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

toyibonline

Unregistered
  • Content Count

    1,383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About toyibonline

  • Rank
    Every day is Ashura. Every forum is Karbala!
  • Birthday 06/10/1983

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.wilayat.net; answering-ansar.org
  • Yahoo
    toyibonline@yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    Nigeria

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,599 profile views
  1. I am surprised that you too have not tried to defend Uthman or the other Sahabah or answered any of the questions I posed?! Anyway, I am withdrawing from this thread forever. This is going to be my last post on ShiaChat inshallah. I have some fundamental problems, in terms of moderation and attitude from some officials of ShiaChat, and all my hopes that things would improve have failed. Thus, I am left with no other option but to withdraw. I have asked brother macisaac to delete my account. Wa Salam.
  2. (salam) You did not even try to defend Uthman?! Well, the only relevant post in that link is this, with regards to the Aisha hadith: It is weak because: Abu Mu'awiya is: Muhammad bin Khazim who was born in 213 H. yet he narrates from Hisham bin U'rwah who died in 146 H. So, there is a broken chain of narrators. In addition, Abu Mu'awyya although he is thiqa but his hadeeth has a big Idteraab when he narrates from anyone else but Al-A'mash http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=25111&postcount=35 However, the lie in it is exposed later: This should be re-checked, insha'Allah, because according to al Dhahabi's al Kashif (no.4816) and other sources Abu Mu'awiya in fact died 195H (and was born 113H). Also, Abu Mu'awiya's hadith from Hisham b. 'Urwa are cited in Sahih al Bukhari (as supporting narrations only). http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=25114&postcount=37 Therefore, there is actually NO break in the chain. Even Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih has used the same chain. So, obviously, all your objections are baseless. As for the other Sahabah, I know well about their beliefs in Tahrif. For example, Ibn Mas'ud believed that Surat al-Falaq and Surat al-Nas are NOT part of the Qur'an, but mere du'as that have been wrongly added to the Qur'an. Even Ibn Taymiyyah confirmed that many of the Sahabah DID INDEED believe in Tahrif. So, there is no way you escape. All I need now are answers to my questions.
  3. Proof, ya Sunnikid? Besides, if what you are saying is true, then his book still cannot be called a Shi'a book! I am an ex-Salafi. Does it make sense to say that whatever book I write NOW is Salafi?!
  4. (salam) Ya Ali Madad, We read the following bold testimony of Ayesha in Tafseer Thalabi, Volume 6 page 250: ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÃÈæÈßÑ Èä ÚÈÏæÓ æÃÈæ ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÍÇãÏ ÞÇáÇ : ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæÇáÚÈÇÓ ÇáÃÕã ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ : ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÌåã ÇáÓãÑí ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÇáÝÑÇÁ ÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÃÈæãÚÇæíÉ Úä åÔÇã Èä ÚÑæÉ Úä ÃÈíå Úä ÚÇÆÔÉ ÃäåÇ ÓÆáÊ Úä Þæáå ÓÈÍÇäå Ýí ÇáäÓÇÁ { áßä ÇáÑÇÓÎæä } { æÇáãÞíãíä } æÚä Þæáå Ýí ÇáãÇÆÏÉ { Åä ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ æÇáÐíä åÇÏæÇ æÇáÕÇÈÆæä } æÚä Þæáå { Åä åÐÇ áÓÇÍÑÇä } ÝÞÇáÊ : íÇ Èä ÃÎí åÐÇ ÎØà ãä ÇáßÇÊÈ Abu Bakr bin Abdoos and Abu Abdullah bin Hamid narrated from Abu al-Abbas al-Asim from Muhammad bin al-Jahm al-Samri from al-Fara from Abu Mu'awiyah from Hisham bin Arwa from his father that Ayesha was asked about Allah’s statements in Surah Nisa (verse 162) ‘LAKINI ALRRASIKHOONA’ and ‘WAALMUQEEMEENA’ and the Almighty’s statement in Sura Maidah (verse 69) ‘INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’ and His statement (Taha, 63) ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’. Ayesha replied: ‘O my nephew, this is due to mistakes committed by the scribe’. The chain, of course, is sahih. Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdoos: Dhahabi said: ‘Imam’ (Siar alam alnubala, v17 p58). Abu Abdullah bin Hamed al-Waraq: Dhahabi said: ‘Sheikh and Mufti of Hanbalis’ (Siar alam alnubala, v17 p203). Abu al-Abbas al-Asim: Dhahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v3 p860). Muhammad bin Jahm al-Samri: Dhahabi said: ‘Darqutni said that he was Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v13 p164). Al-Fara bin Yahya: Dhahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v10, p119). Abu Mu'wiyah Muhammad bin Khazem: Dhahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p294). Hisham bin Urwa: Dhahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 144). Urwa bin al-Zubair: Dhahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p62). The narration can also be found in: 1. Al Musahif, page 43 2. Tafseer Tabari, Volume 2 page 18 , Surah Nisa verse 162 3. Tafseer Gharaib al Quran, Volume 2 page 17, Surah Nisa 4. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 246, Surah Nisa 5. Tafseer Itqan, Volume 1 page 210 6. Tafseer Dur e Manthur, Volume 2 page 246 , Surah Al Maidah 7. Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 6 page 149 8. Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 11 page 216 9. Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani, Volume 1 page 31 10. Tafseer Ma’alim al Tanzeel, Volume 4 page 221 11. Al Muhazraat, Volume 3 page 435, Al Had Imam al-Suyuti in his al-Itqan 1/210 states: ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÚÈíÏ Ýí ÝÖÇÆá ÇáÞÑÂä ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ãÚÇæíÉ Úä åÔÇã Èä ÚÑæÉ Úä ÃÈíå ÞÇá ÓÃáÊ ÚÇÆÔÉ Úä áÍä ÇáÞÑÂä Úä Þæáå ÊÚÇáì Åä åÐÇä áÓÇÍÑÇä æÚä Þæáå ÊÚÇáì æÇáãÞíãíä ÇáÕáÇÉ æÇáãÄÊæä ÇáÒßÇÉ æÚä Þæáå ÊÚÇáì Åä ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ æÇáÐíä åÇÏæÇ æÇáÕÇÈÆæä ÝÞÇáÊ íÇ Èä ÃÎí åÐÇ Úãá ÇáßÊÇÈ ÃÎØÆæÇ Ýí ÇáßÊÇÈ åÐÇ ÅÓäÇÏ ÕÍíÍ Úáì ÔÑØ ÇáÔíÎíä Abu Ubaid stated in Fadhail Quran that Abu Muawiyah narrated from Hisham bin Urwah from his father that Ayesha was asked about the following mistakes in the Quran ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’ and His [swt] statement ‘WAALMUQEEMEENA ALSSALATA WAALMU/TOONA ALZZAKATA’ and His [swt] statement ‘INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’. She replied: “O son of my nephew, this is due to the act of the scribes of the Quran who committed a mistake whilst transcribing them. The chain of this tradition is Sahih according to the conditions of the Shaikhain. Moreover he wrote in Volume 1 page 212: æÈÚÏ ÝåÐå ÇáÃÌæÈÉ áÇ íÕáÍ ãäåÇ ÔíÁ Úä ÍÏíË ÚÇÆÔÉ ÃãÇ ÇáÌæÇÈ ÈÇáÊÖÚíÝ ÝáÃä ÅÓäÇÏå ÕÍíÍ ßãÇ ÊÑì “There is no strength with the replies that are advanced against the above cited reply of Ayesha, namely that it contains a weak chain. The chain is Sahih.” When I asked a Sunni brother here, who is to a good extent versed in Arabic, why Aisha declared that those verses contain errors, by Allah (swt), he too stated that they indeed do?! According to him, those verses clearly break the rules of Arabic grammar. I was perplexed why he said that. But, I just thought he was simply desperate to defend Aisha. However, while browsing I came across these scans of al-Ghimari's book, where he attacked both Aisha ans Uthman for their tahrif beliefs. He even accuses Aisha of advocating other heretical beliefs. Yes, Uthman? Well, this is what Allamah al-Baghwi writes in Tafseer Ma'alam al Tanzeel, Volume 3 page 361, Surah Nisa verse 161: "There is disagreement over 'ALMUQEEMEENA ALSSALAT'. Ayesha [ra] and Aban bin Uthman said that was written in the Quran due to a mistake on the part of the transcriber. Its correction is essential and it should be written as 'ALMUQEEMOONA ALSSALAT'. Similarly in Surah Maidah 'AALSSABI-OONA' and in Surah Taha 'IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI' have also been written due to the mistake of scribes. Uthman stated that he had seen some mistakes in the Quran and Arabs would corret the through their language and they had asked him to change them but he said that these mistakes did not change Haram to Halal and vice versa" Allamah al-Baghwi is renown for not including weak narrations in his Tafsir. Ibn Taymiyyah even praised him for this. So, yes, both Aisha and Uthman believed that the Qur'an contain mistakes. Further research is here http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/tahreef/en/chap9.php. My questions are basically directed at Lord Botta and ahlussunah: 1. What is the status of anyone who believes in Tahrif? Is he or she a kafir, or heretic or what? 2. Since Aisha and Uthman did believe in Tahrif, what do we call them? 3. Are they right in their opinions? Are there any explanations to negate their arguments? Were they so ignorant of Arabic grammar? 4. You people claim that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) ordered us to cling fanatically to the sunnah of the khulafa al-rashideen, Uthman among them. Is it right to follow Uthman in this belief? Thanks in advance for your responses.
  5. (salam) Ya Ali Madad, We read the following bold testimony of Ayesha in Tafseer Thalabi, Volume 6 page 250: ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÃÈæÈßÑ Èä ÚÈÏæÓ æÃÈæ ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÍÇãÏ ÞÇáÇ : ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæÇáÚÈÇÓ ÇáÃÕã ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ : ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÌåã ÇáÓãÑí ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÇáÝÑÇÁ ÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÃÈæãÚÇæíÉ Úä åÔÇã Èä ÚÑæÉ Úä ÃÈíå Úä ÚÇÆÔÉ ÃäåÇ ÓÆáÊ Úä Þæáå ÓÈÍÇäå Ýí ÇáäÓÇÁ { áßä ÇáÑÇÓÎæä } { æÇáãÞíãíä } æÚä Þæáå Ýí ÇáãÇÆÏÉ { Åä ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ æÇáÐíä åÇÏæÇ æÇáÕÇÈÆæä } æÚä Þæáå { Åä åÐÇ áÓÇÍÑÇä } ÝÞÇáÊ : íÇ Èä ÃÎí åÐÇ ÎØà ãä ÇáßÇÊÈ Abu Bakr bin Abdoos and Abu Abdullah bin Hamid narrated from Abu al-Abbas al-Asim from Muhammad bin al-Jahm al-Samri from al-Fara from Abu Mu'awiyah from Hisham bin Arwa from his father that Ayesha was asked about Allah’s statements in Surah Nisa (verse 162) ‘LAKINI ALRRASIKHOONA’ and ‘WAALMUQEEMEENA’ and the Almighty’s statement in Sura Maidah (verse 69) ‘INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’ and His statement (Taha, 63) ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’. Ayesha replied: ‘O my nephew, this is due to mistakes committed by the scribe’. The chain, of course, is sahih. Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdoos: Dhahabi said: ‘Imam’ (Siar alam alnubala, v17 p58). Abu Abdullah bin Hamed al-Waraq: Dhahabi said: ‘Sheikh and Mufti of Hanbalis’ (Siar alam alnubala, v17 p203). Abu al-Abbas al-Asim: Dhahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v3 p860). Muhammad bin Jahm al-Samri: Dhahabi said: ‘Darqutni said that he was Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v13 p164). Al-Fara bin Yahya: Dhahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v10, p119). Abu Mu'wiyah Muhammad bin Khazem: Dhahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p294). Hisham bin Urwa: Dhahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 144). Urwa bin al-Zubair: Dhahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p62). The narration can also be found in: 1. Al Musahif, page 43 2. Tafseer Tabari, Volume 2 page 18 , Surah Nisa verse 162 3. Tafseer Gharaib al Quran, Volume 2 page 17, Surah Nisa 4. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 246, Surah Nisa 5. Tafseer Itqan, Volume 1 page 210 6. Tafseer Dur e Manthur, Volume 2 page 246 , Surah Al Maidah 7. Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 6 page 149 8. Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 11 page 216 9. Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani, Volume 1 page 31 10. Tafseer Ma’alim al Tanzeel, Volume 4 page 221 11. Al Muhazraat, Volume 3 page 435, Al Had Imam al-Suyuti in his al-Itqan 1/210 states: ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÚÈíÏ Ýí ÝÖÇÆá ÇáÞÑÂä ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ãÚÇæíÉ Úä åÔÇã Èä ÚÑæÉ Úä ÃÈíå ÞÇá ÓÃáÊ ÚÇÆÔÉ Úä áÍä ÇáÞÑÂä Úä Þæáå ÊÚÇáì Åä åÐÇä áÓÇÍÑÇä æÚä Þæáå ÊÚÇáì æÇáãÞíãíä ÇáÕáÇÉ æÇáãÄÊæä ÇáÒßÇÉ æÚä Þæáå ÊÚÇáì Åä ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ æÇáÐíä åÇÏæÇ æÇáÕÇÈÆæä ÝÞÇáÊ íÇ Èä ÃÎí åÐÇ Úãá ÇáßÊÇÈ ÃÎØÆæÇ Ýí ÇáßÊÇÈ åÐÇ ÅÓäÇÏ ÕÍíÍ Úáì ÔÑØ ÇáÔíÎíä Abu Ubaid stated in Fadhail Quran that Abu Muawiyah narrated from Hisham bin Urwah from his father that Ayesha was asked about the following mistakes in the Quran ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’ and His [swt] statement ‘WAALMUQEEMEENA ALSSALATA WAALMU/TOONA ALZZAKATA’ and His [swt] statement ‘INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’. She replied: “O son of my nephew, this is due to the act of the scribes of the Quran who committed a mistake whilst transcribing them. The chain of this tradition is Sahih according to the conditions of the Shaikhain. Moreover he wrote in Volume 1 page 212: æÈÚÏ ÝåÐå ÇáÃÌæÈÉ áÇ íÕáÍ ãäåÇ ÔíÁ Úä ÍÏíË ÚÇÆÔÉ ÃãÇ ÇáÌæÇÈ ÈÇáÊÖÚíÝ ÝáÃä ÅÓäÇÏå ÕÍíÍ ßãÇ ÊÑì “There is no strength with the replies that are advanced against the above cited reply of Ayesha, namely that it contains a weak chain. The chain is Sahih.” When I asked a Sunni brother here, who is to a good extent versed in Arabic, why Aisha declared that those verses contain errors, by Allah (swt), he too stated that they indeed do?! According to him, those verses clearly break the rules of Arabic grammar. I was perplexed why he said that. But, I just thought he was simply desperate to defend Aisha. However, while browsing I came across these scans of al-Ghimari's book, where he attacked both Aisha ans Uthman for their tahrif beliefs. He even accuses Aisha of advocating other heretical beliefs. Yes, Uthman? Well, this is what Allamah al-Baghwi writes in Tafseer Ma'alam al Tanzeel, Volume 3 page 361, Surah Nisa verse 161: "There is disagreement over 'ALMUQEEMEENA ALSSALAT'. Ayesha [ra] and Aban bin Uthman said that was written in the Quran due to a mistake on the part of the transcriber. Its correction is essential and it should be written as 'ALMUQEEMOONA ALSSALAT'. Similarly in Surah Maidah 'AALSSABI-OONA' and in Surah Taha 'IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI' have also been written due to the mistake of scribes. Uthman stated that he had seen some mistakes in the Quran and Arabs would corret the through their language and they had asked him to change them but he said that these mistakes did not change Haram to Halal and vice versa" Allamah al-Baghwi is renown for not including weak narrations in his Tafsir. Ibn Taymiyyah even praised him for this. So, yes, both Aisha and Uthman believed that the Qur'an contain mistakes. Further research is here http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/tahreef/en/chap9.php. My questions are basically directed at Lord Botta and ahlussunah: 1. What is the status of anyone who believes in Tahrif? Is he or she a kafir, or heretic or what? 2. Since Aisha and Uthman did believe in Tahrif, what do we call them? 3. Are they right in their opinions? Are there any explanations to negate their arguments? Were they so ignorant of Arabic grammar? 4. You people claim that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) ordered us to cling fanatically to the sunnah of the khulafa al-rashideen, Uthman among them. Is it right to follow Uthman in this belief? Thanks in advance for your responses.
  6. This is pure nonsense. Who is going to show their deeds to Allah (swt)??? Allah has described Himself as al-Khabir, Who will inform all of their deeds. How come He will no longer be this, but will rather be informed by others?! And this is how some Sunnis interpret that verse: There are other verses that affirm that the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, hears and sees the deeds of human beings. Allah Most High said: [And know that the Mes­senger of Allah is among you] (49:7). In the verses [Allah and His Messenger will see your conduct] (9:94) and [Act! Allah will behold your actions, and (so will) His Messenger and the believers] (9:105), the Pro­phet’s, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, percep­tion is put on a par with that of the Lord of the worlds Who sees and encom­passes all on the one hand and, on the other, that of all the living believers. http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/hazarnazar.htm The Sunni scholar however does not know who the "believers" in the verse are, those who see our deeds like Allah (swt). So, he has kep quiet about them.
  7. It seems you need to read this and this.
  8. Yeah, same comprehensension problem. *Sighs*. In the Sunni science of hadith, a paart of a hadith may be declared sahih while a second part may be rejected as weak because it contradicts a more reliable version. I guess you never knew this. Please learn that and then come back.
  9. Jazakallahu khaeran. Oops! Is that the reason Botta was not ready to comment upon it, probably falsely accusing its narrators of tadlees?
  10. You are talking nonsense here. Brother Musawi, may Allah (swt) protect him, PROVED that Sunnis have NO chain for the Qur'an. The narrators you rely upon are Shi'as, and they are also WEAK according to your books!! This means that your entire religion is based on a book narrated by Shi'as, declared weak by your books. Is that not shameful enough for you? Bro Musawi proved that Hafs was a Shi'a who transmitted the Qiraat of Imam Ali (as), obviuosly that of the Ahl al-Bayt (as). So, what else do you want? And that current Qur'an is the narration of Hafs.
  11. You don't seem to get my point. Imam Ahmad, in hadiths, is superior to all those people you have mentioned. For instance, if Imam Ahmad declares a hadith to be sahih and al-Albani declares it weak, we necessarily look at who is the superior hadithist. Well, my point remains, Imam Ahmad considers those hadiths to be authentic. Your opinion on them is rejected. He is far, far superior to you, or those people you mentioned. As for al-Bukhari, many Sunnis have declared al-Albani a heretic for weakening some of the hadiths of Sahih al-Bukhari. I am sure you are aware of this fact.
  12. You people don't consider Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaima and al-Hakim to be on the level of Imam Ahmad in hadiths. I remember someone once telling me that Imam Ahmad is superior to Imam al-Bukhari in hadiths. Yet, Sahih al-Bukhari is blindly accepted. So, why not Musnad Ahmad? Anyway, I accept the judgment of Imam Ahmad and reject yours.
  13. I am sorry for that. Check the following links for that same article: http://www.haqqanisoul.com/forum/topics/asking-ya-shaykh-madad http://the-haqq.blogspot.com/2006/03/asking-ya-shaykh-madad.html and this one for a related article, also on the same subject http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/istighaatha.htm
  14. (salam) Both hadiths you reject are from Musnad Ahmad, and it seems Imam Ahmad considered everything in his Musnad to be hujjah! We read: ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÃÈæ ÅÓÍÇÞ ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ÚãÑ Èä ÃÍãÏ ÇáÈÑãßì ÞÑÇÁÉ Úáíå ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå ÚÈíÏ Çááå Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÍãÏÇä Èä ÚãÑ Èä ÈØÉ ÞÑÇÁÉ Úáíå ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÍÝÕ ÚãÑ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÑÌÇ ÍÏËäÇ ãæÓì Èä ÍãÏæä ÇáÈÒÇÑ ÞÇá ÞÇá áäÇ ÍäÈá Èä ÅÓÍÇÞ ÌãÚäÇ Úãì íÚäì ÇáÅãÇã ÃÍãÏ áì æáÕÇáÍ æáÚÈÏ Çááå æÞÑà ÚáíäÇ ÇáãÓäÏ æãÇ ÓãÚå ãäå íÚäì ÊÇãÇ ÛíÑäÇ æÞÇá áäÇ Åä åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈ ÞÏ ÌãÚÊå æÇäÊÞíÊå ãä ÃßËÑ ãä ÓÈÚãÇÆÉ æÎãÓíä ÃáÝÇ ÝãÇ ÇÎÊáÝ Ýíå ÇáãÓáãæä ãä ÍÏíË ÑÓæá Çááå ÝÇÑÌÚæÇ Åáíå ÝÅä ßÇä Ýíå æÅáÇ áíÓ ÈÍÌÉ http://www.al-eman.com/IslamLib/viewchp.asp?BID=401&CID=9 So, somehow, you are wrong!
×
×
  • Create New...