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


Basic Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hasanayn

  • Birthday 03/11/1992

Profile Information

  • Location
    Gainesville, FL
  • Religion
    Shia Muslim-Usooli

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. Salaams twoblade, I'm busy with university atm, but I will briefly try to make a few points. Firstly, I found Ibn Hisham's seerah online, and this is where I found that information. It's definitely there as I found it myself. I could provide you with the link if you want. With Tabari and Durr-al-Manthur, I found those from other sources. I'm at university right now away from home, so I unfortunately have to rely on online sources instead of having the actual books. By the way, you're right I just realized. Just because someone went to the battlefield and fought alongside the Prophet doesn't make them particularly noteworthy or deserving of a position as leader of the Muslims. Jihad is an obligation on every Muslim, so if Umar was on the battlefield fighting the Kuffar, good for him. Islam requires him to do so. Same with Imam Ali (as). Maybe the OP's question wasn't exactly productive. Even if Umar fought alongside the Prophet in a few battles, so what? Also, could you provide evidence of the fact that Umar conquered 4 of the forts at Khaybar? I've never heard or read that before. Addressing what you said regarding Imam Ali and tawattur, I'm not going to engage in that frivolous argument, because it's abundantly clear to me from your previous posts that you know for sure that Imam Ali (as) was brave. There's no need for me to prove it from Sunni books. If there's something wrong with my understanding of tawattur, I'd like to know, if you'd care to explain. As far as I understand, if the chains of narrations are separate and the narrators reliable, you have two separate hadiths narrating the same event. The more of those you have, the stronger the likelihood said event occurred. Finally, what you said regarding the Khawaarij and their hate of Imam Ali (as): even they were loyal followers of Imam Ali (as) in the very beginning, as I'm sure you know. They only left Imam Ali (as) after Siffeen, and it was for a very specific misunderstanding of theirs. Regarding what you've said about when Imam Ali (as) was hated, it was because his rival Mu'awiyah had seized power, and naturally there would be animosity between them. You're right it wasn't arbitrary; the hate you're referring to was purely politically motivated and arose very much later on. But the preferential love of Imam Ali (as) still remains unjustified. It also existed way before the Khawaarij too, so you can't justify it as an extreme reactionary response to the hate. Tell me exactly what reason the Shi'a would have for loving Imam Ali (as) so much and preferring him over all others? It would have to be justified by something before his political encounters at Jamal and Siffeen, and within his lifetime. The only culprit here is his impeccable virtuosity. Nothing else. Wassalaam, Hasanayn
  2. Hey Placid, I had a question for you that maybe you might be able to answer, given that you proclaim Jesus (as) as the "Unique [and] Begotten Son of God". Some Christians I have encountered have said that the reason why Jesus (as) is ascribed the aforementioned epithet is that the word used for him in Greek is "monogenes" in a few places in the Bible, which comes from mono- meaning 'only' and -genes meaning 'begotten'. Hence, Jesus is the "only Begotten" of the father. However, I've come across alternative uses for the word monogenes. For instance, if you look at other Greek usage, Clement of Rome writes about the birth of the Phoenix with the following: "the phoenix is the only one born (monogenes) of its kind" (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 25). In other words, it seems as though "monogenes" can also be rendered as "uniquely born" Son of God. I don't understand why Christians are so adamant on translating "monogenes" as "only Begotten" instead of "uniquely born". The latter would make more sense, because there is no doubt that Jesus was uniquely born (Virgin Birth). But isn't the jump to "only Begotten" quite unwarranted? Take care and thanks in advance, Hasanayn
  3. Hey Son of Placid, Thanks for your input, and you're correct, context and exegesis are very important when reading scripture, whichever religion you may be studying. Thanks for pointing that out, I agree that the first point I made regarding that, about "you fool" was somewhat unsupported. The context is certainly important, but you wouldn't think an infallible (let alone God as some of your trinitarian comrades believe) would say to not call others 'word x' and then call others 'word x' himself now, would you? Regardless, I will accept that this is perhaps an unfair stretch of scripture. I think your argument is unconvincing though, because of the fact that if you look at Matthew 5:23 and its context, you will see that Jesus is not referring to chronic name-callers, running around calling others fools. Rather, he's referring to even the slightest contempt one may have for another as unacceptable ("Raca" is the least powerful word for contempt in Aramaic). If he has contempt for the Pharisee preachers, then does that not in turn implicate him? Nonetheless, I digress; you may have a fair point that I stretched it. The problem with what you said about him speaking like that to his mother is that his character is NOT impeccable or "peerless," as those who claim Jesus is God would have us believe. In addition, "honoring" your mother would be in the least doing what she asks without even the slightest disdain or grumble, let alone doing extra on top of what she requests. If Jesus had said "obey" your mother and father, then you would be correct, because Jesus did obey his mother, albeit disdainfully. But "honoring" is very different from simply "obeying". By extension, then, the Biblical Jesus was not of "peerless" character. Oh and by the way, comparing me to the Biblical Jesus is a bit too far man, I acknowledge he's a million times better than me :P. But for God incarnate, that type of behavior is a bit out of line don't you think? I know you're non-trinitarian, but my argument is addressed to the more mainstream Christian. Oh and your last critical point of my scriptural analysis was a misunderstanding of what I wrote/a speculation about how my argument could be perceived. Perhaps this was my fault, because I didn't provide any more context to the verse. But yes you are correct, he was addressing the Pharisees, and saying that all the ones he had encountered were thieves and robbers. He was NOT disparaging his friends (i.e. the Prophets before him), but rather his enemies; nonetheless, my point I was making there still stands. He says to bless your enemies not curse them, but then he goes on to curse them, calling them thieves and robbers! Addressing your point about Paul, firstly, we should judge what is said not the speaker. You're making an ad-hominem attack on Maccoby that is, quite frankly, a cop-out. Even if my opinion of him is not so hot, that doesn't mean I have to disagree with everything he writes/says. He's a Biblical scholar for crying out loud, he's got the qualifications and has devoted his life to exegesis. I read his book and found it very well-supported, piecing together a lot of apparent incongruities throughout the Bible. That's just my speel on Maccoby. Regarding Paul, I never said that he made Jesus into God, I only said that it was AFTER his perverted influences that Christians came to believe such a thing about Jesus. I know Paul believed that Jesus was not God, but he set up Jesus as the ultimate savior who could wipe away all the sins of humanity in one fell swoop, regardless of works (an idea he probably derived from his Hellenistic background). Making Jesus the Ultimate Redeemer like that would no doubt inspire Christians to view him as God. Plus, when he corrupts scripture with such things as the following, there is no doubt at all that such misunderstandings as the deity of Christ will creep into Christianity: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," (Colossians 2:9) "While we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Note: I know these are two separate entities, but it's not perceived as such!), 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." (Titus 2:13-14) Anyway, therein lies the problem. By making such strange statements, Paul made it easier for the trinitarian Christian to justify his/her current beliefs. This is just a mere portion of how he twisted Christianity after Jesus. But my point was that only after Paul corrupted the Bible with his new "revolutionary" ideas did it become feasible for Christians to believe in the deity of Christ. Take care, Hasanayn
  4. Salaams, I wrote this piece a while ago while debating some evangelist Christians. Frankly, I don't see ANY scriptural evidence that vindicates Jesus as God at all. This is a concoction that has crept into Christianity under the Roman pagan influences. Leslie, you speak of Paul as if he were some sort of Saint. The truth is that he was the biggest corrupter of Christianity on the face of the Earth. He was the greatest enemy of the Pharisees, and only claimed that he had been "divinely-inspired" after he lost his position with the High Priest of the Saducees. He knew he could make money by twisting scripture; there is no doubt at all that this notion of the "divinity of Christ" only crept in after his perverted influences. He was an expert in Hellenistic religion, gnosticism, and mythology, and brought what he knew of it into Christianity. He was also hardly at good terms with contemporary Christians. If you want to see the REAL Paul, check out this book, written by a Biblical scholar: http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0062505858 . I can give you a brief synopsis if you want more information. Paul is NOT the saint you think he is. He is no doubt an example of a scholar who twists God's word for personal gain; the Qur'an refers to such people as follows: Woe unto those who write down with their own hands [what they claim is] divine writ, and then say: “This is from God,” in order to acquire by it a trifling gain; woe, then, unto them for what their hands have written, and woe unto them for all that they may have gained. (2:79). Anyway, here is my argument for why there is NO Proof at all in the Bible for Jesus' divinity. It's long though, so sit tight: You stated on many occasions that Jesus is the Son of God/God, and we will now go through to disprove each of his attributes that to you necessitate his being God: Jesus was born of a virgin without the “aid” of a father. Objection: What about Adam, who had neither father nor mother? Or Melchizedek, the high priest, who didn’t have neither, as well as no beginning nor end (refer to Hebrews 7:3)? Why aren’t they considered God/from the trinity?! Jesus raised the dead. Objection: Many others raised the dead before Jesus: Then he [Elijah] stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!" The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived. (1Kings 17:21-22). As well, a dead man who was lowered into a grave and touched the bones of Elisha came back to life (2 Kings 13:21). Jesus had a “peerless” character. Objection: Far from it. The Jesus of the Bible had no such thing. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus states: But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. However, in Matthew 23:17, Jesus states, You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?. Indeed, a man who does not heed his own advice cannot be called one of peerless character; rather, he may be called a hypocrite. In Matthew 15:4, he tells the people to 'Honor your father and mother' and also that 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. However, he violates his own maxim in John 2:4, saying, “Woman, what does that have to do with us?” (NASB) and in Luke 14:26, saying “"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”. An individual that gives conflicting and contradictory statements is surely not infallible. While we Muslims hold Jesus as an infallible, it's clear that his character as portrayed in the Bible is flawed. In Matthew 5:44, Jesus orders people to love their enemies and bless them that curse them, but in John 10:8 he alleged, “All that came before me are thieves and robbers”. Clearly, the Jesus of the Bible practiced one thing and preached another. Enough said. Jesus rose from the dead. Objection: Firstly, Jesus was not the first to be resurrected. Many others that lived before him, contemporaneously, and after were also brought back to life. Numerous examples can be cited, so the verses shall just be listed: 1 Kings 17:21-22 (Elijah resurrected a child), 1 Samuels 28: 7-15 (Samuel raised by Saul’s medium), 2 Kings 4:32-35 (Elisha raised dead son of Shunammite), 2 Kings 13:21 (bones of Elisha touch dead man to resurrect the latter), Luke 9:28-30 (Moses and Elijah come back at the Transfiguration), Matthew 9:18-25 (Jairus’s daughter is resurrected), Acts 9:36-41 (Peter raises Tabitha), Acts 20:9-10 (Paul raises Eutychus). Thus emerging from the dead isn’t unprecedented. If you remain obstinate, claiming that Jesus arose out of his own will, while others were raised through others and by the will of God (especially 2 Kings 13:21), then keep in mind that Jesus also arose due to God’s will: You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this (Acts 3:15). [Note: don’t presuppose the trinity when we mention this. We are addressing the divinity of Jesus, and thus doing so is circular reasoning.]. Jesus ascended to Heaven. Objection: Elijah also rose to heaven in a fiery chariot (2 Kings 2:11); surely this is a spectacular feat. Why is he not considered divine? Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament Objection: His being prophesized does not necessitate his being God. The word “messiah” is a Hebrew word which means “God’s anointed”. The Jews thought of their kings as “messiahs” in the sense that God had figuratively anointed them. The whole concept of Messiah was Jewish, applied to a national deliverer whom they presumed that, with divine assistance, would save them from the oppression by the Gentiles. It did not bring with it the concept of Divinity. Even so, there is much contention over this idea. According to the prophecy, the messiah must be an actual physical descendant of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3, Psalms 132:11, Acts 2:30, 2 Timothy 2:8, 2 Samuel 7:12-13). The physical chain back to David from Joseph in both genealogies (Matthew 1 and Luke 3 [side note: they are contradictory]) was broken because Joseph was not Jesus’ physical father. Therefore, Jesus could not claim messiahship. The virgin birth does not allow the physical connection between Jesus and David. He is referred to as “Son of God”. Objection: It is funny how you Christians see this term as proof of Jesus’ being God, when it is used throughout the Bible to apply to various people. In Matthew 5, in the famous sermon of the Mount, Jesus states “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God”. Surely, these “sons of God” are not so in the same sense as Jesus is. Why?! Another example may be cited: Genesis 6:2, where men are referred to as sons of god. Indeed this is interpreted in a more abstract way: since we are all from God’s creation, we are his metaphorical “sons”. But why is an exception made for Jesus? Why is he God incarnate? What necessitates this exception? The refutations of these reasons make it clear that Jesus was not God incarnate. To finalize this, one may take a look at Genesis 6:3 (Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."). Thus, Jesus could never be the “temple of the spirit”, because God would never enter a man. Obviously the presupposition that Jesus is a god-man is hereby crushed, by this verse and the objections preceding it. Now, although one may contend that there are verses in which Jesus is equated with God by others (But so is the Devil in 2 Corinthians 4:4. Does that make it true?!!), all the verses that indicate his supposed proclamation of being God can be interpreted in another way. Verses such as John 10:30 (I and My Father are One), John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God), John 1:14 (And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us), John 14:9 (He that hath seen me hath seen the Father), John 17:22, Colossians 2:9, etc. can be interpreted to mean that Jesus and God were one in purpose, not in essence. Obviously, this would lie in greater conformity with other Bible verses asserting his not being God or God’s equal, such as Matthew 19:17 [Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God], John 5:30 [i seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me], John 6:38 [i came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me], John 14:28 [My Father is greater than I], John 7:16, 1 Peter 3:22, Matthew 27:46, etc.. It would also conform to verses that assert God’s unity, such as Deuteronomy 4:35 (The Lord he is God; there is none else beside him), Deuteronomy 4:39 (The Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else), Isaiah 45:6 (There is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else), 1 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 7:22, etc. Also remember to take into account Genesis 6:3 that God would never abide in man or the flesh. In short, there is no need to subscribe to such ridiculous notions as the Trinity or Jesus being the “God-Incarnate”, ideas as ridiculous as a square circle, that contradict pure logic and scripture, as my brother and I have so often tried to inculcate in you during our discussions (logical points include: a son cannot be the same age as his father, Mary would be at the same time Jesus’ daughter, sister, and mother, imperfection and perfection cannot be housed in the same body, the list goes on and on). If you cannot understand this purely reasonable argument, that is sound and lacks contradiction, I don’t know what to tell you. Jehovah’s Witnesses, although you claim that they are “NOT CHRISTIAN” seem to be better in conformity with the facts. Perhaps you think that since I am not Christian, I lack any type of understanding of your religion. I assure you, my goal is not to convert you; rather, it is for you to see theology for what it really is: A beautiful, logical, perfect science that lacks any nonsense which asserts complete impossibilities. In realizing this, you will come to the realization that only God can save us humans from our own sins, not any normal human being, such as Jesus (see Hosea 13:4: Thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no savior beside me). MY FINAL STATEMENT: WHY BELIEVE THESE RIDICULOUS TRINITARIAN BELIEFS, THAT YOU CANNOT EVEN COMPREHEND, WHEN AN ALTERNATIVE THAT BETTER CONFORMS TO YOUR HOLY BIBLE AND LOGIC IS PRESENT?!!!! Wassalaam, Hasanayn
  5. Salaams twoblade, I'm new on this forum, but I saw that you posted several of Umar's feats after being challenged to do so. It seems that no one has made any effort to present any sort of critique of your points. The problem is that your own Sunni sources speak against your points. Here is what you said and a counterargument in each case: - Umar participated in Badr, killed his own uncle during the fight for the sake of the Prophet, and his entire clan was afraid to join the Quraysh as he sided with the Prophet. Firstly, it seemed as though Umar very much wanted to kill his clansmen. Here's part of a long hadith from Bukhari: "...The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said to Abu Bakr and 'Umar (Allah be pleased with them): What is your opinion about these captives? Abu Bakr said: They are our kith and kin. I think you should release them after getting from them a ransom. This will be a source of strength to us against the infidels. It is quite possible that Allah may guide them to Islam. Then the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: What is your opinion. Ibn Khattab? He said: Messenger of Allah. I do not hold the same opinion as Abu Bakr. I am of the opinion that you should hand them over to us so that we may cut off their heads. Hand over 'Aqil to 'Ali that he may cut off his head, and hand over such and such relative to me that I may but off his head..." (Bukhari, Book 19, Hadith 4360) Also, the claim that his *entire* clan was afraid of joining the Quraysh is preposterous. As you can see above, at the Battle of Badr, he is demanding he be given his relative (hint: a member of the Banu Adi) so that he can behead him. It is clear that his tribe had no qualms in siding with the Kuffar. On another note, this could hardly imply Umar's bravery. At most, you could say that his high status in his tribe may have caused some members of the Banu Adi to falter. But this isn't indicative of bravery in the least. Here's another part of a hadith from Bukhari that seems to implicate Umar as 1) talking back to the Prophet and 2) Weeping after being told the Badr warriors have been ordained Paradise: "The Prophet said, "Habib has told you the truth, so do not say to him (anything) but good." 'Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "Verily he has betrayed Allah, His Apostle, and the believers! Allow me to chop his neck off!" The Prophet said, "O 'Umar! What do you know; perhaps Allah looked upon the Badr warriors and said, 'Do whatever you like, for I have ordained that you will be in Paradise.'" On that 'Umar wept and said, "Allah and His Apostle know best." (Bukhari, Book 8, Volume 74, Hadith 276) - Umar participated in Uhud and was one of those who stayed. It's hard to believe that this is true, especially since Suyyuti writes in Dur al-Manthur 'Umar said that on the day of 'Uhud, the Muslims fled for their lives from the field of battle, and that he himself fled and climbed a hill, jumping from place to place like a mountain goat' (Volume 2, Page 88) This is reinforced by Muhammad Husayn Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad", which states: "...when somebody raised the cry that Muhammad was killed, chaos reigned supreme, Muslim morale plunged to the bottom and Muslim soldiers fought sporadically and purposelessly. This chaos was responsible for their killing of Husayl ibn Jabir Abu Hudhayfah by mistake, as everyone sought to save his own skin by taking flight except such men as Ali ibn Abu Talib whom God had guided and protected. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, 1935, Cairo)" Even at-Tabari writes that Umar fled the battlefield when he heard the rumor that the Prophet (pbuhahf) had been martyred (Volume 3, page 19-20). I could provide more references of how clear it is that Umar was NOT one of those who stayed, but I think the above suffice. - Umar fought with the Prophet against the Jews of Banu Nadir. The known hypocrite Abdullah ibn 'Ubayy also fought the Jews of Banu Nadir alongside Umar. Are we then to say that this hypocrite is distinguished by his bravery, just as Umar?! This is a minor point, if one at all. - Umar held his own post in Khandaq as assigned by the Prophet, and he defended the post (marked even today) missing his salaah I have found nothing to discount this assertion. You are correct that Umar did participate in this battles. But I have found no hadith asserting his bravery in the battlefield during this war. Many, if not all, adult male Muslims participated in battles; this hardly implies their bravery, especially when they are seen to run away whenever the tide turns against them. Thus when we read from Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari, who writes in his Sahih, Volume II, printed in Egypt, 1320 A.H., page 100, and Muslim Bin Hujjaj, who writes in his Sahih, Volume II, printed in Egypt, 1320 A.H., page 324, that "Caliph Umar fled from the battlefield on two occasions," we understand that this so-called "bravery" of Umar is hardly noteworthy in comparison to his contemporaries. On the other hand, Imam Ali (as) stood out in Khandaq, destroying Amr ibn Abd Wudd while all the other Muslims were too afraid to challenge him. This is recorded in your own books as well. - Umar loaned a horse to fight prior to Hudaybiyah and was part of the pact. 'Umar "the coward" is the only one noted to have requested the Prophet that he allow the Muslims to march against the Kufar without fearing the consequences. It's funny you should say that, because Ibn Hisham writes that when the Prophet requested Umar to go to Makkah on the day of Hudaybiyyah in order to garner some information about the Quraysh, he flatly refused, instead recommending that Uthman go to accomplish the task (Volume 3, page 363). How's that for courage?! - Umar was present at Khyber and part of the army when the Prophet (saw) himself was leading and took the majority of their forts. And he was the leader of the army for two days of fighting against the two remaining forts (that he didn't win). I'm sure you know too that Umar, after continuously being beaten by the enemies, came back to the Prophet with no victories, and accused his army of cowardice. In turn, they accused him of being the coward! Now tell me, it's Umar's testimony here versus that of an army of Muslims. (Tabari, Volume 3, page 94). Who do you think is the real coward? All the Muslims, or Umar? - Umar was present at Fath Mecca Yes, it is very brave of Umar to march with an army of 10000 strong to capture Makkah. Surely, he is a grand warrior (sarcasm). - Umar was present for Hunain and he's numbered amongst the handful that stayed with the Prophet Not so. This is a hadith from Bukhari: Ibn Qutada narrates: When it was the day of (the battle of) Hunain, I saw a Muslim man fighting with one of the pagans and another pagan was hiding himself behind the Muslim in order to kill him. So I hurried towards the pagan who was hiding behind the Muslim to kill him, and he raised his hand to hit me but I hit his hand and cut it off. That man got hold of me and pressed me so hard that I was afraid (that I would die), then he knelt down and his grip became loose and I pushed him and killed him. The Muslims (excepting the Prophet and some of his companions) started fleeing and I too, fled with them. Suddenly I met 'Umar bin Al-Khattab amongst the people (who were fleeing) and I asked him, "What is wrong with the people?" He said, "It is the order of Allah" As you can see, Ibn Qutada is running away from the battlefield and encounters Umar on the way. If Umar was actually one of those who remained, why is he not at the battle lines? Not only that, but Umar is defending the fleeing of the Muslims by saying that it is the "will of Allah". He should be saying shame on us for being cowards, but instead he tries to excuse his disgusting behavior! Is this the type of man you think is brave? Now about what you have said regarding Imam Ali: there is VERY little likelihood of any mythology surrounding his bravery. The incidents of his valor are universally recognized in both Shi'a and Sunni books. In hadith terminology, there is a concept called mutawattir, which I am sure you are familiar with. When different chains of reporters (isnaads) are narrating the same thing again and again, the possibility of forgery becomes smaller and smaller. The narrations regarding the valor of Imam Ali (as) are too numerous to enumerate=VERY small likelihood of fabrication. Furthermore, your theory of fabrication about Imam Ali (as) makes no sense. The "Imamis" as you call them would have little reason to love Imam Ali (as) and prefer him over all others in the first place if he didn't stand out from the other companions in bravery, character, and knowledge. Why do you think the Shia love Imam Ali (as) so much? Do you think it was just an arbitrary decision? No, it couldn't be. The fact is that the number of hadith expounding the virtues of Imam Ali are practically limitless. There is no doubt at all that he was superior to all other companions. I do not doubt that some lies have crept in about Imam Ali (as) as a result of Ghulat sects and their fabrications (look at what they did with fabrications like Surah Wilayah and Noorayn). This is inevitable, and even in Sunni books, there is an influx of lies promulgated by the Umayyads and their goons. Nothing you can do about that. But don't try to downplay the Imams and make it seem like they were just run-of-the-mill types. There's just way too much evidence piled against you. Wassalaam, Hasanayn
  6. Salaams Mahdi Usman, You'll have to forgive me, I'm new here, so I hope I haven't offended you in any way. My take-home message to Sunnis there was that the Ahlul-Bayt are the best role models, not the Sahaba. Regardless let us address your contention. You stated the following: "if u say governer of kufa was corrupt,and hazrat usman appointed him,so we can not call hazrat usman rightly guided. then during the time of hazrat ali governer appointed by him to azarbijan was also corrupt. " You are going to have to be more specific in order for me to understand what you're implying. If by "corrupt [man]" you mean Ash'ath ibn Qays, Imam Ali NEVER appointed him to be governor of Azerbaijan. In fact, here is a Sermon from Nahjul Balagha where Imam Ali calls Ash'ath a hypocrite, liar, and traitor. You can read the whole sermon here http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/19.htm, I just wanted to post the relevant part: Amir al-mu'minin was delivering a lecture from the pulpit of (the mosque of) Kufah when al-Ash`ath ibn Qays (1) objected and said, "O' Amir al-mu'minin this thing is not in your favour but against you." (2) Amir al-mu'minin looked at him with anger and said: How do you know what is for me and what is against me? ! Curse of Allah and others be on you. You are a weaver and son of a weaver. You are the son of an unbeliever and yourself a hypocrite. You were arrested once by the Unbelievers and once by the Muslims, but your wealth and birth could not save you from either. The man who contrives for his own people to be put to sword and invites death and destruction for them does deserve that the near ones should hate him and the remote ones should not trust him. In fact, Ash'ath ibn Qays was again appointed to be the governor of Azerbaijan by none other than the "rightly-guided" Khalifa Uthman. Here's proof from this site (http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam01_ali/biography_of_imam_ali/063.htm): Some reports of misdemeanor came about al-Ash`ath ibn Qays, who was the governor of Azerbaijan since the times of `Uthman. After the Battle of the Camel, `Ali (a.s) wrote to him, “You are the treasurer of all the funds of Allah that are in your trust until you hand them over to me!” al-Ash`ath understood that he was about to be dismissed. He gathered whatever amounts he could and told some of his friends about `Ali’s letter and that he intended to go under the protection of Mu`awiyah. As you can see, as soon as Imam Ali heard of this evil man's misconduct, he relieved him of his position. No infallible would allow a hypocrite to be their vicegerent to the Muslim ummah. You are gravely misinformed to think that Imam Ali would ever do such a thing. On the other hand, it is in fact Uthman again who is the culprit of placing the corrupt Ash'ath ibn Qays into power. Please don't play games Mahdi Usman. The truth is clear. Imam Ali (a.s.) never allowed the corrupt ones to rule as his representatives. It has always been the usurpers of his Wilayah that have placed the imbeciles in charge of the Muslims. Do you think the one about whom the following verse was revealed would do such a thing??? Your ally is none but Allah and [therefore] His Messenger and those who have believed - those who establish prayer and give zakah, while they bow [in worship]. (Surah Maidah: 55) Please Mahdi Usman, this is scripture we are talking about. Uthman appointed into power the very ones that Allah (swt) called faasiqs as the rulers of the Muslims. Are you going to go on defending him?!!! On the contrary, you try to brand Imam Ali (as) of the same crime! I request you dear friend, please don't follow the Sahaba blindly like this, defending their crimes against Islam when they are clearly shown to you. The above analysis was only from the Qur'an and your own books! Wassalaam, Hasanayn
  7. Salaams all, I've recently been having some debates with Sunnis, and I have alhamdulillah found a way to disprove their viewpoint on the Sahaba using only the Qur'an and their own sources. I thought I should share so that insha'Allah everyone may benefit. From my dialogue, I ascertained that practically all Sunnis believe in the doctrine that the companions of the Prophet were the best people on earth. Of course, we Shi'a know that this is far from the truth. There are good apples and bad apples in every generation, and it is quite presumptuous to assume that the first generation of Muslims was any different. Many Sunnis however jump to the conclusion that since these early Muslims faced intense opposition and stuck with their faith, they are the best. But there are many examples of Muslims sticking with the faith throughout the world, regardless of their oppression. In fact, if one were to subscribe to the Sunni way of thinking, one could even argue that these aforementioned Muslims are better, because they remain steadfast in their religion even when they don't have the luxury of being with the Prophet physically. Indeed, there is a hadith that states: Yahya related to me from Malik from al-Ala ibn Abd ar-Rahman from his father from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went to the burial grounds and said, "Peace be upon you, home of a people who believe! We shall be among you, Allah willing. I wish that I had seen our brothers!" The people with him said, "Messenger of Allah! Are we not your brothers?" "No," he said, "You are my companions. Our brothers are those who have not yet come. And I will precede them to the Hawd. (Malik- 2.6.29) Here, we will try to prove through use of the Qur'an and Sunni sources that some of the supposed "companions" of the Prophet were actually quite evil. Throughout the course of this discussion, we will use the Sunni definition of companion--that anyone who saw the Prophet is one of his Sahaba. To start, we use this verse of the Qur'an: "O ye who believe! When an evil-doer comes to you with news then verify it, lest you injure a people in ignorance, and then regret what you have done later." (Hujraat: 6) According to Al-Wahidi's (a Sunni scholar) Asbaab an-Nuzul: "This verse were revealed about al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘ayt. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, sent him to collect the poor-due from Banu’l-Mustaliq. However, there was an old enmity between him and them in the pre-Islamic period. When these people heard of his coming, they came out to receive him out of reverence for Allah, exalted is He, and His Messenger. But he was scared of them and the devil whispered to him that they wanted to kill him. He returned halfway and went to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, saying: “Banu’l-Mustaliq have refused to pay the poor-due and wanted to kill me”. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, became angry and was about to attack them. Meanwhile, when Banu’l-Mustaliq realised that the emissary had gone back, they went to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, and said: “We heard of your emissary and we went out to receive him, honour him and give him that which was due upon us of the right of Allah, exalted is He. But your emissary went back and we feared that what sent him back might be a message he received from you because you are angry with us. And we seek refuge in Allah from His wrath and from the wrath of His Messenger”. The Qur'an appropriately describes him as a faasiq (evil-doer), but as you can see, Wahidi tries to make it look like Walid only made a mistake since Shaitan tempted him. In other words, a Sunni may try to defend Walid by stating that he only committed a mistake and repented later. However, the Qur'an has described this man as a faasiq, someone who lives for the sake of evil. Now we must ask: was Allah's description of Walid temporally limited (i.e. was it only for the given situation that Walid was an evil-doer?)? The answer, according to the Qur'an, is a resounding no. Here's another verse: "The word never changes with me, and I am not in the least unjust to my slaves" (Surah Qaf: 29) Decisively, then, we can say that when the Qur'an described Walid as a faasiq, it was describing his fitraa (nature). He was evil through and through, otherwise Allah would not have described him as such. Indeed, we can see from history that this statement in the Qur'an remained true till the end of Walid's life. When he was appointed governor of Kufa by Uthman, he led the Fajr prayers in the mosque while drunk! Not only that, but several Sahaba were praying behind him! Who, in their right minds, would pray behind someone that the Qur'an has addressed as a faasiq? Then again, who would appoint such a person as the governor of Kufa? Obviously, this can only be the work of the third "rightly-guided" Khalifa. Now then, it is clear that just because someone was a companion of our beloved Prophet, it does not mean that he is of the highest caliber in faith. A Sunni may object to this however. They might state the following, for instance: "The Prophet would only surround himself with the best of people, being that he is the Messenger of God. He would be way more selective regarding whom he is seen with because these people have a direct bearing on his public image." A simple objection to this simple-minded argument can be garnered from the Qur'an however: "And among them, [O Muhammad], are those who listen to you, until when they depart from you, they say to those who were given knowledge, "What has he said just now?" Those are the ones of whom Allah has sealed over their hearts and who have followed their [own] desires." (Surah Muhammad: 16) These people who are referred to in this verse would, according to the Sunni definition, qualify as companions of the Prophet. Nonetheless, Allah has described them as those whose hearts are sealed and those who follow their own desires. Furthermore, the Qur'an is telling the Prophet that this is what some of his so-called companions do. The Prophet doesn't know, but Allah is telling him that he has hypocrites among his companions. The Qur'an is crystal clear! Here is another verse from the same Surah: "And if We willed, We could show them to you, and you would know them by their mark; but you will surely know them by the tone of [their] speech. And Allah knows your deeds." (Surah Muhammad: 30) Now, I ask you Sunnis, who speaks to the Prophet except those who are obviously around him (his Sahaba)? It is manifest here that the Prophet did not know the evil ones among his companions, except by their tone. Who, then, are those who speak in the aforementioned tone? We can't say for sure, but we know for certain who said concerning the Prophet, "The old man is delirious. The Qur'an is enough for us." In conclusion, then, the Qur'an testifies against this impeccable view of the Sahaba. There must be a differentiation made for Sunnis between the good Sahaba and the corrupt ones. With the Ahlul Bayt, though, one can never go wrong. They have been thoroughly purified by Allah, and one will never find even one speck of corruption in their hearts: "Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification." (Surah Ahzaab: 33) It is time for the Sunnis to see that by following the Sahaba blindly, they are following haq (truth) mixed with baatil (falsehood). It is only through following the Prophet's progeny that they can hope to follow the absolute truth: "And say, "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart."" (Surah Isra: 81) Sadaqallahul-Allee-ul-Adheem Wassalaam, Hasanayn
  8. Assalamu Alaykum everyone, I had a few inquiries on infallibility of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) that have been bothering me. A few verses from different surahs I've been studying seem to indicate that he really did have sins. I know I'm wrong, but I want to understand why these verses say what they say. These are a couple that really stand out to me: Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory, that Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path (Surah Fath: 1-2) So know (O Muhammad) that there is no Allah save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest. (Surah Muhammad: 19) I know there's an ambiguous pronoun here of "you". "You" could refer to Prophet Muhammad (saw), or to the believers as a whole. It doesn't seem like context really helps to determine who is the subject in these cases, because there are lots of pronoun shifts in the Qur'an that don't exactly flow from the verse before (take, for instance Surah Fath: 9-10). My question is, is there any way to prove that the subject in these cases are the believers rather than the Prophet? The commentary of Mahdi Pooya on these types of verses had a bit too much rhetoric I thought. The substance of his argument seemed to be that the Prophet was, according to Surah Najm, "two bows closer or nearer still," and according to Surah Qalam, "of an exalted stature". Such a being could not have been so close to Allah had he disobeyed him ever. The problem I'm having with his argument though is that Allah grants favor to whomsoever he wills, and bestows his forgiveness on those who believe (look at how great a status Abu Dhar has for instance). Is there any possibility at all that the Prophet may have committed unwilled offences? Isn't there a verse in Surah Najm that says: Those who avoid enormities of sin and abominations, save the unwilled offences - (for them) lo! thy Lord is of vast mercy. He is Best Aware of you (from the time) when He created you from the earth, and when ye were hidden in the bellies of your mothers. Therefor ascribe not purity unto yourselves. He is Best Aware of him who wardeth off (evil). (53:32) Those are my questions concerning Prophet Muhammad's infallibility. I want to understand how one can reconcile these verses from what we know from the ahadith. Also, I do have a question relating to the infallibility of the Prophets as a whole. There's a verse in Surah Yusuf: He (Yusuf) said, "My Lord, prison is more to my liking than that to which they invite me. And if You do not avert from me their plan, I might incline toward them and [thus] be of the ignorant." (12:33) How could Prophet Yusuf (as), as a Prophet of Allah, incline towards the polytheists? I'd like some elaboration on this verse as well, insha'Allah. Thanks in advance, Wassalaam
  9. Wa'alaykum Salam,

    Sorry, but I've kind of stopped using ShiaChat. At the moment, I'm a bit preoccupied in university. If there's any question you have though, feel free to ask it here and I'll be glad to help. I can see that you messaged several other brothers, and perhaps they'll be able to help you as well. May God guide you to the truth wherever it may be.


  • Create New...