they can see? If yes, what are their limits? In the Shi'i manhaj, any hadith that contradicts the Qur'an is a "decorated lie," according to Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him). The Qur'an has stated that vision cannot reach Allah. Therefore, that hadith is a fabrication.

Stop being an hypocrite! What exactly is your position in this thread? State your exact position if you want us to take you seriously. Generally, people lose interest when they notice insincerity on the part of their partner in any discussion. Secondly, are you saying that this riwayah is authentic?

So, only a Shi'i can prove the authenticity or otherwise of Shi'i reports?! Well, then, forget about quoting Shi'i reports. We will not do your researches for you. Since you have no clear position, I have no reason to continue the discussion with you. I cannot be discussing with a person who does not know what exactly he is defending.

You quoted the report. You must provide the evidence of authenticity or otherwise. As for your other trolls, I have no reason to waste my time on them. The evidences, as I provided them, remain clear and solid and unchallenged. Besides, what is your exact position in this thread? You have not been clear on any point. You simply move from point to point, without committing yourself to any clear position. For instance, do you still maintain that the verse of faces looking towards their Lord refers to optical vision, literally? Or, do you now claim not to know what that verse means exactly? Moreover, you claimed that your eyes can see something with no image, figure, shape or body. Where is your evidence for that?

Are you saying the Prophet, the Imams and their companions did not perform amr bil ma'ruf and nahy 'an al-munkar? If you say, "no, they did," then you have answered yourself.

What about the example of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family)? Poor? Imperfect?