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

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Not A Shia, Not A Sunni, Only A Muslim

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

821 profile views

Yousuf's Achievements

  1. Response:- Who cares what one scholars of Sunni madhab says?? Ascribing this thing to the entire Ahlal-Sunnah is the biggest fallacy here. You do know within your heart that the Ahlal-Sunnah love Ahlal-Bayt (Alayhisalam). We love the beloved family of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam) and we can sacrifice our lives for them. Imam Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu) is our beloved caliph and beloved leader. We love him and we can sacrifice our lives for him. So you are claiming that Ahlal-Sunnah "hate" Imam Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu) but still regard him as caliph? Your claims are ridiculous and funny. "You didn't explain the hadith what so ever." I did explain it properly. You are a kind of person who puts his fingers in ears and does not want to listen or understand.
  2. You wrote, "Blinded? MashAllah! Sorry I don't like people who question the Prophethood of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)." Response:- And what is the source of this claim? You wrote, "Now, If you love Aisha and you don't have any objections with what she did, I ask Allah to put you where she is going." Response:- So, this is the only emotional response from your side after I explained that narration?
  3. You wrote, "you guys put so much emphasis on the caliphate even to the point that you defend muawiyah and yazeed but when it comes to Ali suddenly even your own standards fall" Here is my Response:- I think you should watch your mouth. Let me make one thing VERY CLEAR here. I belong to the Ahlal-Sunnah and I love my beloved master Imam Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu) and I can even sacrifice my life and every thing for my beloved master Imam Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu). We love Imam Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu) more than you do. We love the Ahlul-Bayt more than you do. So stop spewing your hatred here. You have been so blinded in hatred against the noble companions of Prophet (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam) that you are not even addressing the response I quoted. Here you are playing with words and dragging the topic to the battle. If you want to discuss that, then please open a new thread. I already explained that Ayesha (Radhi'allahu'anha) never "hated" Imam Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu) and the narration in question is taken out of context. You are merely trying to divert the topic and dragging the topic to "battle" when it is not even the subject of the thread!
  4. You wrote, "So, you are comparing this to the battle of Camel? So, for you two friends fighting and arguing with each other = a woman (who must stay at home) waging the war on the Caliph of the time. Ohh man, you are brave!!!" I already quoted an example from the hadith that refute those who hate the companions of our beloved Prophet (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam). If you want to start a dispute over the battle of camel, then please start a new thread about it. My job was to explain the narration of Ayesha (Radhi'allahu'anha) and I already did it satisfactorily. Unfortunately, in this thread there are so many people who hate the beloved companions of Prophet (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam) and they are just not ready to accept my explanation because they have already made their mind.
  5. You wrote, "Its clear that she hated Imam Ali (عليه السلام)." Response:- I already explained that she did not "hate" Imam Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu). However, it seems you have already made up your mind. You are so blinded in your hatred against the Holy companions of Prophet (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam) that you do not want to objectively analyse the narration and when someone explains that to you, you drag another topic and here is the example of you changing the topic:- "And Aisha being the reason that thousands were killed is also a 'misunderstanding' right?" There was a reason why Bukhari and Muslim did not include that part in their hadith collection:- https://www.islamweb.net/fatwa/printfatwa.php?Id=231190&lang=A And I already explained that in my response above. Allah Knows Best!
  6. I actually used the google translator. Read my answer above. It clarified this as well.
  7. I am not a native Arabic speaker, so please translate that for me.
  8. @Karim10@Sabrejet @Ansar Shiat Ali This narration is found in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Al-Bukhari This part of the narration ولكن عائشة لا تطيب لها نفسا بخير is narrator's own opinion, as it mentions thoughts of Hazrat Ayesha (Radhi'allahu'anha) as a second person and it is recorded in other collections of Hadith besides that of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. The assumption that Ayesha (Radhi'allahu'anha) disliking the mentioning the name of Imam Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu) is narrator's own and it only indicates a temporary disagreement between the two. This is because there are many other narrations that state that Hazrat Ayesha (Radhi'allahu'anha) views Imam Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu) in a positive way:- Shuraib b. Hani has reported: I asked 'A'isha about wiping over the shoes. She said: You better go to 'Ali, for he knows more about this than I. I, therefore, came to 'Ali and he narrated from the Apostle (ﷺ) like this. (Sahih Muslim 276c) Disagreement between companions is a normal thing. This does not mean that companions are enemies of each other rather it is something that is natural. The following Hadith shows that even Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi'allahu'anhu) and Umar (Radhi'allahu'anhu) also had a disagreement with each other; however, obviously they were not enemies of each other. It should be noted that Shi'as are hostile towards both Abu Bakr (Radhi'allahu'anhu) and Umar (Radhi'allahu'anhu):- Narrated Abu Ad-Darda: There was a dispute between Abu Bakr and `Umar, and Abu Bakr made `Umar angry. So `Umar left angrily. Abu Bakr followed him, requesting him to ask forgiveness (of Allah) for him, but `Umar refused to do so and closed his door in Abu Bakr's face. So Abu Bakr went to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) while we were with him. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "This friend of yours must have quarrelled (with somebody)." In the meantime `Umar repented and felt sorry for what he had done, so he came, greeted (those who were present) and sat with the Prophet (ﷺ) and related the story to him. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) became angry and Abu Bakr started saying, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! By Allah, I was more at fault (than `Umar)." Allah's Apostle said, "Are you (people) leaving for me my companion? (Abu Bakr), Are you (people) leaving for me my companion? When I said, 'O people I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah,' you said, 'You tell a lie.' while Abu Bakr said, 'You have spoken the truth ." (Sahih Al-Bukhari 4640) Hence, it becomes pretty obvious that there might be some misunderstanding or some temporary dispute between the two; however, they were not enemies of each other as many Shi'as erroneously believe.
  9. "Gibrael just came to tell Prophet what verse shall be made known to people according to the timing" But I thought that Qur'an was revealed verse by verse and in parts and stages.
  10. There are dissimilarities in some matters of religion when it comes to Shi'a Sunni argument. However, it is proven from Sahih Sunni Hadiths that Prophet (Peace be upon him) was taught by Gabriel seven ahrufs. Your hadith literature even confirms this. At first, you rejected that seven ahrufs even exist. However, when I showed you from Shi'a hadith literature that seven ahrufs are even present in Shi'a hadith literature, you rejected it too. You wrote: "Secondly, if there had been seven Ahrufs, they would have been prevalent in the time of period of early Sunni Caliphs" My response: Actually, Sahih Hadith literature of Sunni Islam does prove that seven ahrufs were used in early ages of Islam. You wrote: "You know that there was only single Quran prevalent and none doubted its credibility." My response: I agree. You wrote: "There was no any mention of other versions of Quran except this incidence." My response: I never said versions of Qur'an. I just said seven different ahrufs and different readings of he Qur'an. Qur'an is not like the corrupted bible. Bible is corrupted and it has different versions. Each sect of Christianity claims that its version is correct. The King James Only Movement claims that only King James is correct and the other are "Satanic" versions. However, Alhamdullilah, there is nothing like this with the Qur'an. All the sects of Islam agree that there is only one Qur'an. The Qur'an that was compiled by Hazrat Uthman. When I say seven ahrufs, I mean different variant readings of the Qur'an that is proven from Sahih Sunni Hadiths. You wrote: "You keep quoting this brother, firstly, we reject your idea that Gibreal taught Prophet." Our Prophet (Peace be upon him) received revelation from the Almighty, but through Angel Jibreel. This fact is indisputable and it is based on the Quranic teachings. Angel Jibreel brought revelations from Almighty to our Prophet (Peace be upon him) don't you agree? You wrote: "Sanaa Codex is no any relevance to Quran which was sanctioned by vast majority of People, So, you are just wasting your time. Seven Ahrufs only mean seven different ways of Pronunciation." My response: When did I say that Sana'a codex has any relevance? Have you ever heard any Sunni ever reciting from the Sana'a codex? But it has some relevance to the Sahih hadiths that speak about seven ahrufs and recitation of the Qur'an in different readings. The Quranic recitation and the use of variants is proven from Sahih Hadith and this Codex proves that Sunni point of view is much closer to the truth. Brother, why don't you understand that seven ahrufs are not just limited to dialects or pronunciations because there were more than seven dialects and pronunciations at the time of early Islam. This fact is indisputable. I can't believe how can you reject this when the fact of the matter is that this is actually a fact.
  11. I would like to make corrections here. Seven Ahrufs DOES include difference in dialect and pronunciations. However, seven ahrufs is much broader than that.
  12. Well, I don't know about this. But when we say "seven ahrufs", we mean whatever is mentioned by the letmeturnthetables list. However, seven ahrufs mean several different readings, variants, pronunciations, dialectal languages in which Quran was revealed. As the Salafi website Islamqa notes about seven ahrufs: The Qur’aan was revealed in one style at the beginning, but the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) kept asking Jibreel until he taught him seven styles, all of which were complete. The evidence for that is the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas who narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Jibreel taught me one style and I reviewed it until he taught me more, and I kept asking him for more and he gave me more until finally there were seven styles.” (narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3047; Muslim, 819) Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)? The best of the scholarly opinions concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction.
  13. You wrote: "This is improper question because humans go and settle at different places so languages adopt different pronunciations." My response: Actually, my question is valid because when Islam was spreading, people already had more than seven pronunciations and dialects in various tribes of Arabia. So clearly seven ahrufs is much broader than seven dialects or pronunciations. The Hadiths does NOT say seven dialects or pronunciation. It says seven ahrufs very clearly. So my argument still stands because seven ahrufs cannot mean seven pronunciations or dialects because Arabian people already had more than seven dialects and pronunciations. You wrote: "You yesterday yourself read, where Khomenin said that one can recite with the seven recitals but it should be such that it may not vary from the Quran. If there had been eight Ahrufs why would Ayotullah conceal that?" My response: I never said eight ahrufs. However, I am not a follower of Khomeini. Since Khomeini probably don't believe in Bukhari, he rejected the correct Sunni viewpoint that is proven from Sana Codex and Sahih hadiths. Either way, Khomeini and Shias are still wrong because it is proven from Sahih Hadiths and ancient codex of the Quran that indeed Quran had seven ahrufs and the hadith of Bihar Al-Anwar also clearly says seven ahrufs. It does not say seven dialects or pronunciations. Ahrufs is the plural of "harf". This also includes variations in the recitation of the Quran and we know this was very well used in the early Quranic recitation. You wrote: "Sanna Codex proves nothing when we have Quran with us, there are many things found in the old ruins whose trustworthiness cannot be guaranteed unless it is traced to an individual which is credible one. I think you must see that Quran which is among us is traced backed to the credibility test of various individuals who were credible and Sanaa Codex lacks affirmation of our predecessors. If there be a copy of Quran that is brought by a person excel to all the past people including individuals, one can say that other copies of Quran exist as well. But you see sanaa codex has no traces that who right it and when he or she wrote and what was his or her belief." My response: Actually, I do agree with you but partially. We agree that Sana'a Codex is not a reliable guide to Quranic teachings. Only the Uthmanic text is the one we trust. Sana'a Codex was written by individuals who possessed lack of Arabic knowledge because they made several mistakes. However, the type of variants present in Sana'a Codex were already mentioned by Bukhari in his hadith collection. So while Sana'a codex is NOT reliable, it does agree with the variant teachings about which Bukhari mentioned already before the discovery of Sana'a Codex in 1970s. Since these variants do agree with the Sahih hadith mentioned in Bukhari, we can conclude that the hadith of Bukhari about seven ahrufs are Sahih. So shias are clearly wrong when they reject the Sahih hadiths of seven ahrufs. You wrote: "If sunnis believe that we have a common ground what is discussion for." My response: Sunni and Shi'ah have a lot in common, but still there are some differences. The Shi'ah viewpoint of seven ahrufs is somewhat different from Sunni's. But evidence suggests that the Sunni viewpoint is correct in this matter. I already explained in my response above. I hope you would understand it.
  • Create New...