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  
Asim_Abbas

Ayesha

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This might have been discussed before, but I couldn't find it even after using the search option.

So what I want to ask is Did our beloved Prophet s.a.w.w make a mistake (Nauzbillah) by marrying ayesha?

As we all know Prophets a.s and Imams a.s are infallible.

Edited by Asim_Abbas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallamun Alaykum

there is no burden on the prophet for what others do just as there was no burden for prophet loot and nooh for why their wives disbeleived not that their the same but just to give u an idea Also from a shia perspective whatever the prophet does cannot be considered a sin or mistake so whatever he does is considered correct provided there is sufficient proof ofcourse (naqli and aqli) that any event did happen.

ive seen this type of writing before and the annoying thing is as i have found is in many cases wahabis use their understanding for our beleifs for example to say the prophet made a mistake as far as i understand in shia islam is like blasphemy they use their understanding that the prophet can make mistakes to ask this question also they assume we beleive what they beleive so if we say it wasnt a mistake then they say thats enough as long as the prophet didnt do a mistake then there is no problem however as usual they use their understanding that wives of prophets are somehow infallible from nifaq or kufr in the time of the prophet whereas we dont hold that view we say to each his own no one is responsible for the others sin so if the prophet married anyone it cant be considered a mistake and if the wife chooses to turn her back to islam that her choice and she will pay for it not the prophet.

btw brother i dont want u to misunderstand i am not attacking what i mean is this kind of argumnt is used to attack us and its good that u asked.May Allah (AW) bless u for it.

ws wr wb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might have been discussed before, but I couldn't find it even after using the search option.

So what I want to ask is Did our beloved Prophet s.a.w.w make a mistake (Nauzbillah) by marrying ayesha?

As we all know Prophets a.s and Imams a.s are infallible.

Yes it seems that the Prophet Muhammad made a big mistake by marrying a kafir munafiq woman, the Qur'an clearly says " Women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure"

It seems also that Allah was practicing " Badaa " ( the idea that that Allah sometimes decrees things) He didnt know that Ayesha was impure until her " bad deceptions were revealed " otherwise he would tell his beloved prophet not marry her.

Edited by Tawazun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallamun Alaykum

ok brother tawazun if you beleive the prophet made a mistake thats your choice we however dont, we beleive he was sinless and if u choose to make fun of Allah (AW) bcz he didnt tell his beloved prophets loot or nooh they married wives who were kafir thats your choice but as i told u many times fear what u say u will be held accountable for your comments against Allah (AW) even if u think that somehow defends your beleifs.

id like to note also there is a diffarance between nifaq and kufr and this verse was as u understand then what u are saying is that the wives are sinless in terms of having nifaq or they would be divorced then u are in effect contradicting surah tahrim in which aisha and hafsa did nifaq and were not divorced.

plz brother have a bit of shame for the sake of Allah (AW) in talking about these issues.

ws wr wb

Edited by mo87_11014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallamun Alaykum

ok brother tawazun if you beleive the prophet made a mistake thats your choice we however dont, we beleive he was sinless

Nonsense nowhere in the Quran does it say that the prophet was infallible, to say he was masoom goes against the Qur'an, we all make mistakes " the best of those who make mistakes are those who repent " read Surah Abbasa, also why would Allah send a Masoom sinless man to be our example when he knew that We are not perfect, its illogical and doesnt make sense

and if u choose to make fun of Allah (AW) bcz he didnt tell his beloved prophets loot or nooh they married wives who were kafir thats your choice but as i told u many times fear what u say u will be held accountable for your comments against Allah (AW) even if u think that somehow defends your beleifs.

plz brother have a bit of shame for the sake of Allah (AW) in talking about these issues.

ws wr wb

Please dont lecture me on Shame specially from someone, who slander the wives of the prophet..it makes no sense to me ..nothing personal just my opinion ...

Speaking of Lot's wife she was a already a disbeliever while Ayesha was a muslim and died as muslim, but hey isn't in Shia Islam non Shia are'nt considered Muslims !! I guess you have a point on that !!

Edited by Tawazun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam),

Yes it seems that the Prophet Muhammad made a big mistake by marrying a kafir munafiq woman, the Qur'an clearly says " Women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure"

If you're taunting Shi'i beliefs, then you're doing an awful job.

First, you do not find any difference between the words, Kafir and Munafiq. A Kafir is a person who disbelieves. A Munafiq is a person who disbelieves but acts as if he believes. It is very obvious, that a person can not be both, at the same time, and you say that Shias say she was a Munafiq and a Kafir.

Second, when you refer to a verse, be sure to read it yourself first, and then talk about it. Picking out one line of the whole verse, and interpreting it as you like, is not an option.

Here's the verse you are talking about:

Women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity: these are not affected by what people say: for them there is forgiveness, and a provision honourable. (24:23)

The sense you're trying to use this verse in, to prove your point, is negated with the rest of the verse, and the various Tafsirs of the verse.

The previous verses show a pattern of talking about chastity and falsely accusing believing women of adultery. This verse is also talking about adultery, if you look at the rest of the verse. The verse explicitly says that the wives of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) are free from impurity of adultery, and not impurity of Kufr, or character, as you assumed.

It is necessary to restrict the meaning of the cleanness to chastity and impurity to adultery in this verse, because it was revealed in connection with the accusation of adultery. "these are not affected by what people say" confirms it.

Third, Ayesha was not a Kafir. You will not find any Ithna Ashari lecturer or a'alim say that. Everyone agrees she was Muslim, or the Prophet (pbuh) would not have married her in the first place. What is doubted is, whether she was a 'true Muslim' or not.

And I'm pretty sure, you can't guarantee anyone's faith (except ofcourse the Prophet's (pbuh) and his Ahlul Bayt's (as) ), even if it were your own mother. You never know, what lies in a person's heart. However, a person's actions make it very clear whether or not the it will be valid to put 'true' before the word 'Muslim' for a person.

Fourth, non-Shia Muslims (Sunnis) are considered Muslims. Any other anti-Shia fairytales you would like to interest us with? :)

(wasalam)

Basim Ali Jafri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallamun Alaykum

Nonsense nowhere in the Quran does it say that the prophet was infallible, to say he was masoom goes against the Qur'an, we all make mistakes " the best of those who make mistakes are those who repent " read Surah Abbasa, also why would Allah send a Masoom sinless man to be our example when he knew that We are not perfect, its illogical and doesnt make sense

brother u have a right to your opinion but do not say it is not logical u can never for certain prove that logicly to not have a sinless prophet bcz every act that the prophet does is a source for the true religion if the source is conflicting within itself then the sunnah can never be accepted bcz every act of the prophet is questioned.your prayer or any religious act can never be accepted bcz the source u rely on is itself conflicting its like saying The Quran as a source is conflicting this is a better idea probably so brother your opinion and understanding of verses are not proof for me neither are mine to yours but logicly u can never prove our prophet was not infallible.

Please dont lecture me on Shame specially from someone, who slander the wives of the prophet..it makes no sense to me ..nothing personal just my opinion ...

Speaking of Lot's wife she was a already a disbeliever while Ayesha was a muslim and died as muslim, but hey isn't in Shia Islam non Shia are'nt considered Muslims !! I guess you have a point on that !!

brother honestly i could prove that u are the ones that slanders the wives and the companions and the prophet even the scholars of al-azhar agree with me on some of these issues but i prefer to stray with logic bcz it makes more sense for me to explain by using the brain so that u can start thinking brother u should thank me for telling u its shameful for u to say that Allah (AW) "didnt know" and let a prophet marry a kafir nifaqi woman (bcz somehow Allah (AW) would be wrong if he allowed him to do it) and at the same time saying that the prophet made a big mistake whereas Allah (AW) did allow this to other prophets in the quran and aisha was doing nifaq but the prophet didnt divorce her.

brother let us assume loots wive was a disbeleiver and noohs wive obviously was a munafiq leaving aside your opinion of who aisha was and your slander on my beleif how can u come and say nifaq and kufr is not allowed on the prophets wives whereas the quran testifies that loot as u said married a disbeleiver and nooh married a munafiq in the quran (even aisha and hafsa in surah tahrim showed nifaq) then say that it is not allowed on the prophets wives bcz the of this verse "Women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure" cant u see that if your view is held then that would mean there is a contradiction in The Holy Quran in that on one hand Allah (AW) is showing the nifaq and kufr of the wives of the prophet and on another he says the kafir and munafiq for the kafir and munafiq?

Brother this verse is not talking about what u think about the pure for the pure i recommend u look into the tafaseer books especially al-mizan to understand the issue Allah (AW) is a witness if your understanding is taken on this then there would be a contradiction in The Holy Quran and i for one cannot accept it.

Brother each person is responsible for his or her actions and beleif yes we disagree on who aisha was but u can never say that it is not possible for her to go astray u can show me hadiths from my books about her greatness talk about verses about her but u cant say it is not possible or probable for her to have nifaq or leave islam.

ws wr wb

Edited by mo87_11014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense nowhere in the Quran does it say that the prophet was infallible, to say he was masoom goes against the Qur'an, we all make mistakes " the best of those who make mistakes are those who repent " read Surah Abbasa, also why would Allah send a Masoom sinless man to be our example when he knew that We are not perfect, its illogical and doesnt make sense

For us to strive for perfection by following the perfect human being, though we may not get there fully. Surah Abbassa huh??!! Reminds me of how sunni commentators say that it was the Holy Prophet (saws) the one who frowned at a blind man! Do you really believe that?

O you who believe, obey Allah and obey His Messenger and those amongst you who are given supreme authority (by Allah). (4:59)

Therefore wait patiently for the command of your Lord, and obey not from among them a sinner or an ungrateful one (76:24)

If the Holy Prophet is not infallible (free of sin), it implies that he sinned... dont you see how your stance is in complete contradiction to the Holy Quran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For us to strive for perfection by following the perfect human being, though we may not get there fully.

Following a masoom infallible sinless man is like following an angel, why would you take an angel as your example in life when you deep inside that perfect, why didn't Allah send an angel to the pagan arabs instead of a man ? I find infallibility very absurd ..really

The Concept of " Esma " exists in Christianity as well, Christians will tell you Jesus was more than prophet he was a sinless perfect human being etc etc ..again why would anyone take Jesus as his example if he's masom ..guess what ? I'm not Masoom, your not masoom either ..the whole mankind isn't !! Did God make a mistake !? you tell me

Surah Abbassa huh??!! Reminds me of how sunni commentators say that it was the Holy Prophet (saws) the one who frowned at a blind man! Do you really believe that?

yeah I do, dont tell me it was Abu Bakr who frowned at the blind man because there is NO WAY that a masoom would do that !?

Edited by Tawazun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following a masoom infallible sinless man is like following an angel, why would you take an angel as your example in your life when you deep inside that perfect, why didn't Allah send an angel to the pagan arabs instead of a man ? I find infallibility very absurd ..really

yeah I do, dont tell me it was Abu Bakr who frowned at the blind man because there is NO WAY that a masoom would do that !?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

I hope you are well.

Let me ask you something, we both agree, that Allah (swt) is perfect and the deen, Islam is also perfect?

Now let me ask you, was our beloved Prophet (saws) not a vessel for this perfect deen?

If you have pure water....and you try and pass it through muddy water.....you will get more muddy water, the water will not remain pure. In order

for the water to remain pure, you need to pass it through pure water.

So does it make sense, for a perfect religion to be passed onto man through a faulty vessel? Can you pass a perfect religion through an imperfect Prophet?

Surely not, the Prophet (saws) was perfect in all regards, according to Shia Islam as well as mainstream Sunni Islam.

WaSalaam.

Hassan.

Ws

I'd recommend you not answer question with question, it looks bad on you, you supposed to answer my question, my question was whats the difference between sending a sinless man or sending an angel to the pagan arabs ?

Yes Allah is perfect but his creations aren't ..you do agree that Muhammad was created from dust or do you think he was created from the so called " Nor of Allah " .. because if you do our conversion is over ..

Edited by Tawazun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ws

I'd recommend you not answer question with question, it looks bad on you, you supposed my question whats the difference between sending a sinless man or sending an angel to the pagan arabs ?

Yes Allah is perfect but his creations aren't ..you do agree that Muhammad was created from dust or do you think he was created from the so called " Nor of Allah " .. because if you do our conversion is over ..

Okay, I will quote Imam Ali (as) first:

"Surely God has characterised the angels by intellect without sexual desire and anger, and the animals with anger and desire without reason. He exalted man by bestowing upon him all of these qualities. Accordingly, if man’s reason dominates his desire and ferocity, he rises to a station above that of the angels; because this station is attained by man in spite of the existence of hurdles which do not vex the angels."

From this we can see, that Angels do not have desires, they submit to Allah (swt) and do not have desires. Mankind, has desires yet still must submit to Allah (swt), thus, if a man does so they are better than an angel.

And this is why we were sent a man, a man with desires, as opposed to an angel. :)

Over to you.....now please answer my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Did Noh (as) and Loot (as) made a mistake by marrying their Kafir wives?

Did Allah made mistake by creating Shaitaan when being Aalim ul Ghayb He knew that Shaitan will rebel and become Kafir?

No can be convicted unless he/she something wrong. Your view about Aysha is baseless, illogical and based on weak basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I will quote Imam Ali (as) first:

"Surely God has characterised the angels by intellect without sexual desire and anger, and the animals with anger and desire without reason. He exalted man by bestowing upon him all of these qualities. Accordingly, if man’s reason dominates his desire and ferocity, he rises to a station above that of the angels; because this station is attained by man in spite of the existence of hurdles which do not vex the angels."

From this we can see, that Angels do not have desires, they submit to Allah (swt) and do not have desires. Mankind, has desires yet still must submit to Allah (swt), thus, if a man does so they are better than an angel.

And this is why we were sent a man, a man with desires, as opposed to an angel. :)

Over to you.....now please answer my question.

The Concept of Esmah clearly states that the prophet and the 12 imams were incapable of doing sin/error/mistake, so they were like angels, the 14 imams had anger n desire yet they were incapable of doing sin its like following an angel who has no desire, I'm sure you made many mistakes in your life ..what did you learn from the 14 sinless imams ? to be perfect ..guess what ? it will never happen :) should we blame Allah for this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Concept of Esmah clearly states that the prophet and the 12 imams were incapable of doing sin/error/mistake, so they were like angels, the 14 imams had anger n desire yet they were incapable of doing sin its like following an angel who has no desire, I'm sure you made many mistakes in your life ..what did you learn from the 14 sinless imams ? to be perfect ..guess what ? it will never happen :) should we blame Allah for this ?

You seem to have confused the concept of infallibility and the concept of an angel, both are different.

Right, but they still HAD desires, sure they were not capable of sin, but that is because they had great control over the Nafs. That does not make them angels, because the angel has no desire in the first place, no need to control

The point is, they were sent as perfect guides for mankind, they were the perfect examples and we try our best to get as close to them as possible.

Again i refer you to the muddy water example, how can you teach a perfect religion when you are not perfect yourself?

Edited by Hassan2jz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does it make sense, for a perfect religion to be passed onto man through a faulty vessel? Can you pass a perfect religion through an imperfect Prophet?

Surely not, the Prophet (saws) was perfect in all regards, according to Shia Islam as well as mainstream Sunni Islam.

WaSalaam.

Hassan.

surely The prophet was infallible in the specific aspect of conveying the Message of Islam, For example, the Prophet would never make a mistake when he was reciting the Quran,the prophet could not make mistakes when it came to religion namely because Allah ensured this. “We shall make you to recite (the Quran), so you (O Muhammad) shall not forget (it).” (Quran, 87:7) other than that He was just a man, Prophet Adam was a sinner ( According to the Qur'an) and the best of the sinners are those who repent. So every man including Mohammed made mistakes in this worldly matter,..

Edited by Tawazun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallamun Alaykum

i think this issue has moved on to something else mainly Isma brother tawazun plz i recommend u read our books before u misunderstand what sinlessness is i recommend u heare hassananin rajabali talking about the issue on www.shialectures.net before u ask what is the diffarance between an angel and a man then u will know what we beleive regarding isma but to say it bluntly an angel has no freedom to sin however a prophet does but he does isma from those sins.

brother there is not a thing in the world which is not related to islam or your religion u can never split them apart now u say the last prophet of Allah (AW) was a sinner ok lets see how we can know the religion as an example for being a good person the prophet is not a good one he urinates in public, frowns at a blind man, curses the muslims, has shaytan in his house, is bewiched for a couple of months, makes mistakes in prayer, doesnt know how to clean semen off himself, doesnt have anything better to do than have sexual intercourse with all his wives and do only one ghusl, allows his wives sisters and allows a maid to suckle an old man, runs around outside with his wife racing eachother infront of men, entering his wife while she is in her period, wearing his wifes clothes, looking at a lady outside then going to have sex with his wife and coming back telling his companions i just had sex with a wife of mine and much much more.

now how can u rely on such a prophet to convey to u the message if he can make mistakes in words and in actions and on top of that was bewitched in his mind to the extent that he thought he was with his wife and he wasnt what kind of a prophet is this i can tell u for certain i have never done any of these things doe that make me a better example for my children and for the community than the prophet? Also brother if we accept your version then every statement or action the prophet does is questionable how do we try know when the prophet was praying in a hadith whether it was a correct prayer or not? how do we know whatever he says is correct or just a mistake? u can never say for certain if it was a mistake or if it was part of the teaching every action and/or word of the prophet therefore is questionable in faith.

regarding prophet adam (as) brother go to shialectures.net and listen to hassanain rajabalis explanation of this, this issue will take a long time to explain and frankly if u dont take the time to research the issue why should i take the time to answer u.

And bro im putting aside the verses which prove my point bcz logicly this can be explained u just have to ponder on these issues.

ws wr wb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam),

surely The prophet was infallible in the specific aspect of conveying the Message of Islam, For example, the Prophet would never make a mistake when he was reciting the Quran,the prophet could not make mistakes when it came to religion namely because Allah ensured this. “We shall make you to recite (the Quran), so you (O Muhammad) shall not forget (it).” (Quran, 87:7) other than that He was just a man, Prophet Adam was a sinner ( According to the Qur'an) and the best of the sinners are those who repent. So every man including Mohammed made mistakes in this worldly matter,..

The Prophet (pbuh) can't forget a verse, eh? (oh and BTW, the verse is 87:6, and not 87:7)

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 6, Book 61, Number 558:

Narrated Aisha:

Allah's Apostle heard a man reciting the Qur'an at night, and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget."

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/061.sbt.html#006.061.558

He said: My Lord! because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate

Except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones. (15:39-40)

Who are these 'perfectly devoted servants'? Will you call these الْمَلَائِكَةُ ,الْمُخْلَصِينَ ?

Allah further says, after a verse,

Surely, as regards My servants, you have no authority ,over them except those who follow you of the deviators. (15:42)

This verse makes it very clear that Iblis has NO control over these servants. Who are these servants, over which Iblis has no power at all?

Furthermore, Allah says in the Quran,

O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and do not make your deeds of no effect. (47:33)

At the same time Allah also says,

Therefore wait patiently for the command of your Lord, and obey not from among them a sinner or an ungrateful one. (76:24)

If the Prophet (pbuh) was a 'sinner' then we should not obey him. That's what your logic says.

One is forced to conclude that the Prophet (pbuh) was sinless. It was not unfair or wrong to do that. It was to show how possible it is to have complete control over your Nafs. Living examples!

(wasalam)

Basim Ali Jafri

Edited by Basim Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surely The prophet was infallible in the specific aspect of conveying the Message of Islam, For example, the Prophet would never make a mistake when he was reciting the Quran,the prophet could not make mistakes when it came to religion namely because Allah ensured this. “We shall make you to recite (the Quran), so you (O Muhammad) shall not forget (it).” (Quran, 87:7) other than that He was just a man, Prophet Adam was a sinner ( According to the Qur'an) and the best of the sinners are those who repent. So every man including Mohammed made mistakes in this worldly matter

The above is true.

My advice to you, Tawazun is not to engage in this senseless debate. The Shias are simply incapable of grasping the difference between INFALLIBLE and SINLESS. Although the difference between the two concepts is huge and so clear that a 12 year old child could probably understand it, and although we have explained it a thousand times to them, their blind dogma prohibits them from making the distinction.

They are also incapable of separating Muhamad the Messenger from Muhamad the man, who lived in 7th Century Arabia. To put it in another way, they can't accept the fact that not everythiing Muhamad said and did was revealed to him. MUHAMAD the MESSENGER was indeed infallible. When he spoke the words of revelation (the Quran), and applied them in his daily life, he was infallible,

But everything he said or did as an ordinary man, outside the circle of revelation, is prone to error. The sectarian Muslims are incapable of accepting the fact that Muhamad had his own personal words and actions as an ordinary human outside the circle of revelation. These words and actions are not part of the WAHY (revelation). This is why God NEVER says in the QUran "Obey MUhamad" or "Obey the Nabi" , but He says: "Obey THE MESSENGER (RASOOL)". .

The proof is easily found in the Quran, but they chose to ignore it in favor of man-made HADITHS, and in favor of idolizing their historical figures.

{O you Nabi (Muhamad), why do you make unlawful what God has made lawful for you, seeking to please your wives? God is ghafouron raheem.}....[66:1]

The above verse alone is enough to blow their argument completely out of the water. Their own stories tell us that Muhamad (P) forbade himself from drinking milk-honey in order to please his wives (of course I could care less what he drank or which wife it was, because that's not the point. The point is the message of the story: that Muhamad was after all a man, and he was prone to all human emotions and mistakes, but only when acting outside the circle of revelation.)

My question to the sectarians is simple, and I want an honest and straightforward answer, without maliciously twisting the verse or diabolical interpretations:

When Muhamad forbade himself from drinking or eating whatever it was, did he act out of revelation?

Or did he act out of his own human judgment?

Another example:

When Zayd divorced his wife, Muhamad (P) was reluctant to marry her, because he thought it would not be proper or ethical for him to do so. The reason was because the pre-Islamic Arabs had this tradition that a man could not marry the divorcee of his adopted son or of the man whom he had taken under his wing. Eventhough Muhamad, AS A HUMAN CAPABLE OF ERROR, loved this woman, he tried to convince Zayd to stick with her and not let her go. He was afraid of being reprimanded by the people. Here is what the Quran says on this situation:

{Recall that you (Muhamad) did tell the one to whom Allah had blessed and you had blessed (by taking him under your wing): “Hold on to your wife and be mindful of God" You seek to conceal within yourself what God intends to reveal. You fear people whereas it is more appropriate to fear God. * But when Zayd had observed all the rules and divorced her, We gave her to you in marriage - So that henceforth there may be no blame on the believers in respect of spouses of their adopted children when they have come to the dissolution of their union. The commandment of God must be fulfilled.}....[33:37]

This is another punch in the face. Another nail in the coffin of your fallacious "Absolute infallibility of Muhamad" theory. But only if you read it straight from the Quran, and understand it as God meant it to be understood, not as your marja wishes you to understand it.

The Quran contains the truth that you have been twisting and corrupting for over 12 centuries, to suit your own dogma.

Answer this question: Did Muhamd act out of revelation when he told Zayd to stay with his wife? Or was he acting out of his own human fear of being reprimanded by his society?

No matter what you do, Tawazun, no matter how strong the proof you bring, they will still insist that Muhamad was infallibale both BEFORE and AFTER the revelation, and that everything he said or did was revealed by God. (You see, it was was God who ordered Muhamad to forbid himself from drinking honey-milk, and then God reprimanded him for his action!!)

- If Muhamad says "good morning" to his neighbour, it's WAHY.

- If he tells his wife "I have a headache", it's WAHY.

- If he asks the merchant "How many dinars for this robe", it's WAHY.

- If he sneezes, it's WAHY.

Why is that you wonder? Who benefits from this infallibility? I will tell you the shocking truth: The goal, of BOTH SUNNIS AND SHIAS, ultimately, is to make their SCHOLARS and LEADERS INFALLIBLE.

The goal, for the Sunnis, was to make their Khalifas infallible (tyrannical sultans descended from the [Edited Out] swine Muawiya). Since the self-imposed khalifa considers himself as the representative of the Messenger, and the one who is applying the so-called Sunna of Muhamad, when Muhamad is made infallible, the Sultan becomes infallible per default, and the people have no right to question his actions.

For the Shias, it is to make their Faqeeh (the scholar-leader worthy of the so-called "Wilaya") infallible, because he is taking his knowledge from Ahlulbayt, who were also infallible, because they were the descendants of Muhamad (who was infallible).

The goal is to enslave the masses under tyrannical rule, either way,. (The form or structure of the rule doens't matter). This is the truth that kills.

The truth is that they can't make a distinction between Muhamad's speech as Messenger (the words imprinted into his heart and mind through revelation), and his speech as an ordinary man in matters not related to revelation. In these non-Wahy matters, Muhamad was commanded by God to make consultation with those people who had knowledge or technical expertise on everyday matters.

For example: Muhamad the Messenger receives revelation that he should fight the unbelievers. But the revelation doesn't reveal to him the details of war plans, so he consults with those who have expertise on military tactics and they all come to a decision on HOW to fight the unbelievers.

It is the Quran itself that establishes the decree of consultation for the Muslims to run their everyday affairs.

If everything Muhamad said or did was WAHY, then what is the need for consultation?

The Quran does not condone Sunnism or Shiism.

_________________________________________________________________

Conclusion: Muhamad was infallible only in his capacity as messenger of God (i.e: when delivering the Quran and acting according to its commandments). Muhamad the ordinary man living in 7th Century Arabia, was not infallible. His personal words, actions or desires outside the circle of Wahy were prone to human error. In either case however, he certainly was SINLESS (he hever stole, commited adultery, or associated partners with God). This is because we differentiate between sins and mistakes. Apparently the Shias are incapable of grasping the difference.

Can Muhamad forget? You bet he could! Here is the proof staight from God's book:

{And if you (Muhamad) encounter those who make fun of Our revelations, then turn away from them until they move on to a different narrative; and if the shaytan makes you forget, then do not sit, after remembering, with the wicked people.}...[6:68]

What do the Shias and Sunnis do when they come across this verse? They either cover it with their thumbs and ignore it (or claim that it is Mansoukh - as if there is such thing as a Mansukh to begin with) - or they twist and corrupt the verse, taking it out of its context (like they did with the "He frowned" verse, when they claimed it's not about Muhamad, eventhough the context of the verses clearly shows that is is about him).

__________________________________________________________

Do not waste time with the sectarians, those who have taken their scholars and their marjas as ARBAB besides God.

Remember the truth that will set you free: The Quran is the only revelation that came to Muhamad. Everything else is conjecture

P.S: And one more thing: Adam was not a prophet. Adam is a metaphor for mankind. .

__________________________________________________________

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnny Appleseed, don't you find it hypocritical that you say we take "clear ayas" out of context when you then go on to say Adam (as) is a metaphor?

Or that miracles are all metaphors, etc....

Anyways - I don't see turn away from the blind man as necessarily a sin, because it can refer to spiritual blindness which is the most meant meaning of blind in Quran (the norm of it's ussage), and that this person was not really coming for guidance but just like to trick himself... which then the smile of Mohammad (pbuh) makes him take lesson... then the rest is just rhetorical questions, "would you do that.." sort of thing. This is in fact how I read it the first time I read the Quran, I thought spiritual blindness. And then I read Sunni Shia debate about it..

But in other places in Quran it talks to other then Mohammad (pbuh) directly in fist person, so it would not be an odd case if it was as Shias say as well.

Anyways - there are other verses that it says all he follows is revelation, and they are clear, and I'm not talking about Suratal Najm...

Now you think revelation is word to word like us, but you don't understand Nubuwa and Resalat at all...

The light in Mohammad (pbuh), he acts by that, you can see talk about light of God (parable of light) and so many verses showing God's Manifestation and proof is the very morality in all things (the bayana by which Yusuf (as) without would have inclined to a married woman)...

As for Suratal Tahreem, the question is being asked, why would you bestowed with wisdom, one whom submits totally to the light, does not to anything wrong, why would you be forbidding yourself what in fact God allows? And the question my friend is answered through a variety of verses, for example, about Zaid, the verse right after shows his fear of people is in fact nothing but fear of God and love of God, it shows his dependence on God so as to not loose his integrity in society...which risks the mission.

Now if Aisha and Hafsa were trustworthy people, not go opening their mouths to people whom can harm the Nabi (pbuh) and in fact if could would do it, then yes there is no reason for the Nabi (pbuh) to prohibit something God permits... but if he breaks his oathe...and God didn't reveal this Surah, whom would go yapping their mouth and whom risked the integrity of the Message? Maybe you should look more at whom is really criticized and why the example of Nuh's (as) wife and Lut's (as) wife was given, before trying to criticize the Nabi...

As for Shura, you are right, Rasool has commands of his own that implement revelation, and there are commands directly from God (which in a way are not really Mohammad's (pbuh) commands...

So there is obeying Mohammad (pbuh) to obey God's revelation, and there is obey Mohammad (pbuh) by the fact we been told to obey him by God and by knowledge he is specifically implementing revelation...

But you also don't realize another fact shown in Quran, Mohammad (pbuh) sees by God's light, he acts by it, so even his "own" decisions, are not really his decision, which is why God says "when Allah and his Messenger decide a matter"... and this hinited in many places "you did know the book but rather we made it a light..." "you did not throw when you threw but Allah threw"... and other verses...

Mohammad (pbuh) is the collective light in all creation, and is the middlemost point uniting all diversities, he is not like everyone else... he is sublime creation is God's light, which he claims nothing of, "all praise belongs to God"...

You really don't get it when you say "two Mohammads", all of us have "Tayeb Aspect" and "Bad Aspect", "the with Allah" "and Allah with us" identity and "Qareen" "Ego" "delusion" "Nafs" identity, and it seems the Qareen is claiming everything to it self, but this is not the case of Mohammad (pbuh) whom is wholly God's...

By the way, believing Nubuwa is limited to words and there is no revelation beyond words as in the words and concepts everyone is familiar with, is nothing but disbelief in Nubuwa.

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallamun Alaykum

i explained the matter from a logical perspective u can never by Allah (AW) split Mohammed (PBUP) with the Messenger bcz as soon as u dont know how to seperate u can never know if an act by the prophet was a mistake or should be followed as an example or even his words are hard to know if they are Islam or himself u can never be certain which is which every act and saying of the prophet is quiestioned now in the light of this understanding Read the tafseer of The Holy Quran bcz ure brain determines what u beleive not what u blindly follow without wisdom.

ws wr wb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Sunnis never said any of their Sultans are infallible... instead their hadiths were to say how to accept his Rule yet not obey him in regards to disobedience to God....

And I think both Sunnis and Shias when they think of everything Messenger (pbuh) does and say to be revelation, is that it's direct showing of how to act according to the light revealed to him, not that everything he says is God telling Jibrael (as) to tell him to say that. Not a single Sunni or Shia ever believed this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyways - I don't see turn away from the blind man as necessarily a sin, because it can refer to spiritual blindness which is the most meant meaning of blind in Quran

I never said it was a sin. In fact, if you scroll up to my post you will find I said the following: (let me copy paste it):

< < < Conclusion: Muhamad was infallible only in his capacity as messenger of God (i.e: when delivering the Quran and acting according to its commandments). Muhamad the ordinary man living in 7th Century Arabia, was not infallible. His personal words, actions or desires outside the circle of Wahy were prone to human error. In either case however, he certainly was SINLESS > > >

There it is, word for word. You keep throwing the word "sin" left and right, which means you still can't make a distinction between a mistake, or a shortcoming (like forgeting not to sit with a disbeliever who makes a mockery out of God's ayahs, or frowning in annoyance at the blind man who came and interrupted your speech while you were trying to convince a rich tribal leader to embrace God's deen - something that I find understandable on the part of Muhamad, and only proves his humanity) and a sin (like zina, stealing, slander, etc... which Muhamad NEVER did of course).

Although I don't agree with you on how you interpreted the word "blind" in the frowning verse as meaning "spritually blind", (because it doesn't mean spritual blindness from the context of the verse, as I will soon explain), something you said clearly caught my eye:

You said:

because it can refer to spiritual blindness which is the most meant meaning of blind in Quran

YOU JUST SAID IT YOURSELF!! "Blindness" CAN indeed mean "spiritual blindness" just as "Dead" can mean "The spiritually dead". SO when the Quran tells us that the Nabi Eesa, son of Maryam, "cured the blind and revived the dead", It is a metaphor meaning the "intellectually blind, and spiritually dead". The word that is used is "Abras" (He cured the "Abras"). For 14 centuries this word has been misinterpreted as meaning "inflicted with either leprosy or leucoderma (albino) because the first intrepreters (who were mostly Persian, by the way) were under the influence of Christian and Jewish myths. These beliefes were in their subconsciousness as they were translating the Quran, and they were incapable of seeing the metaphor in them. Remember that the Quran tells us that some of its verses are "mutashabih" , meaning there is a "shubuha" (suspicion of multiple meanings) in them, and we are to ponder over their meanings. Furthermore, you must realize that Muhamad (P) NEVER interpreted these verses, but delivered them as they are in order for us to reflect on their meanings. If Muhamad had indeed interpreted them, then that would defeat the purpose of these verses. Sadly, the classical commentators used the corrupted Christian and JEwish scriptures to intrepret these verses, to the extent that when any knowledgeable person reads an exegesis of the Quran by those classical scholars, he will feel as if he is reading the Old Testament, with all its childish fairytales.

Going back to the Eesa Bin Maryam (P) example, you can see in the Arabic dictionnaries that were written by unbiased linguistics (some of whom actually volunteered to live in the deserts of Arabia, with the nomads, in order to learn the secrets of the classical Arabic tongue), you will see that the word "Abras" is derived from the root "ba-ra-seen" which means: empty or void. (The Arabic phrase "al-ardhu'l biras" means: the empty or desolate land. So when Eesa cured the "abras" it means he gave hope to the spritually empty (those who trod through life empty of purpose). He gave them meaning to their lives. It is a METAPHOR.

Just as you said "blind" can mean the spiritually blind, (and I agree 100%), the Quran likewise uses the word "dead" many times as meaning the "spritually dead".

Try not to have double standards, and see the argument from both sides.

Mohammad is the collective light in all creation, and is the middlemost point uniting all diversities, he is not like everyone else... he is sublime creation is God's light, which he claims nothing of, "all praise belongs to God"...

What is your source for this? This is the exact same Ghulu which evetually lead the Christians to declare Jesus as God in the flesh.

By the way, believing Nubuwa is limited to words and there is no revelation beyond words as in the words and concepts everyone is familiar with, is nothing but disbelief in Nubuwa.

Revelation is not limited to words. You are right. God also gives "Wahi" to the bees to make them extract honey and build their hives (through instinct) This is a kind of revelation. Also, ALL humans sometimes get an internal urge, or inspiration or premonition" , to do something or take a certain action which later proves beneficial to them (You suddenly have a bad feeling about a plane flight, and decide to cancel the trip. The plane crashes and everybody on board dies). This is also a kind of revelation. But these kinds are not the stuff from which RISALAT are made. Risalat are in the form of RECITED DHIKR (words and clear meanings). The Quranic verses were imprinted directly into Muhamad's mind by some spiritual force outside of his consciousness. This force is called "Al-Ruuh" in the Quran. It''s like they were forced unto his mind, and then constantly re-enforced by reminders and recitals + he told his scribes to record them. . This is a very complicated subject, and I can write over a hunderd lines about it. But this is not the time or place. I can see that our philosophies and approach towards the matter of revelation are drastically different, despite the common ground that we have.

But you also don't realize another fact shown in Quran, Mohammad sees by God's light, he acts by it, so even his "own" decisions, are not really his decision, which is why God says "when Allah and his Messenger decide a matter"... and this hinited in many places "you did know the book but rather we made it a light..." "you did not throw when you threw but Allah threw"... and other verses...
You really don't get it when you say "two Mohammads", all of us have "Tayeb Aspect" and "Bad Aspect", "the with Allah" "and Allah with us" identity and "Qareen" "Ego" "delusion" "Nafs" identity, and it seems the Qareen is claiming everything to it self, but this is not the case of Mohammad whom is wholly God's...

Here is where I do not agree with you at all. I believe that Muhamad had free will as a human. You, however, seem to be degrading him to an automaton incapable of free thought and action.

Furthermore, I never said there were "two Muhamads". He was the same person all along. But sometimes he spoke in is capacity as MESSENGER (in which case he must be obeyed), and sometimes he spoke in his capacity as an ordinary man living among other men, in everyday matters of 7th Century Arabia. In this case, what he said or did is HISTORY, not REVELATION. It is applicable only in his own time and place.

There is an analogy I like to make: Suppose I am the builder and owner of a swimming pool, and I appoint a trustworthy person as a lifeguard, giving him all the instructions on safety. I then place a sign by the pool that says: "Obey the Lifeguard". Now this lifeguard's name happens to be Joe. The people playing in the pool have been warned to 'Obey the lifeguard" NOT "Obey JOE". The difference is very important. When he tells you for example , "don't run along the edge of the pool" or "no diving in the shallow end" he is speaking in his capacity as L:IFEGUARD, and you have to obey him, because he got the instructions from an authority (owner of the pool). But if you have a private chat with him about the Barcelona VS Chelsea match, then he is speaking in his capacity as JOE not the Lifeguard. However, it is still the same person.

Muhamad (P) was Messenger of God. But he was also a father, a husband, a statesman, and an ordinary man living in 7th Century Arabia.

Do you get what I'm trying to say? Try to apply the lifeguard analogy to Muhamad (P).

Finally, concerning the Adam story, this is a very serious issue. I will briefly say this:

1- I refuse to resort to the childlike fairy tales of the Torah and New Testament (books which God warned us were corrupted by the clergy). Books that were proven time and time again to be historically and scientifically inaccurate.

2- The Quran is self explanatory, and should be interpreted from its own text, not by conjectural sources.

3- The Quran contains many allegories and metaphors. Failing to realize that will make us reach absurd and illogical conclusions.

The word "Shajara" is often translated as meaning "tree". Although this is correct, it is not necessarily the most accurate meaning. (This is why I say the codes and parallel meanings of the incredibly rich Arabic language have to be cracked, before we attempt to interpret the Quran). The root "sheen - jim - ra" ÔÌÑ can also mean: division, separation, discord, splitting

The Arabic phrase æÞÚ ÔÌÇÑ ÈíäåãÇ (a "shijar" took place between the two of them) means: An argument, discord, or difference took place between them. .

This is why a tree is called "shajara", because it has many branches that split and divide into many directions.

The word is also used as a metaphor in the Quran (as per 14:24-26) where a tree is used as a metaphor for the deeds of a person. The good deeds that you do in this life will give off their fruits in the hereafter (the fruit is the metaphor of what you will see in the next life - what you reap, you sow). Likewise, there is a tree that grows in Western Arabia called "Zaqqoom", which has very serrated and bitter leaves. The Quran also uses it as a metaphor (37:62 and 44;43). This is not a "supernatural or miraculous tree". It exists in the plains of Arabia, and the bedouins know of it. (Do some reserach and see for yourself)

You have two choices when dealing with the story of Adam.

1) Either you follow the JEWISH and CHRISTIAN scriptures which give a LITERAL meaning to the story (Adam was alone in Heaven, he got bored, so God created a woman to be his companion. But she was tempted by Satan (the Devil of mythological folklore), to eat from the "tree of knowledge" . She dragged her husband down with her, they both ate, and lo and behold! they realized they were naked! God became angry with them and he cast them from Heaven down to Earth.

2) You see the story as a metaphor: "adam" = mankind. Mankind was created by God with the potential to live in perfect unity and bliss (JANNA). This JANNA is a metaphor for a state of being. He commanded them not to approach the "shajara" (tree used as metaphor for DIVISION and DISCORD). But then the "shaytan" reared his ugly head. What is the shaytan??? Is it the Arabic version of Satan?? The horned Devil of mythology??? WRONG. "Shaytan" (ÔíØÇä) is an original Arabic word, derived from the root Ô Ø ä or ÔÇØ which means: to go far, or to distance oneself from something / to rebel.

For example, we say: ÔÇØ ÇáßÑÉ (he kicked the ball far away) or, ÈÆÑ ÔØæä ( a well whose bottom is very far / deep).

The shaytan (the rebelious nature of man which causes his NAFS to distance itself from God's law) tempted Adam to "eat from the tree of discord and division" (shajara). As such, the state of bliss (JANNA) was lost.

I have chosen the second (hypocritical) interpretation.

Look for a post I will soon make entitled "The Metaphor of the Tree", and all will be made clear.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that people are not able to distinguish between mistakes and sins.

I believe the primary reason why the Shias are so defensive of the Prophet(saw) being infallible is to back up their Imams. Clearly, Shias know that when discussing infallibility, it is the Imams that are most discussed and not the Prophet(saw). Logically, if the Prophet(saw) was not infallible, therefore the Imams who are descendants and relatives could not be infallible. This would devastate Shiism.

Edited by Justice4all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallamun Alaykum

by Allah (AW) brother Justice we do not do it for the imams rather for the prophet himself u can never tell me what the prophet says or acts is a part of Islam or a mistake by him in a hadith u dont seem to realize how this destroys your second source for religion u think u can diffrantiate but u can never do so especially when u were in the prophets time.

secondaly brother we understand what a mistake or a sin is a sin is always a mistake (•a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention) due to lack of taqwa (there are exceptions ofcourse) now the hadiths which u have clearly show he commited a sin like urinating in public or telling a woman to suckle an old man or allowing shaytan to be in his house unless u say these are mistakes then the question comes if it is not sinful to urinate in public or tell a woman she can suckle an old man or allow shaytan to be in your house?

mistakes are trivial things however what i see is when there is a sin being commited they assume its just a mistake without diffrantiating between them however we as shia when we see a even trivial thing we cannot accept it bcz of many reasons logicly bcz we cant diffrantiate what is a mistake or what is correct.

Also brother remember on the day of judgement Allah (AW) will hold u accountable for your words u said the prime reason we defend it is bcz of the imamah now remember every shia u accused of doing it for this reason (it being the prime reason) will come to u and u will have to prove that is what they beleive and Allah (AW) will ask u why u said what u said without making sure your words are correct and this is for all of us by Allah (AW) the prime reason for me defending has nothing to do with imamah or anything else it has only to do with truth bcz i know that i can never distinguish between the man and the prophet and no one will ever claim to be able to from the sunni or shia side unless they are a lier or sent by Allah (AW).

ws wr wb

Edited by mo87_11014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...