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

B-N

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    809
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About B-N

  • Rank
    Level 3 Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,550 profile views
  1. Nasai also believed that there existed no sahih hadith in praise of muawiya.
  2. The tradition cited regarding Muawiyah being a Haadi has not been even approved by Imam Tirmidhi himself as he decalred it ‘Hasan Ghareeb’. Allamah Muhammad Abdurehman bin Abdurahim al-Mubarakfuri in his commentary of this tradition cited the comments of Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr: ‘The hafiz ibn Abdulbar said: “His companionship is not true and his chain (isnad) is not Sahih.” We also read in ‘Tanaqudat al-Albani’ volume 2 page 228 by Allamah Hassan Saqaaf: “The Marfu Hadith from Abdulrahman bin Abi Umaira (Oh Allah guide him and make let him guide) referring to Mu’awiya, this hadith cannot be Sahih in any way” Razi records in ‘Elal al-Hadith’ Volume 2 page 362: “Verily Abdulrahman bin Abi Umaria didn’t hear this hadith from the prophet (s)” Imam Dhahabi records in ‘Siar alam al-Nubala’ Volume 3 page 126: “The (chain) is disconnected” Not a single hadith in praise of Mu’awiya is Sahih The leading ‘Ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah have declared all hadith praising Mu’awiya as fabricated. Imam Jalaluddeen Suyuti in his book Al-Leale al-Masnooa, Volume 1 page 424 while Allamah Ibn al-Jawzi in al- Mawdu’at, Volume 2 page 24 have recorded: قال الحاكم سمعت أبا العباس محمد بن يعقوب بن يوسف يقول سمعت أبي يقول سمعت إسحق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي يقول لا يصح في فضل معاوية حديث Al-Hakim said: ‘I heard Aba al-Abbas Muhammad bin Yaqoob bin Yusuf saying: ‘I heard my father saying: ‘I heard Ishaq bin Ibrahim al-Handhali saying: ‘There is no Sahih tradition about Mu’awyia’s virtues”’. 1. Al-Leale al-Masnooa, Volume 1 page 424 2. al-Mawdu’at Volume 2 page 24 Muhammad bin Ali bin Shawkani in his boko Fawa’id al Mujmu’a fi Bay’an al-Hadith al-Maudu’a, page 147 states that: “Ibn Hibban commented that all ahadith in praise of Mu’awiya are fabricated”. Fawa’id al Mujmu’a, page 147
  3. This is indeed a typical picture of tyrant and oppressed which fact has been acknowledged by sunni scholars but its just that you are more than keen and excited to use the acceptance of stipend by Imam Hassan (as) and Muawiya (la in la) as proof of "extremely close and friendly" relationship with each other thats why you are not even bothering to go deep into the issue. An esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work: “Hasan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all Tabayeen used to take stipends from oppressors, but not because they were friends with them or deemed their reign as legitimate, rather they used to take it because it was their own right which was in the hands of oppressors and Fajir people. How could this happen on the basis of friendship when they were confronted with Hajjaj via sword, four thousand Qura (scholars) who were the best and jurists amongst the Tabayeen fought against Hajjaj at Ahwaz under the leadership of Abdur Rehman bin Muhammad bin Ashas, and then fought Hajjaj in Basra and then at the places of Deer Jamajam near Furaat in Kufa. They had broken their allegiance with Abdul Malik bin Marwan, they used to curse and do Tabbara on them [Ummayad rulers]. Pirior to them, people had the same behavior with Muawiyah when he became ruler after the murder of Ali (as). And so Hasan and Hussain & the companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to take stipends from Muawiyah), they werent friendly to him, in fact they used to do Tabbarra on him [Muawiyah] in the same manner as Ali (as) used to do (tabbarra) till Allah (swt) took Ali to paradise and Ridhwan. Thus, accepting the position of a judge and taking stipends from them [oppressors] does not mean that those people were on friendly terms with them or accepted their rulership.” Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Volume 1 pages 86-87 (Beirut) Imam Ghazzali: “There were many among the companions who lived up to the time of tyrant rulers and used to accept properties from them. Such were Abu Hurairah, Abu Sayeed Khodri, Zaid bin Sabei, Abu Ayyub Ansari, Jarir bin Abdullah, Anas bin Malik and others. Some of them received from caliphs Marwan and Yazid bin Abul Malik, some from the turant governor Hajjaj. Imam Shafeyi received once from caliph Harun Rashid one thousand dinars. Imam Malik also received them from different caliphs. Hazrat Ali said: ‘Whatever a ruler gives you, he gives out of lawful things. He himself did not accept it out of greater sense of piety. When Imam Hasan came to caliph Muawiyah, the latter gave him four lac dirhams which he accepted. These sages used to accept properties of tyrant rulers. The supporters of above opinion say that some of the sages did not accept out of great sense of piety. This does not show that it is illegal.” Ihya Ulum-id-din, Volume 2 page 98
  4. Given that the Pakistani authorities have an interest in controlling the flow of "unwanted" information coming out of the region, the BBC sought to verify details by speaking to local contacts in areas said to have been hit by the conflict. All the areas were along the Line of Control (LoC) dividing the Indian and Pakistani controlled sides of Kashmir. A police officer in the Poonch region told the BBC's Aurangzeb Jarral that Indian artillery targeted some Pakistani military posts across the Buttal region, and two Pakistani soldiers were killed. In the Bhimber, Leepa and Neelum valley regions, several eyewitnesses reported cross-border shelling - but, crucially, none said they saw any aerial or ground incursions by Indian troops. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37518200
  5. http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/who-killed-imam-hussain.html
  6. Nicely summarized in a sentence, jazakallah khair :) Wait wait wait, first of all i would like to see your argument that it was strictly the 'inheritance of knowledge' which was being talked about in the narration of nasai?
  7. LOL.. Till date i have not received answer of the following from you and the point is still unattended, i.e, since you are more than keen to prove that Shia text also says that prophets do not leave inheritance but you have miserably failed to prove, from Shia text, the concluding part of the Hadith fabricated/claimed by Abu Bakar, according to which 'whatever prophets leave is to be distributed as sadqa' !!! In fact Abu Bakar himself did not make implementation of this part of his lie thats why we see that not 'everything' prophet (s) left was distributed by him as sadqa such as apartments of prophets, prophet's ring, his garment etc. Thus, if anyone has been flopped badly, its the 'kazab al akber' whose adherents are till date making all false attempts to defend his act but in vain :) And yes, we have proof that Fatima Zahra (sa) demanded Fadak and in this regard Um e Ayman testified (tafsir al qummi), and yes we know that when usurper denied the claim on one pretext or the other than Fatima Zahra (sa) claimed it as inheritance but since king's was adamant thus she was denied this right as well. So you are rather advised not to play with the 'either gift or inheritance' card because you are making no favour to your client (Abu Bakar) like this and its only adding to his already tarnished character. The bottom line is, the fact that your early generation of scholars did not rule out the possibility of prophets leaving behind material possessions as inheritance has actually left your generation of Abu Bakar's advocates in a rather awkward situation, but still, keep trying. And yes, even if any window was left open for you, it was subsequently shut by your subsequent caliphs who handed over the fadak to the Ahlulbayt (as) deeming it their right.
  8. Thats it? Thats all what you have to say in this response? Ok I take it as your acceptance that according to your filthy cult, sahaba and tabayeen were also followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba. And the very reason to create SP was to use its stuff in the internet debates where the najis nawasib throw barrage of filth so your time and again showing that stuff has been taken from SP is nothing but waste of time. Stupid, the refs quoted by me where by hardcore Salafi scholars in praise of Showkani from whom you were trying to get rid of, so dont try to be smart and switch the topics. Once again, i take it as as if you have conceded that Shokani is regarded as one of the celebrated Imams of Salafi cult. Abay tukhm e muawia, we have always been in minority, starting from Karbala till today, being in minority is not something to get worried for rather we see Quranic cerses condemning the majority, so its rather for you to get worried :) Bhaar main gyay Sufi... who cares? Wen our Imams were hated by your ancestors such as Muawiya bin Char Yaar, Marwan (laeen ibn Laeen), Hareez bin Uthman al-Himsi, Thawr bin Yazeed, Ziyad bin Alaqah (may Allah curse all of them and those who love or take guidance from them) then even if any or all the cults hate us, it doesnt make any difference. Oh yeah? Look who is talking! So that means those laantis who had audacity to fought your fourth caliph died and their faces were not even ascertainable? Again look who is talking, shaid ab tak 2 say ziada baar tum ko zaleeel kia ja chuka hai is forum par...just remember who confidently you had claied that the hadiths i had relied upon were weak and that i was a lair and then i made you mouth shut: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235022942-khalid-bin-waleed-the-horrific-event/page-4#entry2708806
  9. Ooops..lagta hai hasb o nasab chair kar dukhti ragg par haath rakhdia main nay :P Talking of Ibn Saba then lemme show you some of your beloved ancestors (sahaba and tabayeen) who were adherents of you Ibn Saba :) Whilst discussing Abdullah Ibn Saba, one of the greatest Salafi scholar Uthman al-Khamis of the modern era made the following admission in his book Hoqba min al-Tarikh, pages 130 -131: And his advocates who contributed in spreading his doctrine were al-Ghafeqi bin Harb, Abdulrahman bin Udays al-Balawi [sAHABI], Kanana bin Bashr, Sawdan bin Hamran, Abdullah bin Zayd bin Warqa, Amr bin Hamiq al-Khuzai [sAHABI], Harqous bin Zuhair, Hakim bin Jabala, Qateera al-Sakooni and others.Hoqba min al-Tarikh,pages 130 -131 In fact Sahabi like that of Ammar Yasir (ra) has not been spared by you people from the accusation that he also became follower of Abdullah Ibn Sabba. Ibn Khaldun proudly names yet another follower of Abdullah Ibn Saba. We read in his Tarikh: وتأخر عمار بن ياسر بمصر واستماله ابن السوداء وأصحابه خالد بن ملجم وسودان بن حمران وكنانة بن بشر Ammar bin Yasir was late in returning from Egypt thus Ibn al-Sawda (Abdullah ibn Saba) attracted him along with his companions Khalid bin Muljim, Sawdan bin Hamran, and Kanana bin Beshr. So i can understand your 'tarap' and 'baytaabi' and frustration since you can only accuse Shias of being follower of Abdullah Ibn Saba but cannot substantiate the claim on the contrary it is proved from yuor own books that the sahaba and tabayeen you admire where themsevles followers of Ibn Saba :) Coming back to Shawkani thing, since your ignorance knows no bounds therefore i shall apprise you that his books are being taught in maddrassas such high is his stature. In fiqh, his book 'Nail al Awtar' is taught and in Usool his book 'Irshad al Fuhul' is taught only then a hardcore Nasibi/Salafi appears from a maddrassa. He is consdiered as 'Imam' in your Nasibi/Salafi cult. Shaokani is even counted among the lights of Imam Ahmed, Imam Malik etc. We read in Al-Subh al-Shareq, by Yehya al-Hujuri, p135 فأيها أهدى بالله كتب الإمام أحمد بن حنبل والإمام البخاري والإمام الشافعي والإمام البربَهاري والإمام اللالكائي والإمام أبي عمرو الداني والإمام ابن قتيبة والإمام الدارمي والإمام مالك وشيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية وشيخ الإسلام ابن القيم والإمام محمد بن إسماعيل الأمير الصنعاني والإمام الشوكاني رحمهم الله وأمثال هؤلاء أم تلك الكتب الحركية لفتحي يكن وأمثاله؟ who are leading to guidance to Allah, the books of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imam Bukhari, Imam Shafeei, Imam Barbahari, imam Lalekaei, Imam Abu Amr al-Dani, Imam ibn Qutaiba, Imam Daremi, Imam Malik, Sheikhul islam ibn Taymia, Sheikhul islam Ibn Qaym, Imam Mohamed bin Ismail al-Amir al-Sanaani and Imam Shawkani may Allah's mercy be upon them, or those books which are written by Fatehi Yakan and those who are his likes? Majmo Fatawa ibn Baz, by Ibn Baz and Mohamed Shou'aeir, v1 p355 العلامة الكبير الشيخ محمد بن علي الشوكانيThe Allahmah al Kabeer Al Sheikh Mohamed bin Ali Shawkani Mosoat al-Albani fi al-Aqida, by Albani and Shadi al-Noman, v4 p245 إمام من أئمة المسلمين، ألا وهو محمد بن علي الشوكانيImam among the Imams of the Muslims, he is Mohamed bin Ali Shawkani As for his being former Shia (actually an ex-Zaidi) then its provides no apportunity to an igorant like you to get rid of his works, at least for you Salaifs, because the Salafi cult itself is like an intruder into the religion of Islam and does not have any chain of knowledge (unlike Shias or Sufis), prominent names of your Salafi cult were not born-Salafies rather they converted to this cult in later part of their lives eg Ibn Tamiyah, Abdul Wahab etc Inshallah, matam e Hussain is dunia main bhi hoga aur agli duniya main bhi , inshallah aur har tukhm e na tahqeeq o tukhm e muawiya kay seenay jalatay rehega. By the way, Rasulallah (s) ki death par kabhi amaaan jaan ka rona aur apnay chahray ko peeetna bhi dekhlo aur poocho kay amaan kia takleef hai shia kion ban gayi ho :P Furthermore, as per Shaykh Addul Qadir Jilani, seventy thousand angels have been deployed by Allah for weeping for Imam Hussain (as), thus it should not worry you if we Shias likewise indulge in this act. Moreover, Hakeem al Ummat of Deoband school namely Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi is quoted to have stated in Imdad al Fatawa, v5 p 273 that incident of kabala is of such a nature that even if entire creation (human beings, jins, angels, animals etc) keep on weeping till qamayah still it is insufficient, to quote his actual words: واقعہ کربلا اس قابل ھے کہ اگر تمام زمین،آسمان،حوریں، فرشتے، انسان، جنات، جمادات،نباتات، اور حیوانات قیامت تک بھی یہ کہ کر روتے رہیں: صبت علی مصائب لو انھا : صبت علی الایام صرن لیالیا : تب بھی تھوڑا ھے To qayamat tak rona to farishton, jin aur hoor etc ki taqdeer main bhi hai :) (For those who didnt grasp some part of the post, this thick nasibi taunted that its in our fate that we keep weeping in this world and the hereafter and cant remain happy to which i have cited couple of examples).
  10. Oh Yeah? is that why Abu Bakr in his inaugural speech made it clear that he was not the best among the ummah and he should be guided whenever he made mistakes in dispensation of his duties as a ruler lol? That is why he was so reluctant to become a ruler at the episode of saqifah and as per his own words he accepted rulership only because he feared that sahaba had recently converted to Islam and there were chances of their getting apostates on seeing dismal state of affairs? JIs that why he regretted at his death bed for few sins he committed in his life ? Just compare all this junk with a challenge of Salooni made by the heir and successor of Prophet (s) !! Our position is also clear that it was a gift and hence witnesses were sought and were duly produced before the king but their testimonies were rejected. Hence it was claimed as inheritance the stubborn king again rejected the claim on bringing a false theory. The self made tafsir of quranic verses that talk about inheritance of prophet were later concocted by the defenders of caliph where as caliph himself or the early generation of sunni scholars did not opined with this view or at least, they did not rule out the possibility that prophets can leave material inheritance. Contradiction is no where but in your desperate mind that is trying hard to somehow give legal sanctity to the sin committed by your caliph. Ahlulbayt were no doubt scholars but that does not debar the biological progeny of Prophet (Fatima Zahrain this case) from inheriting the material possessions left by her father and as mentioned earlier, we have such sahih narration according to which she inherited the estate. Anyways, even if usurpers of Fadak had to come alive from the wrath of their graves that cannot prove from Shia text that "whatever is left by prophets is to be distributed as sadqa" which was a blatant lie advanced by the king which he himself could not made implementation of and did not distribute some belongings of prophet as sadqa, such as houses of prophet, his sword, his garment etc. It was his personal/exclusive property Al-Thuqat, by Ibn Haban, v2 p15 فكانت فدك لرسول الله خالصة He can reward whatever and whomsoever he wants to and he did not need any permission either from 'Kazab al Akbar' or from you!! Same goes here, what is illogical does not become logical because you say so !!
  11. 1. Firstly good attempt to avoid the Sunni tradition which proves that Ali was the only (spiritual) heir and successor of prophet and only he inherited him (s). 2. Fatima Zahra (as) inheriting estate of prophet (s) is very much proved from Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) as referred by you from al-kafi therefore your attempt to argue that she can either inherit dinar and dirhams or knowledge is nothing but an false attempt to play with the words, Ali inherited prophet being his successor and Fatima Zahra inherited prophet in material possessions in capacity of being biological heir, its simple as that. 3. The fact which you call 'contradiction' i.e. it was a gift and then it was claimed as inheritance is nothing but an utter ignorance on your part, kindly read Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, page 13 which confirms so. 4. You are jumping up and down in an attempt to defend false act of your 'Kazab al akber' and trying to interpret verses in your own manner and why not, it has been observed that the later generation of Sunnies have tried to do so and have tried to portray the picture that the said verses were NEVER interpreted to have talked abot material inheritance of prophets by Abu Bakar or by early generation of Sunni scholars but when we turn the pages of history, we find that group of early (Sunni) scholars did believe that inheritance of prophets in terms of material possessions is not something prohibited or impossible. See Tafsir Qurtubi, v11 p81 and al-mabsoot, v12 p29.
  12. Unfortunately for you, Ali himself didnt concur with the reasons you have advanced for his being an heir of prophet: “Al-Fadl bin Sahl- Afan bin Muslim- Abu Awana- Uthman bin al-Mughira- Abi Sadeq- Rabeea bin Najed narrated that a man came to Ali and said: Oh commander of believers, why only you inherited your cousin excluding your uncle? He (Ali) replied: The messenger of Allah invited the children of Abdulmutalib and he cooked for them food, they ate till they get fulfilled and the food remained as if no one had touched it, then he (the prophet) brought water and all of them drank from it, but the water remained as if no one had touched it or drank from it.Then he (the prophet) said: ‘Oh children of Abdulmutalib, I have been sent to you specially and to the people in general, and you saw the sign of that, therefore who among you give baya to be my brother, my companion, my inheritor and my minister.’No one responded for that, hence I responded and I was the youngest among them, he (the prophet) said: ‘Sit down’ for three times. I responded and He say ‘Sit down’, till the third time he clapped by his hand on my thigh and said: ‘You are my brother, companion, inheritor and minister’. Hence I inherited my cousin without my uncle.” Khasais by Imam Nesai, page 85
  13. Jazakallah khair bro. Another point is that in their feeble attempt to prove that prophets do not leave material possessions in inheritance Sunnis/Nawasib shoot themselves in the feet by relying upon the above hadith because the hadith confirms that (a.) it was Ali (as) who was the heir of prophet (b.) Ali in fact inherited prophet, and hence the humanly appointment caliph (Abu Bakar) looses his eligibility leaving Sunnies no where !!
  14. LOL...o tukhm-e-na tahqeeq, aaj Shokani jaisa scholar bhi bekr hogya. Wah !! That it self is sufficient to prove his Nasb !!! By the way it also proves that the picture was not as rosy as painted by nawasib and not all sahaba were happy with the caliphate of abu bakar.
  15. Are you okay? Why would he "claim" Fadak "alongside" Fatima Zahra (sa) when only she was entitled to it? He advanced his claim when his claim became matures i.e. he was seeking his share from Fatima Zahra's share from her father's property. Have a look at it again: “...Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (‘Ali and ‘Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case. (O ‘Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife from the property of her father.” Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 720
×
×
  • Create New...