Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Student

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Student

  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 wrongful
  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 K
  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 ;)
  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 le
  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. Ruq
  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
  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
  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 o
  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 b
  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
  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
  15. May God bless you sister and make all of us true followers of Ahl Albayt, Elahi Ameen. In need of your prayers. Student
  16. Respected sister, Please do not try to make an issue from something simple. Topic? Who it is addressing? Look at my quote again, they are both there. Misquoting is a common habit among both Shia and Sunni professional debators. If I wanted to misquote I would not provide dots after the quote and would not give the URL for easy access. I did NOT try to spin something to any ones favour. I said at the beginning of the post "I have absolutely no intentions for any discussions. Just thought in a thread about attacking Persia in Shiachat it is a pity not to refer to Ali's words about this attack in
  17. Not really sure what you mean. As for specific times, I have written this in detail in post number 25. As for what happens in Iran, this has been explained by yourself and me in posts number 31, 56 and 57. Any other thing please PM me, as you see the more we post the more brothers/sisters come in intending to start all over again (like yourself :) ) and this will only make this thread less benefitial for others. Allow me not to post any more in this thread. In need of your prayers. Student
  18. Rest assured I have checked them before quoting them, does it at all occure to you that maybe I am quoting what I have been taught by Shia scholars? And don't you realise brother that what you are saying (reading them together being preferred) is opposed to the Fatwa of Shia Maraje? Did you not at all see the quotes I pasted? This is I think the third time I am posting this in this thread (and I think the 7th time in Shiachat) in a hope that some one actually notice it. Shia Encyclopedia: "... We are allowed to pray noon and afternoon prayer one after another (without a lot of delay between t
  19. Well, I did answer that specific question you asked me :) And I am a bit unsure about this "Ok Again no reply" thing. All you need to know, and answer to your arguments can be found in this very thread and in the one you referred to. It seems like to you, "I was not convinced by your replies" equals to "no replies". If this is the case then let me say that I have received "no replies" to any of my fundamental questions about Shia yet. Student
  20. Respected sister. This sermon consists of two parts and each of the two parts can be understood without the other part. The first part is Ali's comment about the war with Persia. The second part is about Ali's commment about whether Umar should attend the war in person. I only quoted the first part for two reasons: 1. This thread is not about Ali's view on Umar's participation in war. It is about the war itself. So I only quoted the relevant part and I cannot see how the second part could put the first part in a diffenet context. 2. The second part was about Umar. As you have quoted, al-islam
  21. Assalamo Alaykom sister, I am not back :) if by 'being back' you mean I am happy to start a debate. I therefore refrain from replying to your comparison of Taraweeh and combining prayers which to me is totally illogical. Please also note "Tarawih Article at AA is only a fun" is your own words, I never use such expressions in my arguments. I do know that one of your life missions is to criticise Umar (ra) for almost what ever he has done. I am developing a website and Insha'Allah if God gave me enough time to finish it before leaving this world I'll let you have the address where you will see
  22. Salam, I have absolutely no intentions for any discussions. Just thought in a thread about attacking Persia in Shiachat it is a pity not to refer to Ali's words about this attack in Nahjolbalaqah: Spoken when `Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-mu'minin about taking part in the battle of Persia. In this matter, victory or defeat is not dependent on the smallness or greatness of forces. It is Allah's religion which He has raised above all faiths, and His army which He has mobilised and extended, till it has reached the point where it stands now, and has arrived its present positions. We hol
  23. Dear brother, 1. Disagree. 2. Not sure what you mean. 3. If by 'Awwal Time' you mean 'Starting Time' I agree. If however you mean 'Preferred Time' I disagree. See post 25 where I am explaining the three times for each prayer according to Shia, following with Ahadith from Shia sources and also post 14 where I am quoting two online Fatwas/scholarly-comments from Shia sources. Azan is not compulsary, it is a call to peopel to invite them for prayer. In Iran, people are invited to prayer three times a day. That not-loud-voice Azan for Asr and Isha that you mentioned are only for the formalities a
  24. You are gentleman yourself. I editted my previous post to give you a more accurate address but you overtook me and quoted my original version of the post :) . You might like to check it out. Regards Wassalam
×
×
  • Create New...