goldenhawk

@Fahad SaniI wait for you reply....

The shia text is mentioned and explained in a different understanding. I agree with you that not knowing a fiqhi matter is not considered a sin or a fault. However, this would be an huge embarrassment of an high ranking scholar not to know BASIC fiqh issues. However, are you honestly suggesting that the holy ahlulbayt never heard of this hadith that prophets do not leave behind inheritance? Are you really telling me that the only daughter of the holy prophet (s) never knew this? The holy prophet (s) never ever mentioned this or discussed this with his daughter about inheritance issues in order to save her the embarrassment of requesting her right from the ruler after the prophet (S)? She never asked about this? Are you serious? Even her husband and great imam and knowledgeable scholar like Imam Ali never knew about this issue either? are you really serious brother?

Narration also doesnt say anything about hell. Which you are implying. The narration does not say anything about heaven either which you were implying earlier on. This is my whole point. The narration does not say anything about heaven or hell. Also this is only an opinion of Ammar. He did not say that he heard the holy prophet (s) say this about Aisha. So opinions can't be taken as facts. There is NO consensus amongst the scholars of the sunnis on who the twelve were. There are so many different opinions on who they were. Some even include Yazid and Muawiyah. Therefore, you DON'T really believe in them. You are just as confused as your scholars. The narrations of the alulbayt were famous and known that Aisha could not deny them. Some credit is due to her for the ones olny she narrated. If she truly repented, then Allah will judge her on the day of Judgement and may Allah have mercy on her soul for wrong she did to the holy prophet (s) and his Ahlulbayt (as). As mentioned above, then her case rests with Allah. I agree with you that we do disobey Allah and his messenger and ask for his forgiveness but she committed acts of kufr/major sins (reported in your sahih books) which is very serious. During the riddah wars. They were muslims but refused to pay zakat to abu bakr (because he was not the rightful caliph in their eyes) and abu bakr slaughtered them. Even umar was initially opposed to the actions of abu bakr as mentioned in your sahih books. No doubt, those who fought imam ali were on the surface considered as muslims. They were not Christians, jews, Hindus, atheists etc... because they read the kalima. Therefore, they had to be treated as muslim rebels. That does not mean they were upon haq or will be forgiven for the kufr actions. They rebelled against the caliph of their time and this is a MAJOR sin according to your books.

What do you mean obviously? the narration does not say anything about jannah. it just says she will be the wife in the hereafter. that is your whishful thinking and interpretation. As i mentioned earlier, if you have a brother/son that is doomed to hell, he will still by your brother/son in the hereafter. He actually was a twelver as he believed in the hadith of the holy prophet (s) mentioning that there will be twelve imams after him. Nowhere does the holy prophet (s) say that we need to follow Aisha in anything, let alone this kufr action she took by going against the imam of her time. The holy prophet (s) commanded us to follow quran and ahulbayt (as). Not his wives!! She disobeyed Allah and his messenger when she was specifically told (in the quran) to STAY IN THE HOUSES. So not only she was disobeying this clear and direct order of Allah, but then she went against the rightly guided caliph and her imam and tried to kill him and the believers that were on his side! I don't think you quite realize the gravity of the sin here brother. This clearly shows the love and biased sided view of muslims. Anyone who opposed and went against abu bakr (ridda wars) became kaffirs (according to sunni version of events) and those who opposed and went against imam ali are considered to be "razi Allah"! what kind of twisted and sick logic is this? This is nothing short of the hatred against imam ali which the effects are still being felt today.

This bukhari narration has problems for you brother. I mentioned this to another person on this forum and he came out with just lame excuses. Firstly, this is not a hadith. This is an "opinion" of a sahaba and not the saying of the prophet (s). Ammar did not say here that the prophet (s) told him this. Secondly, if a wife (or a son, brother, uncle) of anyone goes to hell, this still means the relationship would still carry on in the hereafter. Thirdly, if you insist that this narration is true and whatever ammar said was correct then proves that hazrat aisha was not purified and went against the command of Allah (for the prophet's wives to stay in their houses). Therefore, to follow her, would be to go against Allah! Food for thought brother!

Masha Allah brother. good analysis. I would like to make a couple of points regarding the above to our sunni brothers who claim this excuse. These people who came to the Holy prophet (sawas) were sahabas. My first point is: why would sahabas show hostility to other sahabas? I thought they all got along with each other and liked each other? Why did some sahaba actually HATE imam ali? حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا رَوْحُ بْنُ عُبَادَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ سُوَيْدِ بْنِ مَنْجُوفٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ بُرَيْدَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ بَعَثَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلِيًّا إِلَى خَالِدٍ لِيَقْبِضَ الْخُمُسَ وَكُنْتُ أُبْغِضُ عَلِيًّا، وَقَدِ اغْتَسَلَ، فَقُلْتُ لِخَالِدٍ أَلاَ تَرَى إِلَى هَذَا فَلَمَّا قَدِمْنَا عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لَهُ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ يَا بُرَيْدَةُ أَتُبْغِضُ عَلِيًّا ‏"‏‏.‏ فَقُلْتُ نَعَمْ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ لاَ تُبْغِضْهُ فَإِنَّ لَهُ فِي الْخُمُسِ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ ‏"‏‏.‏ Narrated Buraida: The Prophet (s) sent `Ali to Khalid to bring the Khums (of the booty) and I hated `Ali, and `Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khums). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. `Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (s) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khums." (Sahih Bukhari) This incident (Yemen soldiers issue) in bukhari took place during the last year of the holy prophet (s). My question is why would these SAHABAS hold a grudge or come to the point of hating imam ali knowing the sacrifices and virtues imam ali had done for islam? Why would they hate him especially after being told by the holy prophet (s) the following: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، وَأَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، - وَاللَّفْظُ لَهُ - أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ عَدِيِّ بْنِ ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ زِرٍّ، قَالَ قَالَ عَلِيٌّ وَالَّذِي فَلَقَ الْحَبَّةَ وَبَرَأَ النَّسَمَةَ إِنَّهُ لَعَهْدُ النَّبِيِّ الأُمِّيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِلَىَّ أَنْ لاَ يُحِبَّنِي إِلاَّ مُؤْمِنٌ وَلاَ يُبْغِضَنِي إِلاَّ مُنَافِقٌ ‏.‏ Zirr reported: Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me. (Sahih Muslim) I guess that's why some of the sahabas used to say the following: “We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali.” (Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p639, Tradition 1086) What's more worrying is even if we buy this excuse, according to sunni sources, the holy prophet (s) cleared up this issue with those having a grudge against imam ali during the hajj. So why did they still continue to defy the holy prophet's (s) resolution? If sunnis use the excuse that the rest of the army was not aware, and they continued to have a grude against imam ali (a.s) then this holds the holy prophet's (s) to account that he did not fully deal with the matter thoroughly (god forbid). The holy prophet (s) would always clear up matters to all of those involved at the earliest opportunity which he did during hajj. Therefore this lame excuse is actually an insult to the messenger of god accused of incompetence (god forbid). Finally, if the holy prophet (s) stopped at ghadir to tell those who had a grudge, then why were those who had nothing to do with the yemen incident stopped and made to listen to a speech which (a) did not concern them and (b) showed no grudge against imam ali. why were they troubled and inconvenienced? Surely if people are having a argument then all those involved should be addressed and not everyone who had nothing to do with it. Anyway these are just food for thought for all the brothers. Jazak Allah Khair.

I said to you before that I won't reply in terms of debating you dumbo! However, I still don't want you to run away again like you did on fadak, muta and the love of ahulbayt. So the ball is in your court mr nasbi. Are you going to run away like your master used to or are you going to stand your ground and fight like a man?

I know you are hurt because i have comprehensively demolished your weak arguments on fadak, muta and the love of ahlulbayt mentioned in the quran. Yet, you shamelessly come back for more beatings. Have you nasbi's no shame whatsoever? Why can't you just admit that you can't answer my two simple questions instead of beating around the bush and running around like a headless chicken.

@onereligion just admit it brother, you have ran away in the other thread because you could not answer my fadak and ibn abbas questions and you are trying to run away again from my 2 easy questions. typical nasbi behavior! when the going gets tough, the tough gets going. There is no shame if you can't answer them, or you need more time to research but it is not right if you are just trying to play games with me and waste time as you usually do with everyone.

@onereligion you were all over the show and were unable to counter our arguments on fadak. Therefore it is you that likes to twist facts and evidences. I still will stick to my stance where I said i will not reply to you, i.e in debates because you are not worth it due to your lack of reasoning and logic. So back to my 2 SIMPLE questions i asked you, are you going to answer them? Yes or no?

@skamran110 Salam. Brother I am surprised you are still debating with @onereligion. What do you expect to achieve from this brainwashed nasbi. Even if we tell him 2+2=4, he won't believe us because we are shia. No other real reason. He has failed to answer my two basic questions. If he can't answer simple questions, then do we really think we can debate with him on advanced/intellectual topics such as the one in this thread?

@onereligion I see you are still avoiding my two basic questions. It's plain to see by everyone that you have cleverly evaded my simple queries. If you can't answer my simple questions, you really think we can convince you of imamate in Quran? Just man up and admit it that you can't answer my questions instead of playing games.

There are different chains for this hadith and some Sunnis have declared those to be weak. However, I recommend the brothers to use this version as all the narrators are trustworthy. This hadith is 100% sahih according to sunni rijal system. Enjoy! Mustadrak al-Hakim: عن سفيان بن سعيد الثوري (من رجال الصحاح الستة) عن عبد الله بن عثمان بن خثيم (وثّقه : ابن معين والعجلي والنسائي وابن سعد وذكره ابن حبّان في الثقات وقال أبو حاتم : ما به بأس صالح الحديث) عن عبد الرحمن بن بهمان (ذكره ابن حبّان في الثقات ووثّقه ابن حجر في التهذيب وتقريب التهذيب ، وكذا غيرها) قال : سمعت جابر بن عبد الله يقول : سمعت رسول الله يقول : " أنا مدينة العلم وعلي بابها فمن أراد العلم فليأت من الباب ". Sufyan ibn Sa'eed al-Thawri - Abdullah ibn Uthman ibn Khuthaym - Abdur-Rahman ibn Bahmaan - Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansar - the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: "I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is the gate. Whosoever desires the city must go through the gate." All the narrators are thiqa (trustworthy): 1. Sufyan ibn Sa'eed al-Thawri: One of the narrators of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. 2. Abdullah ibn Uthman ibn Khuthaym: Ibn Hibban has included his name in his Thuqaat, and Ibn Ma'een, al-Ajli, Nisai, Abu Hatim and Ibn Sa'eed have all declared him thiqah. 3. Abdur-Rahman ibn Bahmaan: Ibn Hibban has included his name in his Thuqaat. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has declared him thiqah in both tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb and Taqreeb al-Tahdheeb. 4. Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari: A prominent Companion.

@skamran110 Mash Allah, this is a good thread brother. Although this issue has been dealt with many times, it is a good reminder to the rest of the Muslims who have an open mind and a sincere heart. My two simple questions to the non shia brothers would be the following: 1. If 33:33 was revealed for the wives, and they were purified, then why did some of them continue to annoy Allah and his messenger? Didn't surah tahrim (66) came after surah ahzab (33)? If so, then why didn't the some of the wives change their behavior with the holy prophet (s)? 2. Can anyone show me just ONE authentic narration where ANY of the wives claimed that 33:33 was revealed for them?

@skamran110 Salam brother. This is one of the reasons (given below) why we should not debate with people like @onereligion I asked him on (November 19) just two simple questions on the (check the previous page 6 towards the bottom) and he failed to answer either of them. This clearly shows that either he does not read our posts properly or deliberately avoids answering the questions and just goes on with emotional rants. Either way, I think we should try to refrain from engaging serious discussions with this brainwashed child unless he changes his attitude. What do you think brother?