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

aansoogas

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by aansoogas

  1. ?? okay anyways, lets kill the waves.
  2. @shiaman14 @GreatChineseFall @Fahad Sani @hameedeh @Tawheed313 Now i come to my actual question. Many imams remained much of their lives under Taqiyah. There followers must have too,,, right? Then why only (when analyzing such traditions that go against shia beliefs/practices) imams are expected to have said certain things under Taqiyah and not any other person with in that Sanad. Is not it possible that Abu Baseer or Zurarah might have attributed something to Imams under Taqiyah and that something found its place in a shia book? [specially when there is no fool proof way (the only way told is that the ulemas can judge) to find who did Taqiyah] -------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to quote two interesting incidents believing that they are deemed reliable by shias themselves which would give quite a flexibility in exercising Taqiyah. al Kafi H 192, Ch. 21, h 5 Ahmad ibn Idris has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Jabbar from al-Hassan ibn Ali from Al-Thaqafi‘laba ibn Maymun from Zurara ibn ‘A‘yan who has said the following. "I asked Imam abu Ja‘far (a.s.) a question and he answered me. Then an other man came and asked the same question but the Imam gave a different answer. Then a third man came and asked the same question but the Imam gave him an answer that was different from both of the previous answers. When the other two men left I asked the Imam (a.s.), "Two of your followers from Iraq asked you the same question, how is it that you gave each one a different answer? The Imam replied, "O Zurarah, it is better for us and it gives all of us more time. If you all would say the same thing, people will know that you speak the truth from us and this will leave all of us with less time. Sheikh Sudooq in "Essence of Shia Fatih" quotes imam Jafar Sadiq as follows: The same Imam has also commanded us, “To become their strength instead of weakness by accompany their (enemies) funeral cortège to the graveyard, pray with them in their mosques and seek wellbeing of their sick. May God shower His blessings on him who ignites our love in our enemy‟s hearts and does not display us in their eyes as their foe?”
  3. and what is your proof that the other ayahs were revealed prior to the verse 6 chapter 5 (or 112)? Don't you know that Ayahs belonging to different Surahs were revealed on different times. Prophet (saw) used to ask companions to insert ayah at a particular place. so even if the ayah in chrono order may have belonged to surah 112. it is not necessary that the ayah has to be either revealed before or after some or all of the ayahs of the last two surahs.
  4. Is the account by a zaidi shii regarding Uthman bin Mazun (who infact was called to Islam by Abu Bakr himself) authentic as per ithna ashari standards? There is another zaidi scholar al Murshid Billah who says that uthman bin Ali was named after Uthman bin Affan. Now what to do? Secondly, first imams and then their sons. Brother, The reason for which Fatima (a.s) was not happy with Abu Bakr r.a. was that he did not distribute Fadak as inheritance but kept Fadak as Fay property under custodianship.... AND Ali did the same when he was caliph because that was the right thing to do as per Quran. Anyways, the wordings or situation described in the hadith you are mentioning is not by Fatima herself but by ummi Ayesha that Fatima resumed such attitude till her death. Let us have some more info. Now, as per zaidi source (apart from another sunni source) just before her death, when Abu Bakr came to know about her bad health, he asked permission to see her and then after getting the same, explained his position to Fatima... then she was satisfied with the explanation of Abu Bakr. If the above is true, then the statement of ummi Ayesha that "she did not speak till her death" would mean that she resumed that attitude towards Abu Bakr till her death. It does not mean that she never ever talked to Abu Bakr again bcos the same hadith if you keep reading the text afterwards say that "she used to ask Abu Bakr" during those 3-6 months after the demise of Rasool Allah (saw). Since Fatima was not a woman who socialized much, so this time period was not very lengthy as if she was displeased for ages and we believe that she was finally contended at the time of her death. Abu Bakr was not present... were salman, Miqdad, Abu Dhar or Ammar? i guess not... why because Lady Fatima was a very modest lady and perhaps she wished to keep her funeral less public. she was buried in the night by her family members.(we read that the wife of Abu Bakr gave her ghusl etc). Those Muslim men from outside the family who were not told, came to know the news perhaps the next morning and offered ghayebana prayer over her. and afterwards the stance of Ali (ra) changed? Since the topic has gone to Fadak issue: The question is that why did Ali (ra) do what Abu Bakr (ra) did with Fadak? Why have Imams said that Fay (Fadak which shias accept as Fay) always go from one leader to another. What uses Quran give for Fay property?
  5. yes, as shias did not agree to Ahly Bayt on this and said the following... btw is it not possible that these names were given under Taqiyah?
  6. But the names Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman did not decline... infact they gained popularity (even after their alleged crimes) with in Ahly bayt although there was none in Bani Abdul Mutalib earlier on with such names. Another example: there were only two Abu Bakr's during the lifetime of prophet (saw). One was an infidel who fought Muslims at Badr and the other one was Abu Bakr as Sideeq. It was only later on that this name/kuniya became popular and you have a dozen of Muslim scholars and Tabaeen with that name.
  7. None, except one, out of 20 sons combined of the first 3 Caliphs was named after any other Caliph and neither any sons of Ali was named after them earlier on. good majority of their sons were born before Hassanain kareemain. One of Umar;s daughter was named Fatimah. And the only son of uthman named Umar as mentioned above was born in period of jahiliya. Secondly, people did not curse Ali in front Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman and their lovers (like Ahlus Sunnah) already loved Ali (ra) and his family but there were people of Ghuluw who saw the caliphs negatively and Ali had encountered such men. So he may have deemed it important to bust the myth that they were enemies of each other. And i can see a couple of associations which i have shared in another topic. even if a shia boy would be named other than the names of imams... it won't still be the names of those sons. They are not even mentioned in any banner or in any majlis as if they never existed.
  8. again... did not the sons of Ali, Hassanain, Zainul Abideen etc deserved better? because none of our prophet's (saw) sons, caliphs' sons and the sons of Ahly bait were called Yazid (la). But the sons of Ahly Bait were indeed Umar, Uthman and Abu Bakr (raa). If our prophet and his family had named their sons so, then definitely we would have named our sons too. Secondly, both shia and sunni are unanimous on the bad character of Yazid but not on the caliphs. Thirdly, yazid was not married to the daughter of any imam but Umar was. Fourthly, yazid was not the son in law of prophet (saw) but Uthman (ra) was. Fifthly, yazid did not spare Ahly Bait but Ahly Bayt lived peacefully right under the nose of the caliphs in Medina for decades. Sixthly, Yazid was not given pledge but the caliphs were. so you are only comparing apples and oranges. is this question to Ali ibn Abi Talib and other Imams? because their sons are known as Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Are not Abu Bakr ibn Ali, Umar ibn Ali and Uthman Ibn Ali from Ahly bayt? So by naming their sons these names... sunnis are following the sunnah of Ahly Bayt and not shias. And that UbayUllah was not married to any princess of Ahly Bayt like Umar ibn al Khattab was. Also, there was no Umar prior to the alleged crimes of umar in ahly bayt but there was already Ubayullah ibn Abbas ibn Ali prior to the crimes of ubayullah.
  9. why not? again... did not the sons of Ali, Hassanain, Zainul Abideen etc deserved better? because none of our prophet's (saw) sons, caliphs' sons and the sons of Ahly bait were called Yazid (la). But the sons of Ahly Bait were Umar, Uthman and Abu Bakr. If our prophet and his family had named their sons so, then definitely we would have named our sons too. Secondly, both shia and sunni are unanimous on the bad character of Yazid but not on the caliphs. Thirdly, yazid was not married to the daughter of any imam but Umar was. Fourthly, yazid was not the son in law of prophet (saw) but Uthman (ra) was. Fifthly, yazid did not spare Ahly Bait but Ahly Bayt lived peacefully right under the nose of the caliphs in Medina for decades. Sixthly, Yazid was not given pledge but the caliphs were. so you are only comparing apples and oranges.
  10. @BornShia i still don't know why you are insisting on having more ayahs on tayammum in quran. What has the hadith given by you got to do with your question?
  11. "O you who believe! When you intend to offer As-Salat (the prayer), wash your faces and your hands (forearms) up to the elbows, rub (by passing wet hands over) your heads, and (wash) your feet up to ankles. If you are in a state of Janaba (i.e. after a sexual discharge), purify yourselves (bathe your whole body). But if you are ill or on a journey, or any of you comes after answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women (i.e. sexual intercourse), and you find no water, then perform tayammum with clean earth and rub therewith your faces and hands. Allah does not want to place you in difficulty, but He wants to purify you, and to complete His Favour to you that you may be thankful." — Qur'an, Sura 5 (Al-Mai'da), ayat 6
  12. Then why don't shia give their children these names even considering that these were the names of the children of Imams. If Ahly Bayt can give their children these names (the names that were not present earlier in Bani Abdul Mutalib) then Why can't shias use these names as Ahly Bait one after the other named their sons Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman? And Abu Bakr was not a common name prior to Abu Bakr as Sideeq. Abu Bakr's as Sideeq's laqab was Ateeq his name was Abdullah. Infact, not only Ali (ra) but Hassanain and Imam Zain ul Abideen went on to give this kuniya to their sons. And according to the same maqatil below this was the kuniya of imam redha as well. So it is clear that Umar Ibn Ali was indeed named after Umar Ibn al Khattab!!! And this good name was kept ever after till karbala. Infact, Imam Hasan and Zain ul Abideen also went on to name their children Umar. Uthman bin Mazun was infact called to Islam by Abu Bakr as Sideeq himself. Uthman bin Mazun had died long before the birth of Uthman bin Ali and there were other sons of Ali that were born in between. The write of maqatil al Talibeen is a Zaidi shia and here we have another Zaidi Shia al Murshid Billah, writer of Al Amaali al ithneenya, who denies his claim and says: قَالَ: هَذَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ، سَمَّيْتُهُ بِاسْمِ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عَفَّانَ الأمالي الإثنينية – ج 1 / ص that Uthman bin Ali was named after Uthman bin Affan.
  13. where has Bukhari denied the verse(s) on tayyamum?
  14. i still don't get it? firstly, the number of the ayah is there only in the english translation (perhaps to assist readers) and not in the arabic text of al Bukhari. The ayah يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلاَةِ‏ is there in chapter 5. what is the exact question?
  15. Definitely not after that heinous person. See, There were already Ahly Bait (ra) with this name UbaydAllah before the incident of that particular ubaydAllah and those earlier ones are the most likely reason for this name in the later generations. But there was no names such as Abu Bakr, umar and Uthman in bani abdul Mutalib and it was after the caliphs became famous that these names were introduced (that too as a set).
  16. Yes, it is a part of a speculation or an attempt that came centuries later without any primary source. Uthman bin Mazun was a great sahabi. but i don't see a link or reason to believe that he was the reason for the name of uthman ibn Ali. None of Abu Bakr's 3xsons were named after any caliph, only his son Muhammad was younger to Hussanain. None of Umar's 7xsons were named after any caliph, perhaps two were younger to Hussanain. He had a daughter named Fatimah. Out of 10, one was named Umar that too in the period of Jahiliya (so its less likely that he was named after Caliph Umar) and none (as far as i know) was younger to Hassanain. Ali had about 17 sons, names/kuniya of all the first 3 caliphs are there in the names of the sons. All such sons were born during/after the caliphate. Not a single one has been named after the steadfast companions like Salman, Abu Dhar, Miqdad or Ammar. I think that since Ali (ra) was already dealing with the people of Ghuluw during his lifetime or during his caliphate and such people rejected the earlier caliphate and portrayed the first 3 caliphs negatively (at times in front of Ali [ra] and got rebuked too) perhaps that is the reason why Ali (ra) deemed it important to name his sons in such a way that people should not think that they were enemies of each other. People appreciating Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman did not stop naming their children after Ali, Hasan or Hussain. But the problem was there on the other side.
  17. We have only two Abu Bakr. One as you pointed out was Abu Bakr, the non-Muslim, who fought against Muslims at Badr. And the second one was, Abu Bakr bin Abi Qahafa, the Caliph and the companion of the prophet. And there were no multiple Abu Bakrs and hence it was not a common kuniya or name. It was only afterwards that people adopted this kuniya or name. If there is a record of any other companions, then we need to have the information. Yes, it is possible. But the names/kuniya of all the first three caliphs attached to the sons of Ali (ra) is a strange coincidence specially when hardly any shia today, may he be living in an orthodox Sunni society, would name their sons aftar Uthman bin Mazun or Abu Bakr Ibn Ali or Umar Ibn Ali etc.
  18. The infallibility of the prophets is protected by Allah and cannot be assessed through science... because in the end, its a miracle. yes you can bring evidence to prove what ever point you are trying to make because its not clear to me what you are talking about?
  19. well... i did not mention sahih Muslim, did i? hahahah that was the best one so far When Sh Kulayni got tired of collecting he said "enough is enough"! Even the shaykh must be scratching his head by now ;) Whereas Kulayni actually said in the introduction وقلت إنك تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب كاف يجمع فيه من جميع فنون علم الدين ما يكتفي به المتعلم ويرجع إليه المسترشد ويأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل وبها “Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it... [al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran] ] And then you yourself say that the sunni method is sahih... so is not sahih method sahih? so lets not discuss it.
  20. @Tawheed313@shiaman14@skamran110@Ali Hussain as per the historical shia/suni record... Is only Layla Binte Masud considered the mother of Muhammad Al Asghar or do we have more names?
  21. That fact is that there was only one Muslim with kuniya Abu Bakr during the life-time of Rasool Allah (pbuh) and that was Caliph Abdullah, laqb Ateeq, Kuniya Abu Bakr and Ali's son who had the same kuniya may coincidentally have the same name i.e. Abdullah. Even if it was Ubaidallah or Muhammad then there has to be a good enough reason why was his son called Abu Bakr, specially when Abu Bakr is hated so much in shia circles and see as the leader of usurpers? @Tawheed313 it is a coincidence that Ali's sons are known as Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (same as all the first 3 caliphs) and none is known as Salman, Miqdad, Yasir, Ammar or any other steadfast companion remaining out there? such a coincidence! Even later Aimas went on to name their sons either after their typical family names or after the first 3 caliphs and not much from other companions.
  22. Amr Ibn Saad, the cursed individual might have been deemed truthful despite his heinous acts by some. Thus, although a nasib, he according to Al-Dhahabi: 'not accused of lying'. (Source: Mizan Al-I'tidal. Vol. 5, Pg. # 238 - 239). There are also Rafidhis who were also dealt in a similar fashion by some experts of rijal. Ibn Hajar: Salim ibn Abi Hafsa (Shi'i Ghali) = Sadooq (truthful) (Source: Taqreeb Al-Tahdeeb. Pg . # 166, Person # 2171). But there are other master of hadith who did not count Amr ibn Saad as thiqat. It is also to be noted that the narration of Amr Ibn Saad is found only in an-Nisai in entire Sihah Sittah. Anyways, he is bound to go to hell for his crime.
×
×
  • Create New...