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

Student

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

785 profile views

Student's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

1

Reputation

  1. [Pooya/Ali Commentary 24:11] The particular incident referred to here occurred on the return from the defensive expedition of the Bani Mustaliq in 5-6 Hijra. At one of the halts, A-isha, the Holy Prophet's wife, ... ... Ali ibn abi Talib knew that it was an obvious lie (as said in verse 12), concocted to hurt the Holy Prophet, so he asked Burayrah, the maid of A-isha, to tell the mischief-makers the truth about her mistress. On Burayrah's report the scandal was diffused. http://al-islam.org/quran/ ****************** "Basically, the Ahadith regarding this incident in which Ayesha was wrongfully accused of immodesty is narrated by all Muslims in the same manner. Shi'ah scholars are more emphatic, however, that the wives of the Holy Prophet (S) were all chaste women. ..." http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/Aali...k/msg00665.html ******************* Allamah Tabatabayee in Al-Mizan: æ åÐå ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ áÇ ÊÎáæ ãä äÙÑ: ÃãÇ ÃæáÇ: ÝáÃä ãÇ ÝíåÇ ãä ÇáÞÕÉ áÇ íÞÈá ÇáÇäØÈÇÞ Úáì ÇáÂíÇÊ "and these narrations (that say the verses are about Maria) are not flawless, Firstly because the story they are telling does not fit with these verses ... http://www.holyquran.net/cgi-bin/almizan.p...p;sp=5&sv=0
  2. Not sure if this is relevant but this is (as far as I know) the only official Zaidi Shia website on the net and it contains a number of very interesting and informative online books (in Arabic): http://www.izbacf.org/ Student
  3. http://www.al-islam.org/gracious/5.htm (see the last paragraph before the references) As you see, the same website provides you with different information. The one you mentioned says: "The Shia Muslims disagree. They assert that Zainab, Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom were not the daughters of Muhammad and Khadija" Firstly the very same website proves this is a false statement (the URL above). Second, you for sure know that this is not correct, i.e. it is not THE Shia Muslims who say that, your friends themselves agreed in this forum that there is no consensus about it. The above quote also means Kulayni, Sadooq, Tabarsi, Majlesi and almost all of the classical Shia scholars were not Shia Muslims! As you see the author of the book were too secterian to appreciate this is not THE belief of Shia. We can keep quoting from ordinary Shia writers and contemporary Shia scholars. However a research oriented approach is to get the knowledge from its origin. I gave you not only Ahadith but statement from gurus of Shia of old time. Those who have delivered the knowledge of Shia to the scholars of our time. I repeat my question, how many Shia scholars of the old times in the level of MAjlesi, Kulayni and Sadooq you know who believe those were not the Prophet's daughters? Student
  4. If I wanted to avoid a question I would not invite you to PM me. Did you say baseless? This is very interesting. So far the only person who has posted in this thread with references (from your own sources) was me. I expect nothing from you. That's why I am not asking why no one makes any comments about those references I quoted in Arabic from Shia sources. This was not my assertion and I am sorry that you have not realised this yet, and to my understanding the event of Mubahala is not even remotely related to this subject. Oh yes I have :) If you want to know it, you know what to do ;) Student
  5. I am not here to debate. and I do not get excited with the usual phrase of "no one ever answered this, let's see if you can". I don't know, maybe it's about age, but I simply find it useless to spend time in discussion boards. I did not make any claim at all. I never said what was my opinion. I merely quoted from Shia sources and from respected Shia scholars like Kulayni, Sadooq and Majlesi. You do not realise that you are arguing with your own scholars rather than me :) In any case, if any of you two (Contra or Capricorn) is really interested to hear my views then he can PM me and I will let him know with pleasure, why I think his arguments (the above two posts) are totally irrelevant to the subject and I will also answer that irrelevant question about Mubahala. Answering the above in the discussion board only means choosing between a never ending debate or accusation of escaping from debate once I stop posting. Regards Student
  6. In a quick search on internet, I found these (note I don't know how reliable are these websites, I am only reporting them): Zainab: http://anwary-islam.com/women/daughters-zaynab.htm This was the elder sister, she was not amrried to Uthman (ra). She had two children from his husband (Abu As) who had embraced Islam. Her son Ali passed away at the Prophet's life time. According to this website, her daughter Amma married Ali (ra) after dismiss of Fatima (ra) and by the recommendation of Fatima (ra). I remember reading this in Shia sources as well. After Ali (ra) she married Muqayra ibn Nofel. Ruqayya: http://anwary-islam.com/women/daughters-ruqayyah.htm It says she had a son from Uthman but he passed away when he was 6. Unfortunetaly the link to biography of Umme Kulthoom's does not work on this website. I also found this: http://esaj.net/daughters.html According to the above link, Umme Kulthoom did not have any children from Uthman (ra). Student
  7. right now I don't have time to look for this in the sources available to me, but out of my memory I am pretty much sure that no child were born to Uthman through these wives. As for Manaqib, again out of memory I have read about them protecting the Prophet of harms during his hard time in Macca (in their own limitted capacity as kids). I remember reading one of them demanding devorce from his pagan husband, but again no time to double check these. In any case, they are no where near Fatima (ra) in terms of Manaqib. As for your comment about being Sahabi or son in law of the Prophet per se not being a criterion for salvation I totally agree with this. As I said in my realier post, to me, this is merely a historical discussion. It is however interesting to see how some Shia Muslims find it difficult (not from historical aspect but from religious aspect) to accept Uthman being son in law of the Prophet. One of my Shia friends who agreed (based on records in both Shia and Sunni books) that Uthman was son in law of the Prophet used, to say: "to me this was always a puzzle, not only once but twice such a person (!) becomes the Prophet's son in law". Student
  8. I really don't think I need to answer any questions. I merely quoted from Shia most respected and reliable scholars. I wish they were alive and you could ask them. I wish you could quote a single statement from a Shia scholar of the time of Sadooq and Toosi and with the same caliber, who had endorsed your view. As for lack of mentioning relationship, I really cannot see what you are referring to. Relationship with Utman has been mentioned in many sources, including Nahjolbalaqah (as I quoted). The Prophet is not the only person in history who had a special treatment and relationship with only one of his children and no one denies the status of Fatima (ra). It's just sad to see that because some Shia brothers and sisters cannot tolerate Uthman being a son in law of the Prophet twice, they just take an easy road by denying the whole thing (just as they deny the marraige of Umar with Umme Kolthum). Please please do not copy and paste from AA, I have read it! Student
  9. there is a misunderstanding. In support of the idea that the Prophet only had 1 daughter you only provided that foot note. Read my last post again please. Student
  10. You referred me to a footnote of a translator in a website. I provided you with statements and Ahadith from some of the most popular Shia scholars of old times. Those who were closer to facts and had easier access to sources of information. Those who were in fact the pillars of delivering Shia knowledge to the later generations. Now if I ask you to provide me with some Ahadith and statements from classical Shia scholars of the same caliber (not a contomparary Shia Hujjatol Islam) explicitly saying that the Prophet had no more than one daughter, how many do you think you could find? Student
  11. The foot note to me is secterian because I am familiar with the translation of Nahjolbalaqa and its typical footnotes as provided in al-islam.org and I try to see a bigger picture. Does the foot note give even one of those references from the most famous Shia scholars in support of the argument that the Prophet (pbuh) had more than 1 daughter? No! What it does is that it make it appear as if this is THE Shia belief. This to me is a secterian approach. In fact, a sub-secterian approach. And it is not 'full of historical facts'. You said: "shias(many if not all) believes that prophet had only one biological daughter." The above is not that true. Many Shia do not say this. However, what is important is to see what Shia scholars say and as far as I know, almost all of the classic Shia scholars and many current Shia scholars do believe that the Prophet had more than 1 child. You said the door of research is open in 12er Shia. I certainly hope that your fellow Shia friends in this website show an attitude that is inline with this. Student
  12. This is for brother or sister Coloreal. Firstly I am not trying to prove anything about superiority of Uthman (ra) or to attempt to (God forbidden) challenge the status of Fatima (ra). This is purely a historical discussion. Brother La Ilah Ill Allah provided you with a very clear verse of the Quran and people justified the verse and changed its obvious meaning. I presented you with a clear evidence from Nahjolbalaqa and you referred me to a very secterian and proof-less foot note of a translator in the al-islam.org. In my last post I said not all Shia scholars agree that those girls did NOT belong to the Prophet (pbuh). Have a look: اولاد خديجة من النبي (ص ) : روى الصفار بسنده عن الامام الباقر (ع ) قال : ولد لرسول اللّه (ص )من خديجة : القاسم والطاهر , وام كلثوم , ورقية , وزينب وفاطمة ((642)) . وروى الصدوق بسنده عن الصادق (ع ) قال : ولد لرسول اللّه (ص )من خديجة : القاسم والطاهر ـ وهو عبداللّه ـ وام كلثوم , ورقية , وزينب وفاطمة ((643)) . وقـال الـكـليني : ولد له منها قبل مبعثه : القاسم , ورقية , وزينب وام كلثوم , وولد له بعد المبعث : الـطـيـب والـطـاهر وفاطمة وروى ايضا : ا ن ه لم يولد بعد المبعث الا فاطمة (ع ) , وان الطيب والطاهر ولدا قبل مبعثه ((644)) . وقـال الـشيخ الطبرسي : فاول ما حملت ولدت عبد اللّه بن محمد وهوالطيب ((الطاهر)) والناس يغلطون فيقولون : ولد له منها اربعة بنين القاسم وعبد اللّه والطيب والطاهر , وانما ولد له منها ابنان , الـثـانـي : الـقـاسـم , وقـيـل :ان القاسم اكبر , وهو بكره , وبه كان يكنى واربع بنات : زينب ورقية وام كلثوم وفاطمة ((645)) . وقال ابن شهر آشوب : اولاده : وله من خديجة : القاسم وعبد اللّه ,وهما الطاهر والطيب , واربع بنات : زينب ورقية وام كلثوم وفاطمة وفي (الانوار) , و(الكشف ) , و(اللمع ) , وكتاب البلاذري : ان زيـنب ورقية كانتاربيبتيه من جحش فاما القاسم والطيب فماتا بمكة صغيرين , مكث القاسم سبع ليال ((646)) . وروى المجلسي عن الكازروني عن ابن عباس قال : اول من ولدلرسول اللّه بمكة قبل النبوة القاسم وبه كان يكنى , ثم ولد له زينب , ثم رقية ,ثم فاطمة , ثم ام كلثوم , ثم ولد له في الاسلام عبد اللّه فـسـمي الطيب والطاهر وامهم جميعا خديجة بنت خويلد وكان اول من مات من ولده القـاسم ثم مات عـبداللّه بمكة , فقال العاص بن وائل السهمي قد انقطع ولده فهو ابتر , فانزل اللّه تعالى ( ان شانئك هو الابتر ) ((647)) . http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/maws...0014.htm#link72 All the above are Ahadith as well as statements by celebrity Shia scholars confirming that Omme Kulthoom and Ruqayya and Zainab were all direct daughters of the Prophet (pbuh). If you want English, see this quote from Kulayni (that is in fact translation of one of the above): He married khadija when he was twenty and some years old. From Khadija before receiving the Divine commands of his children biorn were al-Qasim, Ruqiyya, Zaynaband ’Umm Kulthum. Of his children born after he received Divine commands were al-Tayyib, al-Tahir and Fatima (a.s.). http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/lib/ It is up to you to decide who to trust, Kulayni, Majlesi, Sadooq and Tabarsi or the unknown translator of Nahjolbalaqa in al-islam.org. Also here you will find that even your fellow Shia brothers and sisters do not have a same opinion about this: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=49399 In fact, to my knowledge, it was only recently that Shia started arguing that the Prophet (pbuh) only had one daughter. I am sure they will be able to find some evidences of this in Shia texts but what I know is that typically the Shia scholars of old times believed that the Prophet had more than 1 daughter from Khadija (ra). All I am asking is that let us leave the door of research open for ourselves. Let us make sure our secterian bias does not blind our eyes. As Imam Ali says, "the one who leaves 'I don't know' will perish". Student
  13. My dear brother, I am well aware of the footnotes in al-islam.org, were sometimes translators attempt to change the obvoius meaning of some of the texts in Shia. Unfortunately in their secterian based attempt to change the meaning of the words, some time they insult the intelligence of Imam without noticing it. Please let me explain: 1. According to the footnote, these girls were daughters of Khadija and not the Prophet (pbuh). 2. In the sermon, Ali says to Uthman: "and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they (Abubakr and Umar) do not hold". 3. Abubakr and Umar are the Prophet's father in laws. Conclusion: According to Imam Ali, a Step-Father-In-Law is closer to one than a Father-In-Law. I don't know about you but I certainly think Imam Ali was far more intelligent than this. You might also like to know that even among Shia scholars, there is no agreement that these two girls were NOT belonging to the Prophet (pbuh). Student
  14. No argument is better than one that is based on explicit verses of the Quran, however: Nahjolbalaqa: Sermon 164: Ali says to Uthman: "You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were no more responsible for acting righteously than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold." http://al-islam.org/nahj/default.asp?url=164.htm Student
×
×
  • Create New...