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 Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Al-Qibli

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Ahl al-Qibla

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

851 profile views
  1. This Muhammad al-Asi is my favourite imam. He is critical towards all sects and wants unity.
  2. Why did he stopped doing Adhan once Abu Bakr became caliph?
  3. Salam, | Muhammad al-Asi, a brave preacher. But in other lectures of khotba's he cited narrations about Ahmad Ibn hanbal that Imam Ali a.s. can not regarded to be the best Sahaba because he a.s. is the nafs of Muhammad s.a.w.a.s. i.e. he a.s. is of much higher value than the Sahaba.
  4. That's just utter crap! You cannot forbid people to do haram things if they do not even believe in Allah! Islam starts with the believe in Allah. Not scientifical proofs for the forbiddance of alcohol!!!!!
  5. Salam. I only read the TS. I think it's dangerous to reject the Akhbari's. We should see them as co-muslims who accentuate other elements of our religion. Maybe they still have some things that vanished in other sects of Islam. We can however learn from eachother.
  6. My issue is not about the masculin pronoun. My issue is about your denial of a tradition which is supported by all sects that the People of the Cloak were meant with the verse. Even by your own. If this tradition did not reach you then your claim is possible but with multiple and unambigious confirmation from all sects/angles you stay hardheaded and stubborn. This is what you claimed a while ago. - The ahadith explains who else was added to the definition of "Ahlul Bayt". Posted Wednesday at 01:38 PM (edited) This issue is outdated and not relevant anymore. That 'Ahl' is plural and therefore masculin is something you was right about and I accepted that from the start. But what you are doing is hammering on this while with the introduction of the subject of the verse two possibilities occured: 1) It can refer to males and females as well 2) It can replace the ones reffered to in the former subject and be overwritten with other people And this is showed and proved by a tradition which like the Quran itself is confirmed as authentic AND accepted to be so by ALL sects of Islam. Therefore this hadith is so strong that it even can be considered to be a proof by the Quran itself: O you who have believed, obey Allah (the Quran) and obey the Messenger (the Prophetic Traditions) and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result. The Messenger (Prophetic Traditions) means that over where there is unanimity about by all muslims just as is the case with the Quran. The hadith which is under discussion is as I just stated confirmed and accepted as authentic by ALL sects. Let us therefore stick to it as this back-and forth-bickering will not bring us any further. I already told you that the number of times it was mentioned is irrelevant once the subject is replaced with or overwritten by another subject. Again you cling unto an argument which is already refuted long time ago. I understand that this was about all the males and their descendants who descended from Abdul-Mutallib. I also believe this was a Sharia matter concerning them and zakar or sadaqa. You may tell me which of the last two as for now I am not interrested to dig deep into that detail. The tradition actually shows us that after brotherhood in Islam, blood is the strongest bond. After that comes the marital covenant. When we put these three categories next to eachother, all this leads to the conclusion that the People of the Cloak are actually the core definiton and if not the NUCLEUS of the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. as they had the strongest bloodbond wuth and they were mentioned as a distinguished unit by the Prophet s.a.w.a.s. as well. The reality is that after Imam Ali a.s. came to reign as was the will of the majority of the Muhajirin and Ansar so actually for the same reasons as the election of Abu Bakr, finally the Ummah divided itself in three sects: 1) The Rawafidh (i.e. the followers or Shia of Imam Ali a.s. or those who rejected Yazid l.a.) 2) The Khawarij 3) The Ahlus Sunnah (i.e. the followers of Muawiyyah and finally the followers of Yazid i.a. and their descendants.) Now, A few replies ago you performed the salawat while the Ummawi kingdom from the time of Muawiyya l.a. untill the reign of Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz r.a. cursed the Household a.s. from their pulpits. Be my guest and tell me which group was on Haqq. Strict literally seen, sunni or better said followers of the sunnah of Rasulullah s.a.w.a.s. is in itself not an all-covering term as the Quran seems to be excluded. But above all that the meaning of it was actually to amputate the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. from Rasulullah s.a.w.a.s. while giving people the impression that they were the followers of Rasulullah s.a.w.a.s. which was actually not the case.
  7. Weren't there even shia's ahaadith transmitters named Muawiyyah or Yazid. No kidding folks!
  8. I think he is starting to become for the US what Abu Yusuf was for the Abbasids
  9. But why are these means in Twelver Shi'ism always persons making us dependent on them and not a way of life or certain conditions or deeds? Isn't Islam a religion where there is total responsibility over self and everything between God and man is removed?
  10. It's still a man-made methodology and above all used as a tool for propaganda and justifications in favor of tyrants and their doctrines to solidify their power and to alienate the true Islam from the fake.
  11. Where did you explain that 'yanisaa' and 'ahla' are one and the same according to grammar rules? It's an attempt of desperation but I'm curious to see it. Show it to me please. I do not at all have an issue with it. It only becomes an issue when someone doesn't know anymore if 'yanisaa' means 'ahla' or 'yanisaa' and then claims that 'ahla' was added to 'yanisaa' which according to that person actually is 'ahla'. But that's actually not my problem as I'm in peace with the verse how it is revealed and leave the meanings of the wordings as they are. Your ahaadith don't surprise me anymore. Anything is possible and it doesn't have to be logical. Obvious contradictions are not a problem and are accepted straight away with an immunity for logic. Well, you yourself confirmed that the Household i.e. People of the Cloak were added to the Household which according to your claim consists first and foremost of the Wives. As a sunni you're taking rare positions on this matter as the majority believes that the core of the Household are the People of the Cloak. Maybe you're freestyling to get your point across. I understand that. No problem. So at the end of the day we have three diffirent kinds of Households. - The People of the Cloak (the nucleus, the undisputed core) - The Wives - The progeny of Abdul Muttalib Sometimes a combination of two of the three, excuding the Wives. Another time only the Wives, etcetera. What do I have to prove? There is nothing to prove as everybody can read that the subject in the last part of Quran 33:33 was changed from 'yanisaa' to 'ahla' and as you already admitted was about the People of the Cloak, wether added or distinguished from 'yanisaa' i.e. the Wives. And again, then why did you agree with the ahaadith that are proving us that 'ahla' was about the People of the Cloak? Quran says no, hadith says yes, hadith not right, hadith right but only partly. How many times are you going to run this circle? Instead of solidifying your stance you only provided us with narrations that makes it look more problematic as it already was. It seems that you're jumping from tree to tree not really knowing what the definition of Ahl al-Bayt is. Changing cores, sub-divisions which also are changeable and fluid additions that change from hadith to hadith which makes your claims only look more hilarious than we've already saw. Indeed not. Their a.s. opponents did and so are their followers and fans doing. I am a true follower of Imam Ali a.s. as I do not identify myself with his enemies while there are actually a lot who do. I prefer to call myself muslim just as Allah called us muslims in Quran. But if Shia is a way to distinct myself from the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. then please call me Shia.
  12. Well, I maybe don't know too much about the subject. Gimme some material to delve into.
  13. @onereligion I bet that you blame your ahaadith collectors that they put the mentioned ahaadith in your collections.
  14. I'm sorry bro' but to do supplications to someone else than Allah is the Danger Zone to me.
  • Create New...