zahralzu

So you’re saying that on top of the reassurance that Abu bakr received from the prophet he goes on to also receive tranquility and angels? Why would Abu bakr need to be reassured by the prophet first and then receive aid from Allah? Why is it important Abu bakr receives aid and that the fact that he was aided is so important to stress in the Quran? There’s no critical reason to ensue Abu bakr receives aid and survives, had he of died it wouldn’t have changed a thing, so long as the prophet was aided Islam was aided. 9:39 says companions don’t harm Allah and he can easily replace them with others. Abu bakr has zero importance; he’s not divinely appointed by god, is he?

Regardless of who of the two receives sakinah, in either case the sakinah is still given AFTER the prophet states that god is with us, so why should it make sense for allah to give sakinah to abu bakr after saying allah is with abu bakr (god is with us) but wouldn't make sense to send sakinah to the prophet?

What do you think about Abu Bakr's presence in the cave? Is his sole presence an aide to or a burden on the prophet? I'd think it'll be a burden considering Allah is condemning the companions who don't aide him in medina, claiming that if they don't aid him then allah will aide him alone without the aide of the companions, and then we're reminded by Allah of the incident of the cave that occurred 5+ years ago and we're left to believe that no one (not even abu bakr) aided the prophet in the cave, otherwise, what's the relevance of mentioning the cave now? And that the prophet was aided with sakinah and angels...and that you can't claim that it was abu bakr that was aided with sakinah and angels, and thus abu bakr's presence in of itself was aid to the prophet ie. how can allah aid the prophet through a companion when allah previously declares that companions are of no aid to him? however, the opposite may be true, and that Abu bakr's presence was indeed aid to the prophet; because in the verse prior, Allah is speaking about the failure of the hypocrites to go out with the Prophet: 9:38: [Believers! What is amiss with you that when it is said to you: "March forth in the cause of Allah," you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the worldly life to the Hereafter? Know well that all the enjoyment of this world, in comparison with the Hereafter, is trivial.] However, Abu Bakr did go out with him, he was with him in the cave as verse 9:40 testifies. On top of that, in sunni hadiths, it was the prophet who ordered and thus chose for Abu Bakr to accompany him and Abu Bakr simply obeyed: قالت فقال أبو بكر: الصحبة يا رسول الله؟ قال: «الصحبة» قالت فو الله ما شعرت قط قبل ذلك اليوم أن أحدا يبكي من الفرح حتى رأيت أبا بكر يومئذ يبكي thus he's not condemned in this verse?

shias always complain that imam ali (عليه السلام) narrates such little number of hadith compared to aisha and abu hurayrah; but imam ali (عليه السلام) narrates more hadith in muwatta malik than he does in all shi'i books combined! So should we stop accusing sunnis of barely giving him any importance since it seems they give him more than we do?

absolutely! i don't believe how desperate the arguments are becoming, they're willing to insult their own intellect just to ensure abubakr remains on top; deaf, mute, blind...

sakinah is imaan in shi'i books

How do you prove that tranquility is given to the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and not abu bakr? because sunnis argue that sakinah means iman and the prophet already had iman, and that allah can give invinsible soldiers to help the muslims just like he did in 3:124 "remember [oh prophet] when you said to the believers "is it not enough that your Lord will send down a reinforcement of 3k angels for your aid""?

I suppose all of this is ultimately going back to their biggest argument of all; their attempt to declare umar's innocence for refusing the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) to write his will that will prevent us from going astray given Umar was only looking out for the prophet's health and didn't want him to exert energy out of love and respect for him, which is supposedly no different to when imam ali (عليه السلام) refused to erase 'prophet' from the hudaybia treaty, also out of love and respect for him. I know this isn't the same, but what do you say to those who genuinely think of these two scenarios as the same?

Forgot to mention; they’re trying to say the imam’s sunnah is different to that of the prophet; thoughts?

Sunnis refuse to hold khalid bin Walid accountable for killing Malik bin nuwayrah and having his wife on the same day; claiming he apostated and that means his wife doesn’t serve any iddah, as confirmed by our imam: is it true that female war captives don’t serve any iddah? Not even till her next menstrual cycle? What if she was pregnant?

When pointing out umar’s hypocrisy being exposed on Thursday in the Hadith of the pen and paper, Sunnis clutch straws to show that imam Ali (عليه السلام) also “disobeyed” the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) like with this: should this mean Shias also clutch straws when viewing such hadiths that view umar in a negative light in ways to suit our own narrative a fuel an agenda?

not that it's haram, but many sheikhs discourage it and argue that positions such as surgery and law are occupied by men majority of the time thus are male professions, as for positions such as teaching and nursing; some sheikhs argue that despite it being halal, it may lead to unnecessary mixing with males and to abandoning the home and children thus leading to problems in marriage, most marjas deem it unacceptable for a woman to become a faqih or president, so there's different opinions out there about weather women should work in sensitive positions let alone at all, and there's more freedom to disagree with such opinions then there is room to disagree with hadiths

um salama is also one of those exceptions, by no means is um salama deficient considering the prophet took her advise on how to act when his companions turned against him when he signed the hudaybiya treaty; she said to shave his head and see who follows and he did just that! So it takes living with someone and getting to know them to know weather such hadiths about 'not taking women's advise' applies to them or not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=674DjSBpL0g&list=WL&index=1&ab_channel=FADAKTV he says women are deficient in intellect but says nothing about IQ but rather about a woman's witness being worth half a man, it's frustrating when people project that he meant ability's to multiply in the head or comprehend rocket science. It’s about witnesses in the court system and the ability to give an objective testimony such that the fait of one’s life is less likely determined by EMOTION, that’s the key, emotion, I can pull up scientific studies that suggest women are more emotional than men. someone’s about to be sentenced to life in prison, to execution, for whatever injustice they may have committed, a woman is more likely to change her testimony once put in the situation, in fact many women who accuse men of rape end up retracting their accusations once she’s faced by her rapist in court, she just couldn’t go through with it, and he goes on to take advantage of this. The opposite can also be true, a woman is also likely to falsely accuse someone who’s wronged her for different reasons. So the wisdom behind 2 women equal to 1 man is not due to a woman having a lower IQ or forgetful or being stupid but rather in an intense court situation emotion is more likely to dictate her outcome; and he says this himself: deficient intellect due to her deficient witnesses for testimony. this deficiency isn't absolute, rather, it's comparative. Similar to how a car only needs 4 wheels while a bus needs 6; the bus having 2 extra wheels doesn't make the car deficient; it's complete for a car but deficient when compared to a bus. We need to stop our taqayia/being apologetic about how women are built differently to men and serve different roles; otherwise women will live miserable lives trying to compete with men and will be made to feel deficient not only comparatively but absolutely. I know the words of the imam are blunt; but there's danger in sugar coating this reality. so by deficient intellect he meant driven by emotion, emotion isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it just has it’s time and place, and it doesn’t belong in places like the battlefield or in court…and that if it were to be found in court it’s best to take precaution and take into consideration major factors that will dictate the outcomes of this court case; to have 2 women as opposed to 1, just in case, there’s nothing wrong with this precaution. exceptions exist: you can't deny that aisha wouldn't have been aisha if she weren't intellegent, though aisha is completely void of any emotion; manipulated 30k men and didn't care to cause 10k deaths just to put people in power she knows will serve her. Aisha encouraged the killing of uthman once he denied her inheritance, what makes you think she's not likely to testify against someone who's suspected to have killed uthman provided he was a shia of ali (عليه السلام)? Afterall, aisha was willing to accuse maria of committing adultery with her maid and birth a baby from him and attributed the baby to the prophet, she was fine with destroying maria's reputation, dishonoring the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and breaking his heart by allowing him to hear things like “the prophet is so desperate for children that he’s willing to believe another man’s child is his”, worse yet, when the prophet threatened to send the imam to have this maid killed just to give aisha the chance show decency and to retract her accusations, unfortunately her jealously drove her to risk an innocent human life. On the other hand, we have another example, the daughter of the prophet Fatima (عليه السلام), the prophet said Fatima is a part of me, whoever angers her angers me, whoever angers me angers allah…Fatima is a part of me means not just blood and flesh but Fatima also represents and embodies the message he came with, this means that if Fatima were to take a stand for something, justice is on her side. When he says whoever angers her angers me and thus god he said this because Fatima isn’t angered by anything personal but rather by something theological that earns allah’s wrath, justice is Fatima, he didn’t say ‘my daughter is a woman therefore whoever angers he just know that she’s emotional no big deal’ no, absolutely no, if she’s angry then he’s angry you can’t have one without the other, and he didn’t say whoever angers Fatima angers me unless they happen to be a man or unless he happens to be a caliph or unless he happens to be abu bakr! we don’t accept that women are the majority of hellfire, I haven’t found this in our books so we reject where it’s found in bukhari and muslim, I blame umar bin al khattab and the likes of him, he’s always been extremely degrading towards women. Besides it wouldn’t make sense to claim women are the majority of hellfire just because they’re ‘ungrateful’ and ‘curse a lot’ because when describing ungratefulness the quran makes no discrimination, and as for cursing; cursing isn’t a sin, the quran curses, even if it was a sin, men have cross culturally and throughout history always out-performed women in cursing, and cursing is not even one of the worst sins in the world like for instance murder and adultery; in both cases cross culturally and throughout history females are outnumbered by men in terms of sexual deviation and in terms of murder, genocide, declaration and engagement in warfare, and finally, also there’s many other hadiths that say the majority of paradise is women since they’re more vulnerable on earth thus god provides them more of his mercy etc, so this part about women being the majority of hellfire in bukhari/muslim is extremely contradictory to the quran, to other hadith, and to logic; as for deficiency in religion due to menstruation; this deficiency once again is not absolute because women aren't blamed/punished for 'missing prayers', rather, it's comparative, because you have women literally praying less than 30 days a month compared to a man. I don't see women recieving child leave considered a deficiency in her work ethic. Women are deficient in luck, what how, well they receive less inheritance but with less power comes less responsibility to she’s not expected or obligated to provide for herself or for others rather it is expected upon others to provide for her so once again this deficiency is comparative and not absolute

unfortunately comments are always turned off on his lectures so I was hoping to get peoples opinions on it here

1. It’s not our fault that when discussing the life of Fatima (عليه السلام) we stumble on the fact that she opposed the caliphs; this is an indisputable historical FACT and can’t be ignored when discussing her life let alone her calamities 2. why did no one bother to issue a fatwa against the umar series in fear that it will cause disunity with the Shias? They gassed up an individuals that we have negative attitudes towards, declared Malik bin nuwayrah (a Nobel companion of the prophet and Shia of imam Ali) an apostate and thus justified his beheading and raping of his wife, and spent the rest of the show glorifying khalid bin Walid; what’s more offensive than that? And why has none of them condemned openly calling Abu Talib a kafir as it may lead to disunity and sectarianism? Why is yassir habib viewed as one with an agenda to make Muslims fight just because he’s unapologetic with his views and doesn’t hide historical FACTS? 3. The infallibles aren’t played by actors; they’re all CGI and special effects, they look incredibly realistic but that’s how far technology has come

interesting, I've never known for the prophet/allah to refer to the prophet as 'we', and 'we' is usually only used to refer to Allah and there's no confusion with whenever allah uses 'we' to refer to Himself; but why would the prophet speak directly to abu bakr and then refer to himself as 'we', not only is this misleading abu bakr but also confusing the rest of us reading the quran...

asalamulaykum, 9:40 is a famous verse that we'll never stop fighting about... I know it saying "sahib" is not good enough to suggest this is praising abu bakr since anyone can be a "sahib"... and I know shias argue abu bakr expressing "huzn" (sadness) is an inappropriate emotion for that type of situation and the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wouldn't prohibit a good act and so shias have the upper argument in this as well... and I also get that the "saqina" (tranquility) and "junud" (invisible angels/soldiers) were given to the prophet only and not abu bakr, wheras tranquility can be given to muslims so it doesn't look so good for abu bakr up until this point... but "god is with us" is something I can't get over, it's very clear from this verse that god is with abu bakr, especially when comparing this to when moosa (عليه السلام) said to his companions "god is with me" and in other parts of the quran "god is with the muslims/believers/patient/etc"-so god was not with the isrealis since although they followed moses up until that point and fled pharoah with him, they were gonna turn to worshipping the cow etc in the future and so god couldn't have been with them then and then left them half way through but rather god was never with them to begin with; so we can't even argue that god was only with abu bakr for a certain period, but rather, once god says he's with you this is a 'forever' promise from god... thoughts?

One says he’s black another says his name is ateeq (which means set free) while his brothers are also matooq and ataqi, another says his father worked as a fly capturer for ibn jund’an, another says taym were nothing but slaves, so in putting these all together he concludes that ibn jund’an set Abu bakr and his brothers free from slavery at birth

are these not good enough?

there's been much controversy surrounding the casting of the actors on yassir habib's movie to be released at the end of this month 'the lady of heaven'; yassir claims abu bakr was black and his ancestors were born into slavery and any one who opposes yassir be it sunni or shia strongly object to this for no reason other than 'he's a khabeeth' without proving how. is there proof that abu bakr was a former slave? also, why do so many people claim yassir is a liar but don't even bother refuting his claims?

Oh, well that’s unfortunate that I‘ve basically been attacking sunni narrations and claiming they’re slandering the prophet when we have similar narrations… It reminds me of another narration that shias are quick to dismiss as a sunni fabrication; the narration about the prophet supposedly receiving kebabs from the sky that gave him the strength of 30 men to have intercourse with all 10 wives in the same day and without ghusul in between. Imam jafar al sadiq (عليه السلام) declares anas bin malik as one of the 3 who narrated the most fabrications against the prophet, alongside abu hurayrah and ‘the woman’ (aisha), and it was safe to assume this was another fabrication on anas’s part, until it was found that we also have similar narrations: So the questions are: -can MALM be onto something that shia scholars could’ve been in taqayia? Why is this so hard to believe? It’s an interesting thought…(to be fair to him, he’s not the type to believe in the Abdullah bin saba stuff, I think he barely believes in this tabari theory that he bought forth himself, he was tiptoeing around the subject and offered many disclaimers in hopes of it not turning into anything bigger than just a thought) -should stories hold more weight if they are found in both sunni and shia sources? -how did anas bin malik know of this story about strength of 30 men? Is it not inappropriate given his young age? and why was it so important for him to narrate and for us to know about? -shias have always supported the conspiracy that companions deliberately slander the prophet (a’uthibillah, call him suicidal, lustful, bewitched, delirious, etc) while we apparently give him more piety...is this really the case? About the stuff in Arabic…sunnis basically have a hard time accepting that this religion could be transmitted to us through hypocrites, but there’s a hadith that says that allah uses the hypocrites to aid his religion, the prophet says this about someone names quzman who only fought in uhud to impress women and not be referred to as the one who was too cowardly to fight, he killed around 7 people on the battlefield, the prophet told the companions to inform him of his going to hell due to his bad intentions and due to him not doing jihad for the sake of allah, the companions were shocked to hear this and thought it couldn’t be true and decided to tell quzman that he’s instead going to heaven (a’uthibillah), quzman laughed at them and said ‘what heaven? I did this for my reputation’ and killed himself from the pain of the wound he suffered in the battle. This was a miracle of the prophet’s prophecy, the companions admit to the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) that he was right after all, and the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said in response: إن الله ليؤيد هذا الدين بالرجل الفاجر And لينصرن الله هذا الدين على يد الرجل الفاجر Which translates to: ‘May God make this religion victorious at the hands of the immoral man’ and ‘ God supports this religion with the immoral man’ so it's very reasonable to think the prophet was surrounded by hypocrites who ultimately help spread the religion; contrary to MALM's beliefs that it's 'not logical'

Edit: in MALM’s most recent livestream he wonders what tabari was thinking when he transmitted his slanderous narrations about the satanic verses and about zayd and Zainab; and concludes that tabari must have been a closeted Shia that posed as a Sunni to destroy Sunni Islam from within, otherwise he wouldn’t have transmitted so many “Shia narrations”-reality is imam Jafar al sadiq (عليه السلام) declares the story of zayd and Zainab as a lie against the prophet, and the satanic verses are no where to be found in our books. What is the extend that “free” sunnis are willing to go to reject shiasm? I guess I lost hope in him too [Edit]

Personally, I appreciated how genuine daniel seemed, and how he wasn't so toxic to the shias and didn't feel the need to turn against the sect after leaving it, I even saw some comments saying they don't trust he's 'actually' left given he wasn't willing to 'announce' and 'emphasise' his love for abu bakr, nor was he willing to declare shias as 'kafir', I even saw daniel slightly cringe when he was asked weather it was the 'pure monotheism aspect of sunni slam' that attracted him away from shiasm, and said he never considered himself to not be a monotheist. on the negatives I was a little taken back when farid and his friends celebrated on twitter the fact that ammar nakshawani had somewhat to do with his conversion, they've always been so threatened by him, and wasn't convinced by why he decided to leave; that kafi had too many fabrications, yet, considered bukhari to be any less corrupt... They then go on to discuss why the rate of apostasies of Iran are staggering and higher than any other muslim country in the world and tbh I kinda began to panic, why the number of shia apostates??

mufti abu layth can be categorized as one of the more "fair" sunnis, those who are willing to go so far as to even admit that perhaps the prophet DID leave a successor and that his rights have been usurped, but he doesn't take this to be of any importance or to have any relevance on our modern lives, therefor thinks shias are a dramatic and emotional sect for not letting a political argument go, this is where he becomes a typical sunni again, but what can you do... MALM stresses to 'leave it in the past' and to not promote sectarianism and to build bridges; this is also the 'batri shia' approach, but shias would have to strongly disagree on the basis that not studying the past would always make the present blurry. Look at the situation of Muslim countries right now. They are the result of uneducated people who have forgotten their past. Sectarianism is an inevitability. It even exists among Sunnis and why 4 schools of difference of opinion exist and that's a healthy thing. When you don't study the past, you will never learn why differences exist and going back to a "just Muslim" attitude is in itself a Sunni sect (since sunnis practise your religion based on Sunni Hadith/fiqh/way of praying) and if you abandoned Hadith altogether, you become a Quranist sect that stands against everything Islam was built on. That's only going to make things worse. I pray for MALM to use his rational and logic to find ahlulbayt; shia islam afterall is founded upon logic as opposed to heresy and he's at least admit to that. In the second video you posted, MALM goes on a rant about how he's so unable to comprehend how it could be that this whole religion was given to us by hypocrites, but by doing this he disregards the many hadiths that suggest this is the case; https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/231214 many sunnis are also like this; rejecting the shia narrative becuase it seems so unlikely that most companions could be hypocrites, MALM is of that type, and this video can explain more: