Truth_Seeker_786

Asalaam Alaikum Your quote:

Wa alaikum salaam Likewise bro... How can I be convinced with something that is based upon desires, contradictions and conjectures rather than knowledge? Hey I am familiar with this song...I can sing it too... However indeed it is time to give it a rest but I leave you with a REMINDER since reminders at times serve a good purpose: Ikrimah, was not only accused of lies (which according to the majority is JARH EXPLAINED) but was known as FASIQ... Even if we admit that the accusations of the lies against Ikrimah originated through weak reports... when put aside by one another, together they strengthen each other..according to your scholars the narrations of the ACCUSED are ALSO set aside... And having been accused as a FASIQ that is another blow to his reliablity.... No matter where we turn, there will always be something against him... Hence its a pity that you defended someone out of your blind love...even to the extent that you went against the principles of your own scholars in the science of hadith... To Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return.

Lord Botta: Al-Mujahidah: Well said:) And most likely the lies (of al-Waqidi) that the Ahlul-Sunnah talk about...may be those narrations that do not suit their beliefs...:) And the funny thing is that on one hand (hadith) they reject him and on the other they accept him (history)...I thought a liar is a liar and a liar cannot be trusted in anything...unless backed up with reliable witnesses... However that is their game, so we need to play it their way... Al-Dhahabi said: وجمع، فأوعى، وخلط الغث بالسمين، والخرز بالدر الثمين، فأطرحوه لذلك، ومع هذا فلا يستغنى عنه في المغازي، وأيام الصحابة وأخبارهم He gathered, contained and mixed the weak with strong, and the stones with the gems, so they ignored him for this reason... Hmmmm, Imam al-Bukhari, Muslim, Nasai, Tirmidhi, Dawood, Ibn Maja, etc, they have all done the same thing (collected gems with stones)...so does that mean we IGNORE them too? What a fair way to blame someone...:) wasalaam

Asalaam alaikum. In waseelah it is permissible but in a form of greetings, it is nothing more than a biddah...(And I am aware that you are also aware of the answer but you asked so that the others could also become aware after being unaware through taking heed of the awareness :) )

Hello! Your statement : "Those who declared that narration to be fabricated they criticized Hammad bin Salama for it.." shows the reason behind the fabrication was Hammad...So please tell me if Hammad was the reason for this fabrication and why is he known as THIQA in your science of hadeeth? If indeed he is a FABRICATOR then all the narration reported by him need to be questioned... As for your statement: "A fabricated narration even come through all truthful narrators.." Can you show me an example of a FABRICATION which was ATTRIBUTED to a THIQA personality by the scholars of science of hadeeth and NOT any Tom, Mick and Harry? O Com'onnnn... Allow me to be sarcastic at times! Famous report of Ikrima which other student of his narrates from him doesn't contain the 'beardless man' part. Implies Ikrima was innocent. But that famous report does talk of Allah coming down right? Then how does that cause Ikirmah to be innocent? Is that not anthropomorphism? When did I talk of Ikirmah's mistake? We mention him to be a liar not the one who commits mistakes....get your facts right...and yes I have seen your brilliant knowledge of science of hadith...:) Yes a Mudalis is a Mudalis as long as he is outside the boundary of Sahih al-Bukhari but as soon as any Muadlais enters the domain of SAHIH al-Bukhari....the justifications are just great... Yes pls give it a rest...the term "wives" is both masculine and feminine...:) That is true but NOT in all cases, for instance Allah says: O you who believe, be with the truthful ones... Such a verse could be applied in our age though it was revealed many years before us... But the verses which are specific they cannot be referred to others but those who are particularly mentioned by them... for an example, Allah says: "It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you... (66:5) Now tell me just because Allah mentioned "wives" in the above ayah, was He referring to "all" the wives or just the two? The context of the verse tells us that NOT all of the Prophets wives were guilty of misconduct so therefore this shows that at certain times you cannot extend the meaning of the verse to others but only those who are specifically mentioned by the verses... What Ikrimah did was that he specifically ATTRIBUTED the verse to the WIVES only and thus ignored those who were mentioned by it through the usage of masculinity... But the blind followers of Ibn Taymiyah may not see the light but this is understandable because the Prophet (pbuh&hf) made it clear that those who would leave aside the Quran and the Ahlul-Bayt, they would go astray...And how astray you are....your prefer the interpretation of the khawarij over the Imams of Ahlul-bayt....:) Go to sleep... Yes according to the ONE who said that so this proves what I said: When scholars say insha'Allah after a verdict such as reliable or trustworthy... not only do they they make an indirect reference to the the "doubt" linked to an individual's reliablity...but also indicate that their decision is based upon HOPE that their verdict is correct and that only the FUTURE will actually decide the true OUTCOME. O please stop confusing yourself...you don't have a vsound argument left... it is clear that the expression: "Insha'Allah" is said in reference to the future...Hence my quote still stands valid: It stings like a bumble bee, because your own scholars have made up rules that are now turning against your own selves... That is like the tradition, where the rich were ignored and the poor were punished...:) wasalaam

Asalaam alaikum. Please bear in mind that my intention is neither to insult nor to find fault with anyone’s way of life but to question in order to find a plausible explanation for something that is troubling me. I am not against Waseelah of the Imams of Ahlul-bayt (as) for that is a different matter but what I find quite disturbing is that many Shiah are on the verge of the shifting the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hf) which was to say: “Asalaamun Alaikum” to the believers…into something which I personally would term as a bidda and not even as “Bidda Husana” but an innovation based upon blind love for the Holy Imams (as). I have not come across nor do I believe that there ever exists a narration that allows any Musklim to say: Ya Ali Maddat in substitution of Asalaamu Alaikum. Those who claim to be Shiah and say Ya Ali Maddat, please answer the following Questions: (A) It is clear from the Holy Quran that the way of the PROPHETS and the BELIEVERS has been to say Asalaamun Alaikum…rather than any OTHER substitute...So under such a direct approved method, why do the Shiah then not CLING unto to the Holy Quran as stated by the Messenger of Allah in the hadith of Thaqalain? When those who believe in Our Ayat (proofs, evidence, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) come to you, say: "Salamun 'Alaikum" (peace be on you)… (6:54) But when you enter the houses, greet one another with a greeting from Allah As-Salamu 'Alaikum - peace be on you) blessed and good. (24:61) Ibrahim (Abraham) said: "Asalamun Alaika! I will ask Forgiveness of my Lord for you. Verily He is unto me Ever Most Gracious. (B) How can we justify the reconciliation of Ya Ali Maddat with the saying of Asalaamun Aliakum, when the two expressions don’t even have a slight resemblance in their meaning? © If the Imams have not approved such a thing (replacement of salaam without something else) then are we not in clash with the teaching of the Thaqalain and are we not opposing the Sunnah of the Holy Imams? (D) Are there any Mujtahids who allow : Ya Ali Maddat in replacement of Asalaam Alaikum? (E) Those claim that : “We utter both the expressions without negating one or the other…” Then may I ask whose sunnah is that? Who was the first person to start that? Was he learned in Islam? Or was he just a Malang who had no necessary qualifications but just started a tradition amongst the laymen and as a result many started to follow him without questioning such a thing out of concern of the love for the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt (as) ? I believe that the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt (as) would be more happy with those of their followers who would act in reviving Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh&hf) in contrast to who those who have stained it with an act of Biddah. wasalaam.

Asalaam Alaikum. Fabricated = mawdu? Hammad has been seen as weak by some scholars and not certainly a liar so on what basis can anyone say that the narration in question was a fabrication by Hammad? (there is a difference between a fabricated hadith and a Da'if hadith) And what about those who saw the narration under question as SAHIH like Imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyyah…Were they unaware of the weakness of Hammad? Yes your quite right that the famous narrations from Ikrimah do not contain WEIRD interpretations and that is a fact proven, for an example, Ikrimah claimed that the verse 33:33 was revealed SOLEY for the wives and SURELY that is not a WEIRD explanation because there is no DIFFERENCE between the feminine and the masculine usage of terms in the Quran...:) It was not ALWAYS the case that Hammad committed mistakes from Qatadah, otherwise all the narrations of Hammad from Qatadah would be termed as weak. The following are some examples of accepted narrations: Taken from Sahih Ibn Hibban: حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن قتادة عن أنس بن مالك أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم كان يقول : ( اللهم إني أعوذ بك من علم لا ينفع وعمل لا يرفع وقلب لا يخشع وقول لا يسمع ) قال شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم أخبرنا الفضل بن الحباب قال : حدثنا موسى بن إسماعيل قال : حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن قتادة عن أنس بن مالك أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم كان يقول : ( اللهم إني أعوذ بك من البرص والجنون والجذام وسيء الأسقام ) قال شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم - أخبرنا أبو خليفة قال : حدثنا أبو الوليد الطيالسي قال : حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن قتادة عن ابن سيرين عن صفية بنت الحارث عن عائشة عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : ( لا يقبل الله صلاة حائض إلا بخمار ) قال شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده حسن قال : حدثنا حماد بن سلمة قال : حدثنا قتادة و ثابت و حميد عن أنس : أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم كان يصلي فيهم فجاء رجل وقد حفزه النفس فقال : الحمد لله حمدا كثيرا طيبا مباركا فيه فلما قضى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم صلاته قال : ( أيكم المتكلم بالكلمات ) ؟ فأرم القوم فقال : ( أيكم المتكلم بالكلمات ؟ فإنه لم يقل بأسا ) ؟ فقال الرجل : أنا يا رسول الله جئت وقد حفزني النفس فقلتهن فقال : ( لقد رأيت اثني عشر ملكا ابتدرها أيهم يرفعها ) قال شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم أخبرنا أبو خليفة قال : حدثنا داود بن شبيب قال : حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن قتادة و ثابت و حميد عن أنس أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم و أبا بكر و عمر و عثمان رضوان الله عليهم كانوا يفتتحون القراءة بـ : { الحمد لله رب العالمين } قال شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح أخبرنا عبد الله بن قطحبة قال : حدثنا محمد بن معمر قال : حدثنا روح بن عبادة قال : حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن قتادة و ثابت و حميد عن أنس عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم : أنهم كانوا يسمعون منه في الظهر النغمة ب : { سبح اسم ربك الأعلى } و { هل أتاك حديث الغاشية } قال شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح أخبرنا أبو يعلى حدثنا كامل بن طلحة الجحدري قال : حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن قتادة عن أنس أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : ( اعتدلوا في السجود ولا يكون أحدكم باسطا ذراعيه كالكلب ) قال شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح So on what basis can you claim that the mistake was committed by Hammad while knowing that this may not be true? The reality is that Hammad was charged with mistakes while Ikrimah was charged with lies so therefore it is more plausible to consider that the falsehood may have come from the LIAR and not from some one who is innocent of lies… And as for your hint that Qatadah practised tadlees...Then in that case I would remind you again, that there many narrations of Qatadah from Ikrimah which are acceptable and therefore may be taken as CONNECTED in the same way as the narrations of al-Amash (mudalis) with the “an” found in Sahih al-Bukhari are taken as connected from Abu Saleh al-Saman. Al-Amash has reported about 13 narrations from Abu Saleh al-Saman and his narrations are generally taken as connected because he has widely narrated from him. The following chains/reports (amongst many) show that Ikrimah has widely reported from al-Qatadah so please do some justice like Imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyah, the original: (1) Ikrimah from al-Qatadah: (The narration under discussion) (2) حدثنا موسى بن إسماعيل قال أخبرنا همام عن قتادة عن عكرمة قال : صليت خلف شيخ في مكة فكبر ثنتين وعشرين تكبيرة فقلت لابن عباس إنه أحمق فقال ثكلتك إمك سنة أبي القاسم صلى الله عليه و سلم (3)أخبرنا أبو بكر بن إسحاق الفقيه أنبأ هشام بن علي السدوسي ثنا سهل بن بكار ثنا هشام بن عبد الله قال وأخبرنا الحسين بن محمد بن زياد ثنا محمد بن يسار ومحمد بن المثنى قالا ثنا معاذ بن هشام حدثني أبي عن قتادة عن عكرمة عن بن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال أتعجبون أن يكون الخلة لإبراهيم والكلام لموسى والرؤية لمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم (4)واخرج عبد الرزاق الصنعاني في (مصنفه): عن قتادة عن عكرمة والحسن، قالا في هذه الاية (يا ايها الذين آمنوا اذا قمتم الى الصلاة فاغسلوا وجوهكم وايديكم الى المرافق وامسحوا برؤوسكم وارجلكم الى الكعبين)، قالا: ((نمسح الرجلين)). (5)وروى الإمام أحمد بسنده قال: حدثنا حجاج حدثني شعبة عن قتادة عن عكرمة أنه قال لما نزلت هذه الآية إنا فتحنا لك فتحا مبينا ليغفر لك الله ما تقدم من ذنبك وما تأخر ثم يقول قال أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هنيئا مريئا لك يا رسول الله فما لنا فنزلت هذه الآية ليدخل المؤمنين والمؤمنات جنات تجري من تحتها الأنهار خالدين فيها ... (6) وقتادة. وعن عكرمة، وطاوس: { فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ مَرَضٌ } يعني: الرياء... (7) قوله : ( باب إخراج المتشبهين بالنساء من البيوت ) كذا للأكثر ، وللنسفي " باب إخراجهم " وكذا عند الإسماعيلي وأبي نعيم . قوله : ( حدثنا هشام ) هو الدستوائي ( عن يحيى ) هو ابن أبي كثير ، وأخرجه أبو داود الطيالسي في مسنده عن شعبة وهشام جميعا عن قتادة عن عكرمة ، وكأن أبا داود حمل رواية هشام على رواية شعبة فإن رواية شعبة عن قتادة هي باللفظ المذكور في الباب الذي قبله ، ورواية هشام عن يحيى هي بهذا اللفظ الذي في هذا الباب... (Fath al-Bari). (8) قال أبو عبد الله البخاري في كتاب الحج، باب 145: 1758 و 1759 - حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو النُّعْمَانِ حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادٌ عَنْ أَيُّوبَ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ أَنَّ أَهْلَ الْمَدِينَةِ سَأَلُوا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ - رضى الله عنهما - عَنِ امْرَأَةٍ طَافَتْ ثُمَّ حَاضَتْ ، قَالَ لَهُمْ تَنْفِرُ . قَالُوا لاَ نَأْخُذُ بِقَوْلِكَ وَنَدَعَ قَوْلَ زَيْدٍ . قَالَ إِذَا قَدِمْتُمُ الْمَدِينَةَ فَسَلُوا . فَقَدِمُوا الْمَدِينَةَ فَسَأَلُوا ، فَكَانَ فِيمَنْ سَأَلُوا أُمُّ سُلَيْمٍ ، فَذَكَرَتْ حَدِيثَ صَفِيَّةَ . رَوَاهُ خَالِدٌ وَقَتَادَةُ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ (9) قال الإمامُ أحمد، في المسند: 28189 - حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ وَرَوْحٌ الْمَعْنَى قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدٌ عَنْ قَتَادَةَ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ أَنَّهُ كَانَ بَيْنَ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ وَزِيدِ بْنِ ثَابِتٍ فِي الْمَرْأَةِ تَحِيضُ بَعْدَ مَا تَطُوفُ بِالْبَيْتِ يَوْمَ النَّحْرِ مُقَاوَلَةٌ فِى ذَلِكَ فَقَالَ زَيْدٌ لاَ تَنْفِرُ حَتَّى يَكُونَ آخِرُ عَهْدِهَا بِالْبَيْتِ . وَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ إِذَا طَافَتْ يَوْمَ النَّحْرِ وَحَلَّتْ لِزَوْجِهَا نَفَرَتْ إِنْ شَاءَتْ وَلاَ تَنْتَظِرُ . فَقَالَتِ الأَنْصَارُ يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ إِنَّكَ إِذَا خَالَفْتَ زَيْداً لَمْ نُتَابِعْكَ . فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ سَلُوا أُمَّ سُلَيْمٍ . فَسَأَلُوهَا عَنْ ذَلِكَ فَأَخْبَرَتْ أَنَّ صَفِيَّةَ بِنْتَ حُيَىِّ بْنِ أَخْطَبَ أَصَابَهَا ذَلِكَ فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ الْخَيْبَةُ لَكِ حَبَسْتِينَا . فَذُكِرَ ذَلِكَ لِرَسُولِ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فَأَمَرَهَا أَنْ تَنْفِرَ . وَأَخْبَرَتْ أُمُّ سُلَيْمٍ أَنَّهَا لَقِيَتْ ذَلِكَ فَأَمَرَهَا رَسُولُ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنْ تَنْفِرَ . { 6/ 431 } تحفة 18323 معتلى 12688 (10) حدَّثنا عبّاد بن العوَّام قال: حدّثنا سعيد، عن قتادة، عن عكرمة، عن ابن عباس قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: منْ بدَّل دينه فاقتلوه) (النسائي رقم (4062). I said: You say: Yes his words were: "This was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet.'' If that was not a lie then why did you say: ?Are you not going against the wording: "Soley for the wives" ? And does such a term not EXCLUDED others from the ayah? Yes that is because certain ayahs are left open to explanation but the interpretation of Ikrimah noty only violates the rules of grammar but also excludes others from the ayah, look what Ikrimah said: "Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet , I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.'' Yes a mere statement may not be a lie but on the contrary a lie could also be a mere statement... :) Hello! I Pls gaze upon what I mentioned...I stated that Anas bin Malik forgot to say Ahlul-Bayt...not Asalaam Alaikum! I can understand if TWO different reporters narrate something with an increase or decrease but when that happens with the one single narrator that is when his accuracy falls into question! When I said: You said: : When scholars say insha'Allah after a verdict such as reliable or trustworthy... not only do they they make an indirect reference to the the "doubt" linked to an individual's reliablity...but also indicate that their decision is based upon HOPE that their verdict is correct and that only the FUTURE will actually decide the true OUTCOME. For instance such a thing was said by Ibn Sa'd with regards to Atiyah al-Awfi...and we know how much criticism has been stated against him...so no wonder ibn Sa'd said : "Thiqa Insha'Allah" I'll give you a way to prove me wrong: Provide me a single example of an "undisputed" narrator who has been mentioned as "Thiqa insha'Allah" like Atiyah al-Awfi... If you can, then I accept my defeat but if you cannott then ponder over my explanation again...:) Quoting me: Yes but scholars like Shaykh Muqbil and many others, believe that such jarh is also CONSIDERED as JARH MUFFASAR... and therefore, since you stated it...That means that the Majority of the Salafi scholars are ILLOGICAL... And that is exactly what we have been tryin to inform you for years... You say: Get your facts right...Out if the list you provided there was no other scholar besides Ibn abd al-Bar...the rest of what was quoted was TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT and misinterpreted... Yes adding unto the list is ridiculous! Hello! The majority of Salafi scholars subscribe to the view of Shaykh Muqbil...(The accusation of lying is Jarh Muffasar according to them)... If certain rules are STRAIGHT FORWARD like the mathematics in the sense of 1+1+1 =3 = Hasan-Ghairihi... then there should be no problem in applying them...:) Besides, the rule that jarh takes precedence over ta'dil is also straight forward like the basics of maths so why set that aside? Ikrimah, there is both Tadil and Jarh (of high level = liar) for him....and since according to the MAJORITY of the Salafi scholars, the accusation of lying is JARH EXPLAINED and that it takes PRIOTY over praise, then that is what should be applied...So please, either apply the rule or go teach the Salafis scholars the basics of science of hadith....:) wasalaam

Asalaam Alaikum. With the exception of the Messenger of Alllah (pbuh&hf) the Holy Imams are indeed greater than the rest of the Prophets of In Islam, hence they were reserved for a greater post than the general Prophethood... Imam Ali (as) grew up in the nature of the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hf) and attained the "muhammadi" characteristics...Show me one Prophet who resembled the Messenger more than Imam Ali? Imam Ali gained the knowledge of the whole Quran through the Messenger of Allah (pbuh&hf)...Show me one Prophet who had the knowledge of the Quran which in turn contains the knowledge of all the divine books, so that I can compare that specific Prophet to Imam Ali (as)... The list just goes on and the couple of examples shown should be enough to convince an open mind of the reality of the the Holy Imams... [

Asalaam Aalaikum: Still waiting for a response... (I know you are AVOIDING this matter): You said to Mujahidah: I said: What a [Edited Out]! These means we might as well reject all the JARH on any person believing that Imams of JARH may have gone against their own verdicts BEFORE their death! The truth is that IKRIMA is a liar, since you dont accept UNEXPLAINED jarh....How about the example that I gave you BEFORE which SUPPORTS that IKRIMAH attributes LIES upon IBN ABBAS: The Messenger if Allah said: "I saw my Lord in image of beardless (man), with long curly hair in a green garden" To which YOU STATED: .And then I said: This is a lame excuse! It cannot be justified...Whether the Prophet (s) saw Allah in a dream or in reality...is a different case all-togther...what we are DISPUTING first is the description of Allah, a BEARDLESS MAN, WITH CURLY HAIR WANDERING ABOUT IN A GREEN GARDEN... Is it not weird that Allah commands his Prophets, the believers to keep a beard and yet Allah refrains from keeping one himself and further contradicts his own command:"Why do you say that which yourselves not act upon? " You found this matter HARD to refute, hence you said: "This is not relevant" But I say: Why is it not relevant? IS it because it proves Ikrimah to be a LIAR who attributes lies to ibn Abbas or it just does not fit in with your argument of the JARH BEING EXPLAINED? So>>>??? I want you to discuss it, we know it is RELEVANT...SO DO YOU...BUT SINCE YOU WILL END UP CUTTING YOUR OWN FEET, YOU WANT TO IGNORE IT! The narration where Ikrimah claims that the ayah Tatheer was revealed SOLELY for the wives... Then Iam afraid that you have unconciously SHOT your own foot and on the contrary have proven that what was stated by the Liar was in fact a LIE, by you admitting: That is probably because Prophet was included in Ahlul Bayt, that is why the the masculine gender was used. (talking about 33:33) So therefore this adds more weight to the "proof" that Ikirmah used to FABRICATE narrations in the name of Ibn Abbas and so it was said that the SON of ibn Abbas used to beat Ikrimah for attributing lies upon his father... -------------------- I have previously shown you some glaring defects in the narrations of Anas bin Malik where he tries to introuduce the wives as the Ahlul-Bayt....And here comes another defect: بلى = its is an adverb, why stretch its meaning to "why not" when it simply can mean "YES"? Have a look at the following ayah's: Yes! (بلى )Whosoever earns evil and his sin has surrounded him, they are dwellers of the Fire (i.e. Hell); they will dwell therein forever. (muhsin khan) 2:81 Yes, (بلى ) but whoever submits his face (himself) to Allah (i.e. follows Allah's Religion of Islamic Monotheism) and he is a Muhsin then his reward is with his Lord (Allah), on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (muhsin) 2:112 Now translate the narration: "... Yes! Inshallah..." I have NOT come across a single statement of "insha'Allah, whteher in the Quran or an authentic narration, where its usage has been implied to relate to action which has "ALREADY" taken place...but rather ALWAYS implied to an action still OUTSTANDING... That is exactly what the Quran teaches us, to say "Insha'Allah" PRIOR to doing something and not after it! Hence, under such a view, according to the narration of Ibn Taymiyyah, that would mean that YES the wives will be included amongst the Ahlul-Bayt but when Allah Wills... (futuristic) So the message that is derived from it (the narration) is that the ones mentioned in the verse 33:33 cannot be the wives..because their decision is still PENDING (Insha'Allah! lol) ---------------- Double standards! And a lame excuse, all based upon conjrectures....which accroding to the Quran do not avail against the reality! Yes but scholars like Shaykh Muqbil and many others, believe that such jarh is also CONSIDERED as JARH MUFFASAR... and therefore, since you stated it...That means that the Majority of the Salafi scholars are ILLOGICAL... And that is exactly what we have been tryin to inform you for years... I can agree with you that at times the scholars can make mistakes in authenticating or falsifying certain narrators...but that is what you scholars need to understand... Ok principle accepted again but please apply this to the rafidah who have been accused wrongly too... :) We dont and you do? if we are wrong then Albaani is wrong too... Nothing was irrelevant, its just that you cant find a way out of it and thus you blame us for not knowing what we are saying...And ive seen your points, like the following: May I ask you! When we already have an authentic (sahih) report then why do we need a WEAK shawahid (witness) to SUPPORT the matn/text of the SAHIH report? Consider this example: Suppose I "TRUST" Sister Mujahidah in whatever she says while believing that she is a TRUTHFUL person, then why would I need your SUPPORT (considering you are weak in my vision) as a BACKUP in what the Sister states? Should she not be "sufficient" as an evidence? Yes in this case we have multiple scholar/reports but what is COMMON is their statement that "Ikrimah is a Liar" (ibn Umar, Ali bin Abbas, Ibn Saeed, Ibn Sirin, etc) So is on this basis, we are saying that when you combine all the the reports that convey the same "common" message, even if weak....that results to Hasan li-Ghayrihi... Why do such routes need to go back to ONE PERSON in order for the weak reports to become Hasan li-Ghairihi? Why cant we have a different routes of A_B_C_and_D being combined together for the strength that is lacking in them in order for them to result into Hasan li-Ghairhi.? ponder over it pls... AS regards your quotes regarding Ikrimah, then I say: They are mostly talking about his virtue in being knowledgeable... I say that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (not you) was more knowledgeable than me...yet we know that he has deliberately lied against the Shia... Hence just because someone is knowledgebale that does not mean that he or she cannot lie, deviate from Islam etc, .... Secondly there are specific narrations that support the fact the Ikrimah used to fabricate in the name of Ibn Abbas, hence the JARH against him becomes established and explained..so therefore, according to your scholars: Muqbil bin Haadee: And al-Jarh al-Mufassar is like when someone says, "He errs", "he has errors", "munkar ul-hadeeth", "kadhdhaab", "matrook" All of this is Jarh Mufassar. Similarly, "Da'eef Jiddan". So the likes of this Jarh Mufassar is given precedence over ta'deel." (Ijaabat us-Saa'il Alaa Ahammil-Masaail p.497, Dar ul-Hadeeth, Dammaaj) wasalaam

Nice one Mujahidah! Keep up your struggle going against the innovators....May Allah reward you in multiple folds... Ibn Taymiyyah, I said: Let me ask you, if the verse was revealed ONLY for the wives, then how would cover the issue of masculine gender in the word "Ankum" and after that? With regards to the statement: Just like the angel used the same 'ankum' while referring to the wife of Hz Ibrahim [Quran 11:73] You have twisted the meaning of the Quran to fit your desires and to save your innovation...The truth is that "ankum" was reffered to the family (Father, mother and sons) Look at the following (muhsin Khan) translation: They said: "Do you wonder at the Decree of Allah? The Mercy of Allah and His Blessings be on you, O the family [of Ibrahim (Abraham)]. Surely, He (Allah) is All-Praiseworthy, All-Glorious." (69) And verily, there came Our messengers to Ibrahim (Abraham) with glad tidings... (71) .But We gave her glad tidings of Ishaq (Isaac), and after Ishaq, of Ya'qub (Jacob). (74) Then when the fear had gone away from (the mind of) Ibrahim (Abraham), and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with Us (Our messengers) for the people of Lut (Lot). The glad tidings were for BOTH the Father and the Mother, so why would Allah leave out Ibrahim (as) from the mercy and blessings of Allah? I had a look at the version of al-Bukhari, it said: The Prophet left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, "Peace and Allah's Mercy be on you, O the people of the house!" She replied, "Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too. How did you find your wife? Its quite WEIRD that the Prophet (s) to refered to a SINGLE wife, as "O People of the House" Could it be that there were others there at her house? Or is that the ones who invented the narration like that, had not done a pretty good job? Besides: Narration 3330 of Sahih Muslim, Anas bin Malik forgets to say AHLLUL-BAYT... "I also followed him, and he began to visit the apartments of his wives greeting them (with the words): As-Salamu 'alaikum, and they would say: Allah's Messenger, how did you find your family (hadrat Zainab)?.." Then what about Asalaam Alaikum? Kum (masculine) Well according to the narrtion narration 3334 of Sahih Muslim: (No mention of Salaam.) And I also walked along with him until he reached the door of the apartment of 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her). He then thought that they (those who had been sitting there after meal) had gone away. Why are they contradictory? Especially when such reports are being handed down from the same Sahabi/Companion? (I let you guess!) The following is how the Salaams are conveyed correctly: As-Salāmu `Alayk(a) —Peace be upon you (m. sing.) As-Salāmu `Alayk(i) —Peace be upon you (f. sing) As-Salāmu `Alayk(uma) —Peace be upon you (to two people of any gender) As-Salāmu `Alayk(unna) —Peace be upon you (f. plural - to three or more females only) As-Salāmu `Alayk(um)—Peace be upon you (To a group of three or more people, where at least one is a male) And what! The Prophet (s) talks to ONE wife as if he is talking to a group of THREE or more people, where atleast ONE is a male? Then who was that male? (Could it be that her relatives (father and brother ) were present? If not then please dont PROTRAY the Holy Prophet as someone who does not know the how to apply the GRAMMER of Arabic! Another narration: (This one talks of the wives being part of the Ahlul-Bayt) When she said : He forbade us (here she isa talking of a group) the members of his family [Ahlal Bayt] and NOT just herself! One more narration: (al-Bukhari) Close inspection upon the narration reveals that term "FAMILY" that the Holy Prophet (s) used was to refer to his other members of family too, both the general and the specific...ponder over the following words: and people have blamed a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my family except with me,” Since the Prophet (s) used the term "Family" in relation to the affair of his wife, H. Aisha...Does that mean that the person referred to in the narration (Safwan bin Al-Mu'attil As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani ) used to visit the H.Aisha but with the Prophet (as) ? Why was there a need for him to visit her? That shows that the intended meaning of the family was not just meant for his wife.... Us beings could be blamed for anything...we are not immune from mistakes and ignorance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You said to Mujahidah: What a [Edited Out]! These means we might as well reject all the JARH on any person believing that Imams of JARH may have gone against their own verdicts BEFORE their death! The truth is that IKRIMA is a liar, since you dont accept UNEXPLAINED jarh....How about the example that I gave you BEFORE which SUPPORTS that IKRIMAH attributes LIES upon IBN ABBAS: The Messenger if Allah said: "I saw my Lord in image of beardless (man), with long curly hair in a green garden" To which YOU STATED: T And then I said: This is a lame excuse! It cannot be justified...Whether the Prophet (s) saw Allah in a dream or in reality...is a different case all-togther...what we are DISPUTING first is the description of Allah, a BEARDLESS MAN, WITH CURLY HAIR WANDERING ABOUT IN A GREEN GARDEN... Is it not weird that Allah commands his Prophets, the believers to keep a beard and yet Allah refrains from keeping one himself and further contradicts his own command:"Why do you say that which yourselves not act upon? " You found this matter HARD to refute, hence you said: "This is not relevant" But I say: Why is it not relevant? IS it because it proves Ikrimah to be a LIAR who attributes lies to ibn Abbas or it just does not fit in with your argument of the JARH BEING EXPLAINED? Give me a good answer for this and then I'll quote you more narrations from him that prove that he was a liar and therefore what the Imams have stated about him is TRUE! wasalaam.

Asalaam alaikum With the exception of Ibn al-Bar....It is not proven that the rest had the same view...What your missing out on is the context... the scholars disregarded some of the explained or detailed criticism in favor of other evidence...and NOT whether the term: "He is a liar" is their view was considered Muffasar or Mubham What I was looking for were explicit statements like your scholar, Muqbil bin Haadee: And al-Jarh al-Mufassar is like when someone says, "He errs", "he has errors", "munkar ul-hadeeth", "kadhdhaab", "matrook" All of this is Jarh Mufassar. Similarly, "Da'eef Jiddan". So the likes of this Jarh Mufassar is given precedence over ta'deel." (Ijaabat us-Saa'il Alaa Ahammil-Masaail p.497, Dar ul-Hadeeth, Dammaaj) And check the following out too please: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f44/principles-jarh-wal-tadil-%D0%C8-8868/ Before I reach my conclusion do you ADMIT that you have gone against the quite a large body of your Salafi scholars, by agreeing that the statements like "fulan is a liar" are not considered as JARH EXPLAINED? (muffsar) unless ESTABLISHED EXAMPLES are put forward that prove that so and so is a LIAR? So if in your vision, the verdicts that so and so is weak and so and so is a liar do not carry weight UNLESS proven otherwise then how can you defend Ikrimah on the basis of REJECTING those narrations which include such narrators whose "faults" have not been proven...since the verdicts against them are of a general nature? For instance, look what you stated: Yes, when the salafis dont have a good defence, they start mixing the facts with falsehood.... The ISSUE of Shawahid cannot be ruled out! May I ask you! When we already have an authentic (sahih) report then why do we need a WEAK shawahid (witness) to SUPPORT the matn/text of the SAHIH report? Consider this example: Suppose I "TRUST" Sister Mujahidah in whatever she says while believing that she is a TRUTHFUL person, then why would I need your SUPPORT (considering you are weak in my vision) as a BACKUP in what the Sister states? Should she not be "sufficient" as an evidence? Yes in this case we have multiple scholar/reports but what is COMMON is their statement that "Ikrimah is a Liar" (ibn Umar, Ali bin Abbas, Ibn Saeed, Ibn Sirin, etc) So is on this basis, we are saying that when you combine all the the reports that convey the same "common" message, even if weak....that results to Hasan li-Ghayrihi... Why do such routes need to go back to ONE PERSON in order for the weak reports to become Hasan li-Ghairihi? Why cant we have a different routes of A_B_C_and_D being combined together for the strength that is lacking in them in order for them to result into Hasan li-Ghairhi.? with regard to the narration: ((And the worst of the rows of the men are the last ones...)) Abu Abdul-Waahid Nadir Ahmad records: commenting on this Hadeeth in as-Silsilah as-Saheehah 5/608, al-Albaanee mentions the following points in summary: a) All the Ahaadeeth indicating that this is the cause for the narration have weakness in them as Ibn Katheer has stated in the explanation of the Surat al-Hijr verse 24, however, combined they strengthen each other and can be used as evidence. So they can be accepted as the reason for the revelation of this verse. The Shaykh, Ayman bin khaled, at: www.ahlalhdeeth.com, had the following to say: May Allah bestows his mercy on shaikh a l-albani (رحمه الله) BUT he was known of being lenient in authenticating hadeeths based on shawahid in general. Check out the commentary of Ibn Khathir, there are different routes for the narration in view...Hence would you mind teaching your scholars the science of hadith before you teach us? Remind me of BUSH praising the Muslims in America and killing them in Irag and Afghanistan! The rest is covered by Mujahidah....

Sister Zainabia (Mujahidah): To add weight to the narration of Sa'id ibn Musayyib, here is another one: Úä ÚÈÏ ÇáßÑíã ÇáÌÒÑí Úä ÚßÑãÉ Ãäå ßÑå ßÑÇÁ ÇáÃÑÖ ÝÐßÑÊ Ðáß áÓÚíÏ ÝÞÇá ßÐÈ ÚßÑãÉ ÓãÚÊ ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ íÞæá Åä ÃãËá ãÇ ÃäÊã ÕÇäÚæä ÇÓÊÆÌÇÑ ÇáÃÑÖ ÇáÈíÖÇÁ ÓäÉ ÈÓäÉ. ÓíÑ ÃÚáÇã ÇáäÈáÇÁ ááÍÇÝÙ ÇáÐåÈí Wasalaam