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
Sign in to follow this  
toyibonline

Yazeed and his lovers are kafirs

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

There should not be any doubt about the fate of the cursed Yazid. Not only was he a kafir and destined for Hell, but those so-called Muslims who love Yazid or the lovers of Yazid are destined for Hell. In this lecture Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri makes his views clear on this issue coupled with complete references to back up these views.

He also clarifies the distortions and misrepresentations made by supporters of Yazid on the hadith of Qustuntanya. As the Prophet SAW said that those who take part in the battle of Qustuntanya will go to Jannah. Followers of Yazid say he took part in that battle so he should not be cursed as a 'jahanami' but should be praised as a 'jannati'. This claim is totally false because Yazid did not even take part in the battle of Qustuntanya. As he refused to go and take part in that battle, he was sent by his father as punishment, afterwards, to go and take part, but by that time the Muslim army had finished its job and had left Qustuntanya, so Yazid was not part of that army. This is also discussed in detail by Shaykh-ul-Islam among other major issues regarding the fate of Yazid and those who follow and praise him.

Those who follow or praise Yazid are known as Kharijis and Shaykh-ul-Islam explains a tradition of Sahih Bukhari in detail that refers to Kharijis and how the Prophet SAW described them to be empty of Iman.

http://www.minhaj.org/en.php?tid=3086

These are the words of a major Sunni scholar.

It shows us who the Salafis are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salafis are my brothers in Islam. I agree with their significant views on bidda and shirk (ie. intercession). It is a pure and universal form that attracts many non-Muslims to Islam. Subhan'Allah. Also, most of the new Muslim converts are the strongest supporters of some of the Salafi views on bidda and shirk (more so than born Muslims).

PS: Stop labelling anyone that doesn't agree with you as Salafi, when they are not.

Edited by Justice4all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salafis are my brothers in Islam. I agree with their significant views on bidda and shirk (ie. intercession). It is a pure and universal form that attracts many non-Muslims to Islam. Subhan'Allah. Also, most of the new Muslim converts are the strongest supporters of some of the Salafi views on bidda and shirk (more so than born Muslims).

PS: Stop labelling anyone that doesn't agree with you as Salafi, when they are not.

(bismillah)

Thats because their views are superficial and shallow and easy to understand and thats why most people get attracted to them. Otherwise in reality they have no depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salafis are my brothers in Islam. I agree with their significant views on bidda and shirk (ie. intercession). It is a pure and universal form that attracts many non-Muslims to Islam. Subhan'Allah. Also, most of the new Muslim converts are the strongest supporters of some of the Salafi views on bidda and shirk (more so than born Muslims).

PS: Stop labelling anyone that doesn't agree with you as Salafi, when they are not.

People like Zakir Naik and Ibn Taymiyyah and their followers are Salafis. Sunnis hate Yazeed (la). Salafis love him. I AM SURE YOU LOVE YAZEED (la).

Besides, which sect of Salafis are you talking about?

Even within Salafism, each group attacks the other, and declares the other to be kafir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no hatred and insults towards early Ahlul Bayt from the Salafis ,it's a pure lie .However,we can find Hatred towards Ahlul Bayt among the Rafida.

Do the Salafis call Jaafar the brother of Hasan al Askari ,the uncle of the so called hidden Mahdi,Al Kazab ,the liar ?

Or do they call Zayd Ibn Ali Zayn Al Abidin ,an hypocrit deviant ?

This is a clear Nasibism ! You will not find the equivalent in the Salafi environment ,the Salafis love all the early Ahlul Bayt.

To say that Ahlul Bayt are not infaillible is not Nasibism .

Salafis are reformers of Islam and after so many incredible inovations many of their criticism make sense .

And also we criticize them too ...criticism and counter criticism help us to evolve .

As any trend ,there are extremists and moderate among them....extremism whatever is its color is problematic.

Edited by Omar Khayyam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The history of Islam is littered with many scores of martyrdoms having their respective place in history but the worldwide fame and importance of martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) owes itself to the fact that those martyred were related with the Prophet of Islam (SAW) through bloodline. It is not merely the sacrifice of one individual but of many kith and kin of the Holy Prophet (SAW). The history cannot forget the epoch of Karbala, its details and importance at any stage.

The government of Yazid was established on the foundation that negated the principles set out for Islamic Caliphate. He tore apart the Islamic system of democracy and consultation and replaced it with the one characterized by dictatorship and state terrorism. No space was available for tolerance, peace, freedom of expression and dissent in the Yazidi system. It was a horrible period where mischief and disorder reigned supreme.

The struggles for freedom and self-determination, being waged anywhere, derive their inspiration from this gigantic struggle of Hussain (as). The poet has very rightly said:

Insan ko bedar to ho lanay do

Har qaum pukaray gi hamaray hain Hussain

(Let man awaken himself, every nation would say that Hussain is theirs.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no hatred and insults towards early Ahlul Bayt from the Salafis ,it's a pure lie .However,we can find Hatred towards Ahlul Bayt among the Rafida.

Do the Salafis call Jaafar the brother of Hasan al Askari ,the uncle of the so called hidden Mahdi,Al Kazab ,the liar ?

Or do they call Zayd Ibn Ali Zayn Al Abidin ,an hypocrit deviant ?

This is a clear Nasibism ! You will not find the equivalent in the Salafi environment ,the Salafis love all the early Ahlul Bayt.

To say that Ahlul Bayt are not infaillible is not Nasibism .

Salafis are reformers of Islam and after so many incredible inovations many of their criticism make sense .

And also we criticize them too ...criticism and counter criticism help us to evolve .

As any trend ,there are extremists and moderate among them....extremism whatever is its color is problematic.

(salam)

Brother, stop these lies!

There is no hatred and insults towards early Ahlul Bayt from the Salafis ,it's a pure lie .However,we can find Hatred towards Ahlul Bayt among the Rafida.

This is a meaningless statement. So, I am not going to give it any importance by replying to it. However, I ask you, if there is no hatred in these statements:

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 230:

æÚáí íÞÇÊá áíØÇÚ æíÊÕÑÝ Ýí ÇáäÝæÓ æÇáÃãæÇá ÝßíÝ íÌÚá åÐÇ ÞÊÇáÇ Úáì ÇáÏíä

“Ali fought to secure obedience and rule the people and money, so how can that be deemed as fighting for sake of religion?”

We read in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 205:

æÃãÇ ÅÓáÇã Úáí Ýåá íßæä ãÎÑÌÇ áå ãä ÇáßÝÑ Úáì Þæáíä

There are two opinions as to whether Ali's conversion to Islam released him from kufr or not"

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 172:

æÞÏ ÃäÒá Çááå ÊÚÇáì Ýí Úáì íÇ ÃíåÇ ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ áÇ ÊÞÑÈæÇ ÇáÕáÇÉ æÃäÊã ÓßÇÑì ÍÊì ÊÚáãæÇ ãÇ ÊÞæáæä áãÇ Õáì ÝÞÑÇ æÎáØæÇ

“Allah had revealed for Ali {O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter,} when he prayed and recited and then got mixed up.”

Ibn Taymiyyah above suggested that:

1. Imam Ali (as) was a drunkard

2. Imam Ali's (as) Islam was doubtful

3. Imam Ali (as) was a mass murderer

I guess these are the manifestations of love by the early Salafis, as you stated?!

Also, ALL your four Imams avoided Imam Ali (as) as part of that love. This is according to Ibn Taymiyyah himself:

None of the four imams nor the other of the jurists refer to him (Ali) in their jurisprudence. Verily if Malik's knowledge was obtained from the people of Madina, the people of Madina did not take Ali's statements. They took their jurisprudence from the seven jurists, Zaid, Umar, ibn Umar and so on.

Shafiyee obtained jurisprudence from the people of Makka, the companions of Ibn Juraij like Saeed bin Salem al-Qadah and Muslim bin khalid al-Zenji. Ibn Juraij obtained knowledge from the companions of Ibn Abbas, like Atta and others. Verily Ibn Abbas was an independent mujtahid. Whenever he gives fatwa, according to the Sahabas, he would give the fatwa of Abu Bakr and Umar, not Ali's. He disagreed with Ali on few things.

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 pages 529 - 530

Source: http://arabic.islamicweb.com/Books/taimiya...365&id=3833

Do the Salafis call Jaafar the brother of Hasan al Askari ,the uncle of the so called hidden Mahdi,Al Kazab ,the liar ?

No, they didn't. Rather, they called the entire Ahl al-Bayt (as) liars! Ibn Khaldun wrote:

æÔÐ Ãåá ÇáÈíÊ ÈãÐÇåÈ ÇÈÊÏÚæåÇ æÝÞå ÇäÝÑÏæÇ Èå æÈäæå Úáì ãÐåÈåã Ýí ÊäÇæá ÈÚÖ ÇáÕÍÇÈÉ ÈÇáÞÏÍ æÚáì Þæáåã ÈÚÕãÉ ÇáÃÆãÉ æÑÝÚ ÇáÎáÇÝ Úä ÃÞæÇáåã æåí ßáåÇ ÃÕæá æÇåíÉ æÔÐ ÈãËá Ðáß ÇáÎæÇÑÌ æáã íÍÊÝá ÇáÌãåæÑ ÈãÐÇåÈåã Èá ÃæÓÚæåÇ ÌÇäÈ ÇáÅäßÇÑ æÇáÞÏÍ ÝáÇ äÚÑÝ ÔíÆÇ ãä ãÐÇåÈåã æáÇ äÑæí ßÊÈåã æáÇ ÃËÑ áÔíÁ ãäåÇ ÅáÇ Ýí ãæÇØäåã ÝßÊÈ ÇáÔíÚÉ Ýá ÈáÇÏåã æÍíË ßÇäÊ ÏæáÊåã ÞÇÆãÉ Ýí ÇáãÛÑÈ æÇáãÔÑÞ æÇáíãä

"... and Ahlulbayt had deviated in religion and fiqh that they invented, and only they and their children follow it, by back stabbing the Sahabah. Yet they call themselves Infallibles to clarify their claim of this religious doctrine, just like the deviated Khawarij. The majority of our religion do not accept their doctrine, rather strongly denounce and reject it. We have nothing to do with their religion, nor do we narrate from their books. And there is no influence of them except on their own lands. Verily, the Shia books are only in their own lands that is the East, West and the Yemen."

Muqadmah Ibn Khaldun, page 446

Source: http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?cat=13&book=261

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Jalauddin Suyuti stated the following about the eleventh luminary from Ahlulbayt [as]:

ÇáÍÓä ÇáÚÓßÑí áíÓ ÈÔíÁ.þ

"Al-Hassan Askari is worth nothing"

Lalai Masno'a fi ahadeeth al-Mozo'a, Volume 9 page 329

Source: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=29&book=514

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib Volume 2 page 88 under the biography of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq [as]:

ÞÇá ÇÈä ÓÚÏ: ßÇä ßËíÑ ÇáÍÏíË. æáÇ íÍÊÌ Èå æíÓÊÖÚÝ

Ibn Sa'ad said: 'He used to narrate a lot, but not reliable and is considered weak.'

You can see, the early Salafis indeed had intense love for the Ahl al-Bayt (as)! But, why do you object when we show the same kind of love to Abubakr and Umar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

toyibonline ,what i said are not lies and you can find them by yourselves .

You can easily find this rafidi nasibism against early members (google jaafar al kazab in arabic) of the noble Alid familly.

When you cite a passage ,avoid copying and pasting from rafidi sites ,give us the full text if you can.

And dont forget in Islam there is what we call al ijma3 in arabic , a consensus ,anybody is free to give his opinion but the community of scholars can take it into consideration or not.

However ,the insult against Jaafar the brother of Hasan al Askari is well accepted by the Rafida as whole ,it's not a marginal case.

Edited by Omar Khayyam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toyibonline ,what i said are not lies and you can find them by yourselves .

You can easily find this rafidi nasibism against early members (google jaafar al kazab in arabic) of the noble Alid familly.

When you cite a passage ,avoid copying and pasting from rafidi sites ,give us the full text if you can.

And dont forget in Islam there is what we call al ijma3 in arabic , a consensus ,anybody is free to give his opinion but the community of scholars can take it into consideration or not.

However ,the insult against Jaafar the brother of Hasan al Askari is well accepted by the Rafida as whole ,it's not marginal fact.

I am not getting your points :!!!: . Ja'far al-Kadhab was indeed a liar, and he was not from the Ahl al-Bayt (as) in the first place! He was only from Banu Hashim. There is a world of difference between the two.

Also, I gave you insults against the true Ahl al-Bayt (as) by your scholars. Sorry, your early Salafis.

Does that ring anything in your head??!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imam al Suyuti is a great Sufi scholar ,not a salafi (salafism is a modern reformism)and again ,stop copying and pasting give us the full texts.

How that he was not Ahlul Bayt ?could you explain ?.(from your own reason)

Only his father,(nephew) and brother are ?

How can you remove him from his noble familly ?

You are not obliged to swallow the rafidi non senses from this ayatollah or the other ,use your brain a little.

Edited by Omar Khayyam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How that he was not Ahlul Bayt ?explain plz .

Only his father and brother is ?

How can you remove him from his familly ?

The family of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is different from the family of Imam Ali (as). For instance, the other children of Imam Ali (as) through wives other than Bibi Fatima al-Zahra (as) are not from the family of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). But, they are from the family of Imam Ali (as).

Here, we are talking about the family of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

Allah (swt) purified the true Ahl al-Bayt (as) from all abomination, which include sins. Ja'far al-Kadhab was a liar. That alone is sufficient to prove that he was not from the true Ahl al-Bayt (as).

If you base your submission only on blood relationship, remember that the son of Prophet Nuh (as) is declared in the Qur'an to be NOT from his Ahl al-Bayt!

Ja'far al-Kadhab was from Banu Hashim. Thus, he was a relative of the Holy Prophet (pbuh), but not from his pure Ahl al-Bayt (as).

Imam al Suyuti is a great Sufi scholar ,not a salafi (salafism is a modern reformism)and again ,stop copying and pasting give us the full texts.

You are not obliged to swallow the rafidi non senses from this ayatollah or the other ,use your brain a little.

I have cited Ibn Taymiyyah too.

Your last statement is insane :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you felt,

Those i cited that you call hypocrits and liars are SONS of Ali and Fatima,in fact Hussainis .

Go call them liars and hypocrits among our Salafi brothers ,i dont give you 5 minutes before being slaughtered.

Edited by Omar Khayyam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again you felt,

Those i cited that you call hypocrits and liars are SONS of Ali and Fatima,in fact Hussainis .

Go call them liars and hypocrits among our Salafi brothers ,i dont give you 5 minutes before being slaughtered.

The condemned son of Nuh (as) in the Qur'an was his biological son. So, your words are meaningless in this regard.

Here again, you have confirmed a major virtue of the Salafis: ruthlessness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copying and pasting from Rafidi sites ,this is the only thing you do ....again i ask you ,give us the full texts.

For sure you've never read Suyuti ,Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Khaldun .

Read at least one book of each ,then we will discuss of their different opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians have monopolized on the memory of Prophet Jesus, despite the fact that the Muslims have a greater claim to him. Likewise, the Shia have monopolized on the memory of the Ahlel Bayt, despite the fact that the Muslims have a greater claim to the Prophetic Household. Loving Ahlel Bayt is an obligation for Muslims, and this means the entire Ahlel Bayt–not just a segment of the Ahlel Bayt like the Shia do.

Islam does not support bigotry, discrimination, or racism. Instead, Islam is egalitarian and just. Islam came and destroyed this concept of hereditary rank. The Quran declares that people are created inherently equal and differ only based on their Taqwa (piety): “Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you.” (Quran 49:13)

Prophet Nuh (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) had a son who was destined to Hell-Fire and his example is mentioned in the Quran, showing that not even if a person’s father is a prophet does this mean anything. Prophet Ibrahim’s father was a Mushrik and Ibrahim (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) will disown him on the Day of Judgement. We see that ties of blood relation sever and the only real familial connection is through Taqwa. The Prophet Muhammad’s uncles were blood-related, but do we say that Abu Lahab and Abu Jahl will get any special privelage because of this?

Prophet Muhammad (Õáøì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáøã) is not the best because of his birth, but only because he was the best in Taqwa. And the Ahlel Bayt and Ahlel Kisa were complimented by the Prophet (Õáøì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáøã) not because of their birth but because the Prophet (Õáøì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáøã) knew of their great Taqwa. Why should the Prophet’s family be exalted just by virtue of being his family? Should they not be exalted for their righteousness, their piety, and their Taqwa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even after being on this site for so long, some are just here for fitna.

It has been clarified so many times that wives and others are not ahlebaith (as).

The references are given which are authentic as to who are ahlebaith.

Hadith al-Kessa From Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Tirmidhi

Sahih Muslim

Hadith Number 5955:

'Aisha reported that Allah's Apostle (s) went out one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped hitn under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O' people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)

One can see that the author of Sahih Muslim confirms that:

1.Imam Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain are the Ahlul-Bayt,

2.The purification sentence in Quran (the last sentence of Verse 33:33) was revealed for the virtue of the above-mentioned individuals, and NOT for the wives of the Prophet (s).

Muslim (the Author) did not put any other tradition in this section (section of the virtues of Ahlul-Bayt). If the author of Sahih Muslim believed that the wives of the Prophet were included in Ahlul-Bayt, he would have quoted some traditions about them in this section.

It is interesting to see that Aisha, the wife of the Prophet (s) is the narrator of the above tradition, and she herself is testifying that Ahlul- Bayt are the above-mentioned individuals (i.e., Imam Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, may the blessing of Allah be upon them all).

Another version of the Hadith al-Kessa (Tradition of Cloak) is written in Sahih al-Tirmidhi (v5, pp 351,663), which is narrated in the authority of Umar Ibn Abi Salama, the son of Umm Salama (another wife of Prophet), which is as follows:

The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (s) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."

As we see, al-Tirmidhi also confirms that Imam Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain are the Ahlul-Bayt, and the purification sentence in Quran (the last sentence of Verse 33:33) was revealed for the virtue of the above-mentioned individuals, and NOT for the wives of the Prophet (s). Also it is apparent from above authentic tradition that the Prophet himself excluded his wives from Ahlul-Bayt. If Umm Salama ® was among Ahlul-Bayt, why didn't the Prophet answer her positively? Why didn't he enter her into the cloak? Why did the Prophet tell her that she remains in her own position? If the Prophet (s) would consider Umm Salama among Ahlul-Bayt, he would surely have entered her to the cloak and would have prayed for her perfect purity as well.

http://www.geocities.com/ahlulbayt14/kesaa2.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even after being on this site for so long, some are just here for fitna.

It has been clarified so many times that wives and others are not ahlebaith (as).

The references are given which are authentic as to who are ahlebaith.

Hadith al-Kessa From Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Tirmidhi

Sahih Muslim

Hadith Number 5955:

'Aisha reported that Allah's Apostle (s) went out one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped hitn under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O' people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)

One can see that the author of Sahih Muslim confirms that:

1.Imam Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain are the Ahlul-Bayt,

2.The purification sentence in Quran (the last sentence of Verse 33:33) was revealed for the virtue of the above-mentioned individuals, and NOT for the wives of the Prophet (s).

Muslim (the Author) did not put any other tradition in this section (section of the virtues of Ahlul-Bayt). If the author of Sahih Muslim believed that the wives of the Prophet were included in Ahlul-Bayt, he would have quoted some traditions about them in this section.

It is interesting to see that Aisha, the wife of the Prophet (s) is the narrator of the above tradition, and she herself is testifying that Ahlul- Bayt are the above-mentioned individuals (i.e., Imam Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, may the blessing of Allah be upon them all).

Another version of the Hadith al-Kessa (Tradition of Cloak) is written in Sahih al-Tirmidhi (v5, pp 351,663), which is narrated in the authority of Umar Ibn Abi Salama, the son of Umm Salama (another wife of Prophet), which is as follows:

The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (s) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."

As we see, al-Tirmidhi also confirms that Imam Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain are the Ahlul-Bayt, and the purification sentence in Quran (the last sentence of Verse 33:33) was revealed for the virtue of the above-mentioned individuals, and NOT for the wives of the Prophet (s). Also it is apparent from above authentic tradition that the Prophet himself excluded his wives from Ahlul-Bayt. If Umm Salama ® was among Ahlul-Bayt, why didn't the Prophet answer her positively? Why didn't he enter her into the cloak? Why did the Prophet tell her that she remains in her own position? If the Prophet (s) would consider Umm Salama among Ahlul-Bayt, he would surely have entered her to the cloak and would have prayed for her perfect purity as well.

http://www.geocities.com/ahlulbayt14/kesaa2.html

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 316

Narrated Anas:

A banquet of bread and meat was held on the occasion of the marriage of the Prophet to Zainab bint Jahsh. I was sent to invite the people (to the banquet), and so the people started coming (in groups). They would eat and then leave. Another batch would come, eat and leave. So I kept on inviting the people till I found nobody to invite.

Then I said, “O Allah’s Prophet! I do not find anybody to invite.”

He (the Prophet) said, “Carry away the remaining food.” Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house chatting. The Prophet left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, “Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you, Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!”

She replied, “Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too. How did you find your wife? May Allah bless you.”

Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them the same as he said to Aisha and they said to him the same as Aisha had said to him.

Therefore, we hope it becomes apparent that the claim that Sunni Hadith exclude the Prophet’s wives (ÑÖøì Çááå Úäåã) from Ahlel Bayt is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 316

Narrated Anas:

A banquet of bread and meat was held on the occasion of the marriage of the Prophet to Zainab bint Jahsh. I was sent to invite the people (to the banquet), and so the people started coming (in groups). They would eat and then leave. Another batch would come, eat and leave. So I kept on inviting the people till I found nobody to invite.

Then I said, “O Allah’s Prophet! I do not find anybody to invite.”

He (the Prophet) said, “Carry away the remaining food.” Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house chatting. The Prophet left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, “Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you, Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!”

She replied, “Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too. How did you find your wife? May Allah bless you.”

Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them the same as he said to Aisha and they said to him the same as Aisha had said to him.

Therefore, we hope it becomes apparent that the claim that Sunni Hadith exclude the Prophet’s wives (ÑÖøì Çááå Úäåã) from Ahlel Bayt is incorrect.

So you mean to say so many sahih hadiths are wrong, especially the wives of Holy Prophet (pbuh) are wrong. Aisha is wrong, Umme Salma (as) is wrong, and even this Sahih hadith is wrong.

Sahih Muslim hadith which proves Wives are not Ahlul Bait

Book 031, Number 5923:

Yazid b. Hayyan reported: We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him. You have found goodness (for you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the hadith is the same but with this variation of wording that lie said: Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of which is the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and that is the rope of Allah. He who holds it fast would be on right guidance and he who abandons it would be in error, and in this (hadith) these words are also found: We said: Who are amongst the members of the household? Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.

That being said, Hafsah was divorced according to sahih hadith, so how come a pure member of family (ahlebaith) was divorced?

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Fath al-Bari 9/286 states:

Ibn Sa'd, al-Darimi and al-Hakim have recorded that the Holy Prophet divorced Hafsah, but later accepted her back. In the book of Ibn Sa'd is an example of this from the hadith of Ibn Abbas from Umar. Its chain is hasan. The report also comes through the route of Qays ibn Zayd.

In Sunan Abu Dawud 2/253 No. 2285 (margin writer al-Albani), we read:

Umar narrated: The Messenger of Allah divorced Hafsah but later accepted her back.

Al-Albani states:

It is sahih.

The same report is found in Sunan Ibn Majah 1/650 No. 2016. Al-Albani also declares it sahih. The narration is in several books of hadith, and each one of the reports is authenticated by the margin writer. But, this much is sufficient for our purpose.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...t&p=1871431

The quran has also warned wives of double punishment and also about divorce, why will Allah warn "ahlebaith" ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

Those who follow or praise Yazid are known as Kharijis and Shaykh-ul-Islam explains a tradition of Sahih Bukhari in detail that refers to Kharijis and how the Prophet SAW described them to be empty of Iman.[/b]

http://www.minhaj.org/en.php?tid=3086

These are the words of a major Sunni scholar.

It shows us who the Salafis are.

There is no doubt that lovers of terrorists Mawiya (LA) and his son (LA) are terrorists, you can list them, Siphae sahaba, Mulla Umar, Bin Laden and other lovers of these LAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no doubt that lovers of terrorists Mawiya (LA) and his son (LA) are terrorists, you can list them, Siphae sahaba, Mulla Umar, Bin Laden and other lovers of these LAs.

This is an open challenge to you my friend to give Quranic verses which outline and justify the Shia concept of Imamah. Can you produce even a single verse outlining Imamah, without any additions to the translation, without parenthetical insertions to the translation, without Hadith to “support” your interpretation, without Tafseer, and without your own personal commentaries leading us from verse to verse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an open challenge to you my friend to give Quranic verses which outline and justify the Shia concept of Imamah. Can you produce even a single verse outlining Imamah, without any additions to the translation, without parenthetical insertions to the translation, without Hadith to “support” your interpretation, without Tafseer, and without your own personal commentaries leading us from verse to verse?

Has been discussed many times on this forum. Why not open a new thread for it.

For the moment, let us not change the main topic about Yezid (LA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an open challenge to you my friend to give Quranic verses which outline and justify the Shia concept of Imamah. Can you produce even a single verse outlining Imamah, without any additions to the translation, without parenthetical insertions to the translation, without Hadith to “support” your interpretation, without Tafseer, and without your own personal commentaries leading us from verse to verse?

GhulamNabi! Seems like a banned substance is back!

Well, the Holy Prophet (pbuh) made a tafsir of ever single verse in the Qur'an. Why do you want us to leave out his tafsir?

Are you a Khariji? ONLY KHARIJIS ASK FOR QUR'AN ONLY!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

There should not be any doubt about the fate of the cursed Yazid. Not only was he a kafir and destined for Hell, but those so-called Muslims who love Yazid or the lovers of Yazid are destined for Hell. In this lecture Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri makes his views clear on this issue coupled with complete references to back up these views.

He also clarifies the distortions and misrepresentations made by supporters of Yazid on the hadith of Qustuntanya. As the Prophet SAW said that those who take part in the battle of Qustuntanya will go to Jannah. Followers of Yazid say he took part in that battle so he should not be cursed as a 'jahanami' but should be praised as a 'jannati'. This claim is totally false because Yazid did not even take part in the battle of Qustuntanya. As he refused to go and take part in that battle, he was sent by his father as punishment, afterwards, to go and take part, but by that time the Muslim army had finished its job and had left Qustuntanya, so Yazid was not part of that army. This is also discussed in detail by Shaykh-ul-Islam among other major issues regarding the fate of Yazid and those who follow and praise him.

Those who follow or praise Yazid are known as Kharijis and Shaykh-ul-Islam explains a tradition of Sahih Bukhari in detail that refers to Kharijis and how the Prophet SAW described them to be empty of Iman.

http://www.minhaj.org/en.php?tid=3086

These are the words of a major Sunni scholar.

It shows us who the Salafis are.

You didnt tell us what the Major Sunni Scholar says about Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Muwaiyah and if they are destined for Hell !? , guess what not a single Sunni Scholar believes that these people going to Hell..except Rawafid ..there you go I proved your thread to be worthless

Edited by Sunniyah4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didnt tell us what the Major Sunni Scholar says about Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Muwaiyah and if they are destined for Hell !? , guess what not a single Sunni Scholar believes that these people going to Hell..except Rawafid ..there you go I proved your thread to be worthless

Sorry, I can't quite get the logic in your point. I know you are a Yazeed (la) lover. But, I didn't know that Abubakr, Umar and Uthman too were Yazidis!

If they were, then they were kufar according to Shaykh al-Islam Tahir Qadri!

But, if they were not, how could you justify pushing them into this discussion?

And by the way, you might benefit from these two books by that Shaykh

1. http://www.minhajbooks.com/books/index.php...txt〈=en

2. http://www.minhajbooks.com/books/index.php...txt〈=en

Edited by toyibonline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, I didn't know that Abubakr, Umar and Uthman too were Yazidis!

But you do believe as a shia that Abubakr, Umar and Uthman and Muwaiyah are destined for hell as well. .. so what are you trying to prove here ? ..nothing

I think your trying to fit in " oh I'm not the only who hates Yazid but some sunnis too !!" but do Sunnis hate your " enemies " Muawiyah , and Umar you tell :)

Edited by Sunniyah4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems you are beginning to daydream already. The thread is NOT about my personal opinion. It is about a Sunni Shaykh, his opinion. So, you are really messing up. Really!

let's cut the [Edited Out] and tell the truth .. your quoting Sunni References to justify your hatred of Yazid ..typical shia tactic

Edited by Sunniyah4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let's cut the [Edited Out] and tell the truth .. your quoting Sunni References to justify your hatred to Yazid ..typical shia tactic

Yeah. Let's cut the [Edited Out]!

The fact that I can quote Sunni refs to justify my EXTREME hatred of Yazeed (la) shows that there is substance in it.

Don't you think so?

So you do believe they died as kafirs ..now please do me a favor and change the title of your threat into " Abu bakr, Umar Uthman, Muawiyah and Yazid and their loves are kafirs .. :)

Actually, I think you are correct :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm waiting :)

I also asked you this question:

You claim to hate Yazeed (la), and that leads us into the next question.

WHY DO YOU HATE YAZEED?????

Wasn't he one of your caliphs? Ulul Amr? Even Ibn Umar gave him bayah and defended him with his last breaths.

Answer it first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should do an investigation of the shia traditions ,and read what was wrote in the shia books from the 10th till the few last centuries.

In order to give credit to this concept ,they created several stories on the absence of the Ayat on Imamah ,on of them is that the Quran was falsified by the Sahaba who removed anything related to the Imamah,it was a common opinion of the most influent medieval shia sheikhs ,after Sunni pressure ,the ayatollahs have abandoned these medieval and safawi claims ,but they didnt give up and we can still find other incredible stories that should explain to the followers this lack of Ayat on Imamah in the Quran ,they tell to them that a book inspired by God is hidden which was owned by Fatima,what they call Mushaf Fatima .

Edited by Omar Khayyam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let's cut the [Edited Out] and tell the truth .. your quoting Sunni References to justify your hatred of Yazid ..typical shia tactic

The topic is Yazeed, and not Abu Bakr and 'Umar, as their hisaab is with Allah. Plz stop trying to change the subject and answer Br. Toyib's question - do you believe that Yazeed was a kaafir or not? Btw, did you expect him to be a quoting a Shi'i scholar, since Sunnah will almost invariably not accept anything except Sunni references?

As for Mu'awiyah, son of the liver-eater, surely his nifaaq is manifest. None but those whose hearts are sealed or whose foolhardiness exceeds their intellect would dare to add (ra) after the mention of his name...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...