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

أبو فاطمة المحمدي

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

  1. 9 minutes ago, aansoogas said:

    with the obvious bias....!

    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.


    The same way other extra-ordinary things have happened with such personalities. So how is that not possible?

    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. 3 minutes ago, aansoogas said:

    It would also be wrong to blame any specific sub-narrator without any proof so whoever it was...  dates, numbers or other such details are something where a narrator may err.

    In such a case, we go with the obvious. Abu Hurayrah gave the contradictory figures.


    And why is that not possible?

    How is it possible?

  3. 6 minutes ago, aansoogas said:

    before leaving the judgement to the readers let us know if al-Bukhari or al-Muslim documented the said hadith directly from Abu Hurrairah (ra) or through a number of narrators in between??? And if there are narrators in between then certainly such error could be made by any of them, so why do you go on to claim that it was only Abu Hurrairah (ra) who forgot?

    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. 1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

    I have looked up the responses on the Shiachat thread and I have found that there is not a single post worth responding to with the exception of this post. The thread started has attempted to refute me by quoting narrations that suggest that a transformed animal does not live past three days in order to counter the authentic hadith from Al-Kafi that I have quoted earlier.

    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.

    1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

    This is refuted by the fact that all the narrations presented are extremely weak.

    The first narration comes from the path of Tafseer Al-Askari, which is a rejected Tafseer by Shia standards.

    The second narration comes through the path of Sahl bin Ziyad, who was weakened by the early Shia scholars. Ahmad bin Mohammad bin Eisa Al-Ash’ari kicked him out of Qum and accused him of being a liar. (See Al-Najashi p. 184)

    The third narration is not only weak, but comes from the Nasibi Ali bin Mohammad bin Al-Jahm. Refer to Al-Mufeed min Mu’jam Rijal Al-Hadith p. 408 and p. 387 which refer to him as such and points out that he hated his father because he gave him the name: Ali.

    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).

    1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

    In other words, the correct stance by Shias, according to authentic Shia hadiths, is that monkeys and pigs were once humans, and therefore, it is haram to eat them.

    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.

    1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

    it shouldn’t be an issue to believe that monkeys practice stoning.

    Any human being with the slight level of intelligence knows that it is an issue to claim that monkeys follow the Shari'ah.

    1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

    If you don’t want to believe this, then I once again suggest rejecting ALL the narrations of the “crazy man” Amr bin Maymoun, even the ones that support your beliefs (i.e. hadith of Ali sleeping in the Prophet’s bed, that he is mawla of the believers after the Prophet, etc).

    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.

    3 hours ago, notme said:

    To the OP: explain the purpose of this discussion. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the topic will be closed.

    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:

    1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

    it shouldn’t be an issue to believe that monkeys practice stoning.

    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. 1 hour ago, aansoogas said:

    Amr b Maymun is not even a sahabi... he is a Tabaee. Ahlus Sunnah pretty much are unanimous on prophetic narrations but there is a difference of opinion on non-prophetic.

    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.


    Secondly, it is his own account. He did obviously interpret what he saw... no monkey came to him to tell about what they were actually doing.

    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 :muslima:. Al-Bukhari obviously recorded the athar because he believed 'Amr's accusation of zina against the she-monkey.

    1 hour ago, aansoogas said:

    Astaghfirullah... curse be on you for calling a Tabai kafir for no reason.

    Are you then saying that 'Amr was a Muslim when he witnessed the trial of the she-monkey?

  7. 5 hours ago, aansoogas said:

    it is not a prophetic narration.The narration is mauquf. It was Amr's own experience and he does not claim to have listened to the monkeys but what he understood from the situation.

    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.


    In Fath al-Bârî, Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî gives a more detailed narration of this event from `Amr b. Maymûn:
    I was in Yemen tending the sheep of my people up upon an elevation. A male monkey came with a female and laid his head on her hand. Then a smaller monkey came and beckoned towards her, so she gently slipped her hand out from under the cheek of
    the first monkey and followed him. He mated with her while I looked on. Then she returned and gently tried to slip her hand back under the cheek of the first monkey, but he woke up suddenly, smelled her, and cried out.

    Then the monkeys gathered round and he began screaming while pointing towards her with his hand. The monkeys went all about and came back with that monkey that I recognized. They dug a pit for the two of them and stoned them both. So I had witnessed stoning being carried out by other than Adam’s descendants.

    Where is the chain of narration of this?


    Ibn Hajar writes inFath al-Bârî :
    It is not necessary that an event that looks like adultery and stoning was really a case of adultery and capital punishment. He merely described it that way because it looked like these things. It does not mean that legal accountability was being applied to animals.

    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.

    5 hours ago, aansoogas said:

    If someone can actually move the throne of the queen in a blink and someone other than prophets could talk to birds then certainly one could interpret the actions of animals.

    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?!

    1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

    Stories like these - Don't believe everything. The Shia scholar claims that during hajj season monkeys held protests (and started revolution) and blocked the highway between Makkah and Madina when one of their companions were hit by a car

    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. 3 minutes ago, The Batman said:

    Hold on a sec, I will try and find it. You can judge it after you see it bro.

    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. 3 minutes ago, The Batman said:

    No, no brother. I am saying I want to see the hadith to see if it does have something like that in it. (which undoubtebly contradicts reality).

    I have not seen the hadith yet, so I will judge it (based on the hadith you brought forth - Qur'an, Sunnah and Reality) after I see it.

    Once again, may Allah bless you.

    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. 4 minutes ago, The Batman said:

    Thank you, I have seen this beautiful hadith before from you bro.

    I was wondering about the hadith in al-Kafi in the Book of Food.

    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. 31 minutes ago, The Batman said:

    I would love to see the content of the hadith in full.

    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. 17 minutes ago, The Batman said:

    Thank you brother, may Allah accept your deeds for these beautiful findings.

    But what do you think of the sahih hadith which says that pigs, monkeys, lizards etc... are haram because Allah transformed humans into them? 

    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. 7 hours ago, The Batman said:

    The Sabbath breakers were transformed into monkeys. There is a possibility that those transformed into monkeys mantained their human aql when they transformed.

    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


    Uhh don't you know the Holy Qur'an says some people were transformed into humans and pigs? Why isn't that a good reason to say it is haram - for that reason?

    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. 6 minutes ago, starlight said:

    I didn't understand anything. Was the opening post meant to be taken seriously? 

    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.

  15. 3 minutes ago, Ruq said:

    I dont understand the 'Jewish' reference (?)

    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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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."

  18. 5 minutes ago, haideriam said:

    Akhi Abu Fatimah, would you know if this brother later repented and became pious. I had heard this and am trying to confirm.

    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.

  19. 12 minutes ago, Akbar673 said:

    That makes no sense.

    I'm sure the Imams (as) would be quite upset with their offspring if they started acting so arrogant as to not let anyone walk in front of them.

    Its an honor and a privilege to be from the bloodline of the Ahl e Bayt but not if you are going to think of yourself as superior to others. No Imam (as) would care for his children acting in such a manner as to assume they are better than anyone else.

    At the end of the day it is a Shia Muslim's piety which is the true measure of him/her.

    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.

  • Create New...