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

yourshamsi

Basic Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. i have an event in my mind from TARIKH ASAM KUFI (Ahl-e-Sunna Book of History, written by Asam kufi, in urdu and arabic). This book is easily available in pakistan but out of pakistan it is banned by the Ahl-e-Sunna Ulama due to some historical truths mentioned in it. In this book Mr. Asam Kufi mentioned an event of the War of Siffeen. He said that in Siffeen Malik-e-Ashter killed 75 people and when he counted Ali's then he found that Ali also killed 75. He started to think that perhaps i became so brave that i am equel in killing to Ali. suddenly Ali (a.s) appears and said to him " Malik do not think higher, it is true that you have killed as i am, but the reality is that you have killed everyone who came in front of your sword but i have killed only those persons who had none of the momin in their generation till the day of judgement". i think if someone believes then this event is enough for the result of the discussion.
  2. Dear all, This discussion is useless and aimless. Because no one can judge the level or status of Muhammad (pbuh) and his Ahl-e-Bait (a.s). For example if i am under metric then i could not judge the level of a bachelor. i could not know that how he forecasts about future by deriving the things from present. The level of his thinking is higher than mine. So how could we judge the level of Muhammad (pbuh) while he is the city of knowledge (all knowledge). if someone from us claim that he is a master in economics then he should be unawared from the depth of mathematics and if someone claims that he is the master in english then he will be ignorant in urdu. The same sence will be used in science and other subjects. So if Muhammad (pbuh) claims that he is the city of knowledge then he never mentioned that which type of knowledge he had. So we as being a true and faithfull muslim have to believe that he is the master of every kind of knowledge. As well as the matter of Ghaib is concerned then please notice that Ghaib is also a part of ILM " knowledge". if Muhammad (pbuh) is the city of knowledge then how could we exclude any ILM from his custody. It is possible that his knowledge is limited as compared to Allah but we cannot say that he is not aware about this/that type of knowledge. Similarly, if he says that Ali (a.s) is the Gate of the City of knowledge then again he did'nt mentioned the detail of knowledge. so we have to beleive that all the knowledge that was in the possession of Muhammad (pbuh) should be transfered to the gate of knowledge. Imam Ali (a.s) himself says in Nehj-ul-Balagha that Muhammad (pbuh) delivered me his knowledge just like a bird and if you watch a bird during delivering the food to his baby bird you can imagine that he transfered the total feed from his mouth, he never bite it for him ever. So we have to believe that all the knowledge of Muhammad (pbuh) transfered to Ali (a.s). And if we believe that he had the knowledge of Ghaib then it would also be included in.
  3. Sorry to interupt, but i only want all of you to go to Wikipedia and type nikah misyar, you will see that So many Sunni Ulama's have allowed the Mutta marriage with a slight change in mutta. So many Muslim countries adopt this marriage with a different name and the greatest university of Ahl-e-sunna i.e Al-Azhar has allowed it openly.
  4. Oh my innocent Lord Bota, the problem is not this that hundred thousands of ahadis contain the repetition but the problem is that who has created those hundred of thousand wrong ahadis even they contain the repetition (This thing proves that in that period the wrong ahadis were invented) and who gave the authority to Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bukhari to choose the such Ahadis as correct from the rest. Because Muhammad Ismail Bukhari born after centuries of Prophet (pbuh) and so called Khulafa-e-rashideen. How could he justify that this Hadis is Sahih and this one is not. On the other hand we can see that there was a great dispute among Sahabas (Companions) regarding wrong and correct hadis, the proof is that you may read in sahihain that Usman (ratu) refuted Abuzar Ghafari (ratu) due to a conflict on one hadis. Then how would we beleive Bukhari that what he provided us is the most corrective version of Ahadis while he never seen any Sahabi except Jabir bin Abdullah ansari (ratu) who lived long after Muhammad (pbuh). But Mr. Bukhari denied the most of the ahadis from him because he was the lover of Ahl-e-Bait (a.s)
  5. That was the thing that made the history the part of islam. Actually Caliphs were the part of History but Muslim believe them as the part of islam. I asked them that what have they done for islam because islam is "What Muhammad (pbuh) did, What Muhammad (pbuh) said, and what Muhammad (pbuh) left for his Umma, and this thing had only two sources to reach us one was Hadis which was demolished by them and the second was Ahl-e-Bait which was omitted and pushed away by them. and only seven or eight ahadis were narrated through them in sahihain. The biggest narrator was Abu Huraira who came to Madina right after the Khyber war. and he spent only nine months under the shadow of Muhammad (pbuh) and he narrated 3500 ahadis in sahihain. the second biggest narrator was Ayesha who did'nt knew the hadis of Tarka (fidak obligation) after the death of prophet even none of Prophet's wife heard that hadis at that time. and third biggest narrator was Ibn-e-Abbas for whom Molana Shibli Naumani described in his book Alfarooq that he was the youngest narrator so we cannot believe him (becuase he was the only narrator of the Hadis Qirtas-o-Qalam). i ask Mr. Shibli Naumani that when he narrated the hadis of Qirtas-o-Qalam, he was only 12 or 13 years old and you are saying that he was so young that he could not understand the position of the event at that time, then what about the rest of the Ahadis which were narrated by him years ago, because it was the last hadis that he narrated. Even in the start of Bukhari and Muslim you can read that they seprated only 6000 or 8000 Ahadis from hundreds of thousands ahadis. if you calculate the percentage by neglecting the repetition then you will find out that the total ahadis are0.8% or 1% of the total ahadis which were declared as Zaeef or wrong. Now Bukhari and Muslim committed themselves that the wrong Ahadis were invented so they seperated the true ahadis from them. and if you see the position of so called true ahadis you will see that majority of the sunni Ulama refuses them. Now i ask them that if they have made such status of true ahadis then what will be the status of wrong Ahadis. Now if you see the authentication of bukhari and muslim then check it that the famous hadis of Ghadeer-e-Khum which is narrated by 110 Sahaba / companions and 94 Tabaeen, Bukhar and muslim did'nt find it. Then what will be the status of those ahadis that are narrated by those sahaba/companions who were not available during the speach of Prophet (pbuh). i have much to talk about them but this is some realities that should be kept in mind while objecting them because they believe each and every action of caliphs as the part of islam and they do not believe each and every action of Prophet (pbuh) as the part of Islam, while Quraan says in Sura Najam. Wa ma yantiqu anil hawa........(My Prophet does not obey his own wishes, what he says is WAHI, not else). Even Umal momineen Ayesha (ratu) said about Muhammad (pbuh) that his character is just like Quran, but muslims do not believe her even. So stop objecting them they dont know anything about islam because they are the follower of history not islam but you (shia's) are the followeres of Islam through Muhammad o Al-e-Muhammad and Quraan
  6. SOME HISTORICAL TRUTHS ABOUT AHADIS OF NON SHIA SCHOLERS Dear all (Shia's), Please do not point out any objection over the sahihain or any person how believe on those books because no one would beleive you anymore. The reason is that basically the history has been mixed with islam in their books. it will be an honor if i could explain it in detail. please read it completely and try to understand the reason of this conflict. If you see the histroy of Islam. it starts from the refusal of Iblees. Iblees took an agreement with Allah that he will misguide the people of Allah from Sirat-al-Mustaqim. Butt Allah also told him that there would be some persons to whom he will not be succeeded to misguide them at all. So Iblees knew it better and he prepared some high level personalities to show themselves briliantly in front of the character of Prophet. And in every period of each Prophet he did so. and the same thing he did with Muslims. But the difference is that every nation related to each Prophet/Messanger kept the history seperated from their relegious beleifs for example if you read any history book written by Christians you will see that the relegion is a seperate thing and the Government is the seperate thing. They do not include the Government's actions or deeds into the religion. But when we see the History books of Muslims we always noticed that every ruler (after the death of Prophet) is the part of Islam. This is the basic confusion which confused the muslims too much that if a muslim wants to know about the hadis of Prophet then the scholers say the first you should see that while saying some particular hadis, what was the mood of Prophet or what was the position of Prophet. Someone says that during describing some particular hadis he was not prophet but he was father. sometimes he was grandfather, sometimes he was a simple man. sometimes he makes his own words so we do not have to believe those words. The basic belief of a true Muslim should be that the real islam is , What Muhammad (pbuh) did, What Muhammad (pbuh) said, and what Muhammad (pbuh) left for his Umma. Butt know the situation changed (other than Shia's). Muslims believe that the islam is, What companions did, what companions said and what companions left for us. Amazing na..... The proof: The very first action that was taken right after the death of Muhammad (pbuh) without delaying even an hour was to announce the Khilafat at Saqifah while they were saying that Muhammad (pbuh) did not made anyone as successor after him. This was the second thing which was discovered in islam that if we believe that Muhammad (pbuh) did not appoint anyone then this would be called suuna / Deen, then who authorised the companions to do so, while Quraan says that your Deen has been completed and companions say that Deen is incomplete because the major action was omitted by Prophet (pbuh). If you want to know that the 1st Khalifa was appointed according to the rules of islam then you should read his first speech. if he said that i am appointed through the islamic rules or by Allah or by Muhammad (pbuh) then accept him and if he said that you made me caliph then this is not islamic anymore. He also said that if i would go on right path then obey me otherwise disobey me or take me to the right path. This sentense shows his ignorance towards islam. But the truth is that he was called Caliph of Muslims. so it should be part of history not Islam. now we must see that if he was the oldest and fastest friend of Muhammad (pbuh) (as it is the belief of non shia's), then there should be thousands of Ahadis narrated by him in sahihain. But if you read Sahihain carefully, you will find only single figure Ahadis in them that are narrated by him. Why?. History told us that right after sitting on the Mimber he asked her daughter Ayesha to bring his pages/skins/stones which were used by him for record of Ahadis which he had heard from Muhammad (pbuh). Those were 500 Ahadis written by Abu bakr. When she brought them, he simply discarded them. when she asked him the reason then he said that " i dont want the muslims to read any wrong word from these ahadis, if i wrongly wrote them from my own sence", Therefore for the sake of the authentication of them i tore them. Now look at his sence, The first and biggest siddique of the world denying his truthfulness. So for the sake of islam new and fake ahadis were discovered through the governers. But unfortunately he did'nt found much time to rule and died but he did so many new things in islam such as : he created the Hadis of Tarka/Waris (Fidak), he created the Hadis of Khilafat (Khilafat will remain upto 30 years).... I ask one thing from Ahle sunna people that they ask for the return of the period of Khulafa-e-Rashideen because it was the golden and peaceful period of islam, how can they call that period peaceful because 3 of 4 Caliphs were attacked and killed by their own people and fourth one did not find any much time to live otherwise he would also be killed by someone. so all of the period finished through terrorism then how can we call it peaceful period. As i have described above all of the two caliphs did the same thing during their rule thant inventing new things and discarding the actual Deen. And thanks to our history writters who include each and every action in islam. Now this is the great scenario for us that if Muhammad (pbuh) did something then somtimes he was father, grandfather of a simple man and when Caliph did any thing then that was totally islam.
  7. Assalam o Allaikum, Very nice topic. i wish i should join you. i simply describe the meanings of OOLILAMR for those who think that our knowledge of Arabic language is weeker than them. The word OOLILAMR contains two arabic words i.e. OOLA & AMR. OOLA meanins someone or something Greater or has authority on the word coming after i.e. AMR. And AMR means the orders of Allah as Allah himself called in Quraan regarding the soul (ROOH) that ªÐÇ ÑæÍ ãä ÇãÑ ÑÈی that the soul is one of the AMRs of Allah. Now according to the meanings of the word OOLILAMR should have the authorities upon some of the AMRs of Allah (not all). Now could someone explain that who was the OOLILAMR and who is the OOLILAMR. As Allah says that this book (QURAN) is the last and complete life style for muslims till the day of judgement then there should be an OOLILAMR in today's era too.
×
×
  • Create New...